How to Make “Access” a Sexier Word and Goal?

You probably have no idea what I’m talking about at this point. The term “access” in city planning refers to a person’s ability to get somewhere or something. Makes sense, right. And it’s what city planners are focused on, isn’t it? Not exactly. A lot of planning is focused on “mobility,” a car’s ability to move fast through an environment. In some cases, this means improved access. But in many cases, it doesn’t necessarily mean this. For example:

[In late January], the Washington, D.C. region was awash in hype over an impending “thunder snow” storm.  While  the storm under-delivered on the snow, it certainly caused chaos. Storms like these highlight the benefits of compact urban development while underscoring the weaknesses of sprawling suburbia.

Residents of Washington’s outer suburbs struggled Wednesday night with horrendous traffic on the city’s commuter routes. At the same time, many D.C. residents were enjoying happy hours, snowball fights and otherwise carrying on with their lives. By the time people in the central city were fast asleep, many suburbanites were still fighting to get home.

I love the lines that come next: “People often say they prefer driving over transit because their car allows them to go where they want, when they want. Events like D.C.’s storm last week or its weeklong blizzard last February highlight problems with this thinking.”

This is the inconvenient truth that most people don’t register for some reason. We think we have more freedom with a car, but with a car-dependent city (created when residents and planners demand a city with better “mobility”), we lose a ton of freedom and access. But not only in snowstorms.

“Even under normal circumstances, though, how many of us drive to work at 6:00 a.m. to avoid traffic or forgo a shopping trip because the parking lot is too crowded or take a detour on a trip because the football game is letting out? As Carla Saulter, the Seattle Bus Chick, has said, driving a car doesn’t necessarily mean being in control.

As I say every time I get the chance, a city is, by definition, a lot of people living in a relatively small space/area. To try to move each individual around in a relatively large vehicle of their own doesn’t make sense. It creates traffic that costs us time (a ton of it), money (a ton of it), happiness, health, and other important things. If we want to live in happy, healthy cities, we need to focus on access more than mobility. And the citizens need to speak up and say they want their cities to.

Anyway, for more on this topic, read Erik Weber’s full piece over on TheCityFix: Access Over Mobility: Why Driving Can’t be the Only Option

Related Stories:

1. Save $9,656 a Year, Ride Public Transit
2. Public Transportation Saves U.S. 785 Million Hours a Year

Photo Credit: Dunechaser

Written by Zach

is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy since 2009.

Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the founder and director of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity.

To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to and click on the relevant buttons.

One Ping

  1. Pingback:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Obama Administration Proposes $53 Billion More for High-Speed Rail [VIDEO]

Why Planning for Children Can Make Cities Better for Everyone