Re: A few Other Proposed Further goals

Paul mentions a "dry run" as a possible option before starting a full 
effort. I see two purposes for a "dry run", either to prove to 
ourselves this idea works or to convince a local government a carfree 
area would benefit the city or town as a whole. Fortuneately there 
are already many examples of dry runs, as discussed by many 
sustainable growth, New Urbanism and carfree writers. Examples 
include Venice; Zermatt, Switzerland; Cinca Tierra (don't hold me to 
the spelling, but it's a group of ancient towns on the Italian coast) 
and even small pockets in North America. Many cities and towns have 
concepts we can hold up as examples of dense living, transit models, 
etc, including many towns and cities throughout Europe. We can look 
to these places for the technical solutions mentioned by Paul, such 
as noise reduction for adjoining buildings. The problem has already 
been solved and shouldn't require a great deal of new research.

The biggest and most immediate problem we'll face is gaining support 
from a local government. I believe every city or town will benefit 
from a carfree area, but it'll take some PR and marketing work to 
convince a prospective city to give it a try. Our approach to any 
given city/town will have to be tailored to their own needs and 
interests. College towns have an easy to see connection with the 
carfree concept, but we could present a compelling argument to cities 
with tourism and convention markets, cities with air pollution 
problems, high concentrations of retirees or depressed areas.

For example, San Antonio's crown jewell is the Riverwalk. A 
discussion about the qualities of the Riverwalk would focus on public 
space, quietness, attractiveness and market strength due to the 
absence of cars. Our argument would propose a larger carfree area 
and emphasize how it might enhance the city's tourism and convention 
markets. Portland has already taken steps to improve sustainable 
development and may be willing to support a carfree area as an 
extension of that effort. Cities with air pollution problems may be 
convinced to try a carfree area if it will help secure federal grants 
(I've got to imagine federal money would be a big carrot to local 
governments).

I recommend we proceed right into selecting proposed sites then 
approaching those local governments with a PR/marketing effort to 
enlist their support. Our carfree area should be large enough to 
sustain itself, and contribute to the greater benefit of the host 
city or town. I believe a minimum population should be a district, 
or about 12,000 residents, maybe with room to grow to 5 districts 
(60,000 residents) without having to start over with the local 
government. Finding 12,000 or even 6,000 people willing to move to a 
carfree city without some concrete proposals about location, timing, 
etc is a tall order and would likely take a great deal of time. 
However, if we selected a few places and did a good job of marketing 
and PR I believe we would create support from residents at the 
selected site as well as from those of us who would migrate there.

I believe it's important we don't "takeover" a town or even section 
of a town. That seems like a good way to create resentment and 
hostility. Instead, we need to welcome and even encourage current 
residents to join us in a carfree development. I believe people will 
warm to the idea once they're exposed to it, I base that on personal 
observations. I live in a fair sized village in Germany, maybe 
15,000 residents. Our house is on a small brick road (approx 15 feet 
wide), with houses that open up right on the street, no visible 
spaces between buildings, and buildings 2-3 stories high. Most of 
the buildings are 50-100 years old, some as old as 200 years, 
although they have been reconstructed over the years. It's less than 
a 30 second walk to the nearest restaraunt, a small family run 
business. The closest pub is another 10 meters further down a brick 
sidewalk, which opens up to the village's center market area 
containing resteraunts, more pubs, dozens of stores, 2 supermarkets, 
Italian ice cream shops and cafes, 4 bakeries ... you get the idea. 
The train station is 1.5 km from our house, not the ideal distance, 
but very walkable. There is a large population of Americans living 
in the area, many of whom were never exposed to this lifestyle before 
arriving here. Almost universally they love it once they experience 
it. I believe people who have never thought of living in a carfree 
area will want to once they experience it. Although our village is 
not carfree, it has many of the design qualities of a carfree city, 
as do hundreds of other villages and towns throughout Europe, Asia, 
and even Africa. Making it carfree would be icing on the cake. As 
others have said, these design features are the attraction to theme 
parks and European cities as vacation destinations. I believe it'll 
be an easy sell once we get a working carfree area established in the 
US.

The village I live in could well support a carfree lifestyle with a 
few changes. Many of the problems we'll face as "new" problems in 
our effort to create a carfree place in the US were resolved long ago 
by other countries and cultures, and I can put my finger on the 
solutions right here around my home. I'd be happy to provide 
photographs, maybe hunt down professionals and craftsmen who have 
skills or knowledge we need to learn from, or even host someone from 
this effort who would like to see first-hand what some of the 
solutions look like in a real place.

So there you have it, I believe we need to identify a few 
towns/cities to begin researching. I propose San Antonio and 
Portland, for no other reason than those are the cities I've 
previously pulled out maps and looked at potential development for 
carfree areas.

Kevin