Force by Design

The University of Maryland’s plans for shutting down campus drive as a move toward a pedestrian oriented campus is a step backwards. History shows removing roads from an area to increase quality of space often fails. The idea is always tossed around with lofty promises of less congestion, better environment, and less accidents. Yet this ignores the urban renewal cries of the 60s and 70s in many cities across the planet which made similar promises. The result is usually less freedom, more congestion elsewhere along other routes, increased desolation, and more crime. One does not even have to look outside the state to find examples of bad designs involving a loss of roads and permitting only public transit access.

Baltimore’s light rail may not be the sole cause of Howard Streets shift from a retail powerhouse, but helped solidify the street to be plagued with startling vacancy rate ever since. Cumberland, Maryland followed the trend to install a pedestrian mall, shutting off through traffic to have a walkable area much shorter than campus drive and managed to seal a desolate fate before all industry died down in the city.

The university has been able to reduce reported incidents on campus with their policing efforts, but security is related to the amount of traffic in an area. Potential victims are more likely to be found in areas with less people. Since cars travel much faster than people on foot, in a sense a steady stream of cars at night adds security. It is a guarantee a car-less campus would feel less safe after dusk. Albeit ironic and counter intuitive, “traffic-free, pedestrian-friendly zone” is a time tested oxymoron.

What exactly is the campus doing when it shuts off traffic at the front gate? There are already only a few roads that provide access needed to maintain functionality on campus. Service roads will always be needed, taxis will always be summoned no matter how many master plans try to affix the image of a trafficless campus.

This is not to say all plans including a restricted flow of vehicular traffic are doomed to failure. Many planners can point to more successful stories. Instead of trading case studies, it is important to think about the consequences of such drastic action. Cars get negative press because they are smelly, cost money, and can kill pedestrians. But cars are also frequently used by students, visitors, and faculty alike because of the greater freedom they provide. Many students are willing to take on the cost of a parking permit because it grants them a freedom and convenience that is not readily available otherwise. This plan seems to force one method of travel on all parties who come to campus -- parents, friends, students, etc.

I applaud UMD for running a test trial closing of campus drive this summer, but it is going to be insignificant because summer cannot match the conditions of a typical school day. A trial run in Fall would provide a real taste of the cost-benefit analysis.

There is something to be said when a debate is boiled down to giving people only one option. Planners and designers pretend they can imagine all scenarios of students and visitors to inform a given design -- but it is impossible. Schemes with the unusual concept that all people will use just one means of transportation is mechanistic. It is engineering that is not befitting for an institution of higher education or elsewhere for that matter.