Small ideas

Parks come in different sizes.  There are national parks which can be bigger then some states, and there are tiny parks that equate to nothing bigger then a bench and perhaps a tree.  When thinking about increasing the quality of life for its citizens, cities intuitively think about parks.  This natural inclination is a good thing. 

Unfortunately, parks are not free, and if done poorly, they can become a headache instead of an asset.  Apart from being expensive to maintain, parks can also become a place where criminal activity takes place, for this and other reasons, cities need to think wisely when creating a park.  

One idea is to make the whole city a park.  Many cities have rivers or streams running through them. Unfortunately, some cities have decided to create concrete channels where rivers used to run.  But rivers are a great way to create parks.  By placing benches and trees and creating paths for walking and biking throughout the city, the whole city becomes a park.    This idea is what some people call “urban forests.”   It’s like having one of our Big national parks in our city.    A lot more can be done in this area.

But we also need smaller parks.  This would equate to having parks within the big park.  Small community parks through out the city are the key.  They can come in the form of playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis or basketball courts, or baseball or soccer fields.    A small park can be nothing more then a tennis court.  Tiny parks would be great and there wouldn’t be a need for larger parks because in essence the whole city is a park. 

Unfortunately, most cities take a medium approach.  They make medium size parks and make the have “go” to the park, instead of having parks come to community, in the case of small parks, or having the cities be parks.  Having to go to the park, takes energy and planning.  Most parks are not next to where one lives and one must often have to drive to the park.  This is undesirable.   What needs to happen is that the whole city needs to be a park, and there needs to be smaller parks within the city.

Pollution, traffic and global warming seem to be in everyone’s mind.  Recent demographic projections anticipate things getting worse in the not so far off future.   Freeway expansions, the creation of rail lines and a movement away from suburbs and back into urban centers are all things people are now talking about.  Some people talk about having to build double-decker freeways in order to accommodate the traffic that will come with the population projections. In thinking about finding a solution to this problem, the question should not be, “how do we accommodate all the traffic that will be generated?,” the question should be, “how can we eliminate some of the traffic currently present and keep people in the future from putting their cars on current roads and highways.  Most people shy away from the idea of getting rid of cars, because it could mean your car being eliminated and politicians shy away from it because it’s not popular with voters. However, if we want to reduce pollution, traffic, and address climate change, getting people of the roads is what we need to focus on. 

But, if getting people out of their cars is so unpopular and politically costly, how can we achieve this?  One obvious way, is to make driving and having a car more expensive, currently, owning a car and driving it, is cheap enough that even the poor can afford it, one of the reason it is cheap, is because the price of driving a car is subsidize, both by non car drivers and by the planet.  Currently, people don’t have to pay for the environmental damage they cost, a gas tax and road tax, would be a good way of placing the environmental cost, on the polluters.  The money collected, would go for environmental protection programs.  Those who don’t drive and therefore don’t pollute, would not have to bear the burden of the polluters and the some of the current polluters would get off the road.

 
In addition to increasing the cost of driving in order to push people out of their cars and into public transportation and sidewalks, something else we can do is eliminated the number of drivers on the road.  Passing a law prohibiting certain individuals from driving would reduce the number of drivers on the road. However, passing such a law would be prohibitively politically costly, unless… we pass such a law on a non-voting block.   Such a move does carry with it a certain stench of cowardiceness, nonetheless given the circumstances; it might be a move worthy of consideration.   The block I suggest banning from the road consist of the thousands of drivers in the age range of 16-18.  This block currently enjoys driving privileges, but it does not enjoy voting privileges, we can therefore sacrifice their driving privilege and not have to incur a political liability.   Notice I say sacrifice their driving privilege and not their driving right.  It is important to highlight that driving is a privilege and not a right. 

There would be a number of positive factors to banning people under the age of 18 from driving. 

Most obviously, it would reduce the number of cars on the road, thereby: 1. reducing traffic congestion, 2. reducing pollution.  In addition, it would have a reduction in car accidents and underage drinking and driving.  There are many studies that show a disproportionate amount of car accidents in this age bracket.   An additional benefit would be that we would force this group of people into public transportation and therefore create a habit of using public transportation.  Currently, most people don’t use public transportation unless they have to; the reason for this is that we don’t train people early in their life. Because there are many dangers associated with putting younger children in the public buss system, parents prefer to drive their children. And, as soon at these “children” reach sixteen, they go from being driven by their parents and  directly into driving their own cars.  Because of this, we never have the opportunity to experience public transportation, and we consciously and unconsciously, create a negative bias towards public transportation.  Riding the bus and other forms of public transportation becomes “uncool” and as we become adults we associate riding the bus with economic failure.  Forcing 16-18 year-olds into public transportation will have the effect of creating a public transportation ridership habit that will hopefully continue after they are eighteen.  

In addition, a driving ban would cause this group to walk more and have a positive effect of the health of this age group.  Obesity in this age group is currently a growing concern, getting these kids off their cars and into the pedestrian lifestyle might actually save some of their lives.
 

There is a group of teenagers in this group for whom driving is akin to a “necessity,” perhaps special exceptions can be made for them; however for the majority, it will be nothing more then a minor inconvenience, an inconvenience they will thank us for once they turn 18 and gain the privilege to drive and don’t have to share the road with those pesky 16-18 year olds.