Anyone who has participated in or observed a local building project—developers, community members, attorneys, Planning Commission or Zoning Board members, elected officials, or reporters—would probably admit that, after a while, the objections to development all start to sound very familiar.
That's not to say that concerns about density or height or architectural design or scale or parking or historic preservation are not legitimate. They are. A good public process should bring together developer, neighbors, and local government to build consensus around these issues in a way that makes a development project as beneficial as possible to the entire community.
But one common objection to development comes up every time that, I believe, is not fully understood or appreciated: traffic.
At some point, someone will say of a proposed development: "(Neighborhood) is already choked with traffic and now you want to add more? No way!"
OK, I get it. Nobody likes traffic. Everyone would like to live in a community where no one is ahead of you at a light or a stop sign. Every pedestrian would like to walk across the street without having to look both ways. Nobody wants honking horns or roaring engines to disturb our tranquility.
There's a word for communities like that: abandoned.
Few like to admit it, but traffic is one important barometer of a community's vitality. All those other drivers you wish were elsewhere are your fellow citizens on their way to work or school. They are going shopping, to a concert or film, or out to eat. They are on their way to the hospital. They are living their lives, just like you are living yours. Traffic is not just cars, it's other people. Traffic is life.
Personally, I'm glad I live in a community that has a lot of people and which attracts new residents. That means I live in a community with a strong economic base that encourages private investment; a community with vital business, cultural, and civic institutions; great schools and hospitals, and strong property values.
Rather than complaining about the volume of traffic—in other words, complaining about other people—we need to take a broader perspective that recognizes having more people in a community is a good thing.
In this context, perhaps the real issue is not a vague complaint about "traffic," but a more thoughtful discussion about both the volume and movement of cars. Development projects can be an opportunity to approach these issues broadly. A good development project, especially in built-out communities, should promote use of shared transit, bicycles, walking, and other alternatives to the automobile. Not only do these options reduce auto congestion, but they can be an effective response to expensive gasoline and a threatened global environment. New development can also help address factors that contribute to unsafe or inefficient traffic movement, such as deteriorated roads, poor intersection design, ill-timed lights, or speeding.
Understanding traffic this way can shift the focus of discussion in neighborhoods facing development. Traffic is not the enemy, nor is development itself. Both are the natural outcome and necessary foundation of a thriving community. Both represent opportunities for improvement of a neighborhood and a region.
