Oakland Has Closed a Bunch of Streets to Cars. Other Cities Should Follow Its Lead.

Time to socially distance ourselves from car culture.

The view of 42nd Street in Oakland on Saturday. AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Oakland, California, on Saturday started to phase in what it is calling a “slow streets” initiative, to give residents “more room to spread out safely.” The city’s mayor, Libby Schaaf, ultimately plans on closing 74 miles, or 10 percent, of its streets to cars, creating more space for pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists.

According to data from the National Association of City Transportation Officials, a coalition of departments of transportation throughout the country, Oakland’s initiative is the first large-scale closure of city streets during the coronavirus outbreak. 

This is a dramatic departure from the unstated commandments of US urban planning and governance: make things harder for pedestrians and never, ever threaten the hegemony of car culture. There’s no question why it had to happen; the tougher question is whether it’ll happen more often now.

The conditions certainly are ripe for opening up the roads to foot traffic. Amid the pandemic, streets have emptied as vehicle traffic has dropped off a cliff. Smartphone location data from March, compiled by StreetLight Data, shows that traffic has dropped off 83 percent in San Francisco, 70 percent Los Angeles, 67 in New York and Chicago, and 77 percent in Washington, D.C. (In a handful of rural areas, driving is actually up, according to StreetLight.) Around the world, cities like Delhi have had a dramatic improvement in air quality

Meanwhile, the sidewalks are as difficult to navigate as they ever have been, with pedestrians and runners fighting over narrow real estate to try to maintain a 6-foot-minimum radius. Some cities like New York and Washington, DC, have closed some parks and popular trails to pedestrians, to avoid crowded trails that might pose a risk for transmission.

The argument against opening up the streets is that it might make them more inviting to people who are otherwise being urged to stay indoors. In DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser rejected a call to open select streets and add temporary bike lanes along certain routes. “I don’t want to send the message to people to go out and have a festival,” she said.

Oakland is struggling with the same questions, but, Schaaf said, “We are taking this opportunity to try some new things.” Streets and sidewalks constitute 20–30 percent of the city’s land, Alex McBride, Oakland’s chief resilience officer, told the San Jose Mercury News. “We’ve decided to take advantage of that resource,” McBride said, adding that the city was “thoughtful and strategic” about the distribution of the closures.

Reclaiming streets from cars has been a hot idea in urban planning for a few years now. Barcelona rolled out an initiative to cut back on congestion with 500 “superblocks,” Vox’s David Roberts reported last year. San Francisco has gone mostly car-free on its busy Market Street, and New York recently shut out cars on 14th Street in Manhattan.

The open-streets efforts in America are moving against a powerful cultural current with a powerful lobbying arm, but the present crisis has ushered into some cities a cautious New Urbanism. By CityLab‘s Laura Bliss count, at least seven US and Canadian cities, including Portland, Minneapolis, and Calgary, have moved to selectively limit vehicles. In all, two dozen US cities have now passed or considered at least limited measures to close some streets to cars during the outbreak, according to data compiled by the NACTO.

Jacqueline Klopp, co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Sustainable Urban Development, says reclaiming streets for pedestrians and bikes is a solution worth considering, not just for the pandemic but permanently.

“Many [urban] planners focusing on healthy cities and reducing carbon have been advocating for a long time for proper, segregated bike lanes, and more space given back to pedestrians,” she says. When cars came into cities, she added, “we reallocated space in a socially unjust way, away from children and people who would like to walk and would like to ride bikes.” 

There are no guarantees that the pandemic will indeed lead to more car-free streets in the longterm. Urban planners like Klopp are just as worried about a backlash to sustainable policies that encourage urban density but do not exactly fit a pandemic playbook. New York City’s outbreak has made cities that are dense by design another scapegoat in the pandemic, but Klopp maintains the density isn’t the problem when widespread testing and contact tracing has helped to control the outbreak in other parts of the world. 

The reality is that there is no exact playbook that balances people’s need to move freely against immediate public health imperatives against longer-term sustainability concerns. But Oakland offers an example of a city at least rethinking the balance between pedestrians and cars going forward. And for now there are a lot of people seeing in vivid relief the connections between our well-being and the margin of public space allotted to us.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate