Both in-class discussions and readings regarding infrastructure involve debate about the “right to infrastructure,” and most prominently is the constant tension between pedestrians and cars— which should be prioritized in urban infrastructure planning. In his essay, “Traffic in Democracy,” Sorkin talks about how the city “organizes its prejudices and privileges physically,” specifically exemplifying how New York physically prioritized motor vehicles in its closing down of 50th Street pedestrian crossings. [1] Many have questioned New York’s decision, stating that such measures does not create equal access to the City.

First and foremost, the “equal” in “equal access to the city” needs to be qualified. “Equal” should be within relatively similar contexts. Surely, a Manhattan resident has more access to Midtown than a Long Islander. At this point, one may argue that even within Manhattan, motorists and pedestrians do not receive equal access to the roads. The equality here deserves qualifying, too. “Equal access” should mean that motorists receive equal access to the motor lanes, and all pedestrians should receive equal access to the walking lanes. Cross-comparing motorists and pedestrians is meaningless, as I will argue in the next paragraph.

Before I discuss the hierarchy between motorists and non-motorists, I would like to highlight that these two groups are not mutually exclusive— a person decides which transportation method he will use based on his specific situation. For example, if I travelled from far away, or if I am in hurry to reach my destination, I may choose to drive. If I intend to get more exercise, or I simply am not in a hurry, I may choose to walk. The decision of being a motorist or not is more dependent on which gives the person more utility. Surely a person in a hurry should not be waiting for a person that is not.

So how to promote smarter infrastructure and city experience for all if the road is not meant to be divided equally between cars and pedestrians? My suggestion is to have dedicated passageways for each. Motorists travel from further distances and prioritize saving time, so a couple major roads and thruways can be dedicated for their usage, with big parking lots accessible near the thruways. At the same time, other roads should be converted to exclusive pedestrian usage. Separating different forms of traffic based on their different speeds and needs will improve the flow and efficiency of the city, while also minimizing congestion. Sorkin describes the “flow” in New York, and how that resulted in slower moving bodies deferring to faster ones. [1] However, if we separate them, no group would have to specifically defer to another. And this is definitely something Portland can implement with its current roads system.

[1] Michael Sorkin, “Traffic in Democracy,” in The People and Space Reader, ed. Jen Jack Gieseking, et al (New York: Routledge), 2014, 411-415.