Last night, I went for my usual jog through some of the hills/streets of Hercules. Just prior to my jog, I had read a Hercules blog by a self-proclaimed "New urbanist." The blog can be found here.
http://www.waterfrontwatch.org
I read it because sometimes it is informative, that it includes issues reaching beyond the "waterfront." There is often intelligent discussion, too.
The following is a quote from the blog's author:
"Hercules must develop for the future (walkable communities, close to transit, retail mixed with public space), not the past (driveways and cul-de-sacs)."
Last night, the juxtaposition of reading this comment with my nightly jog caused me to finally ask myself "Just what in the heck is so bad about driveways and cul-de-sacs of Hercules? How is Hercules not "walkable"?
I have heard over and over and over from the "New Urbanists" that we need "walkable communities." Do we not have walkable communities? Last night, in the dark, I was jogging without fear or worry of getting clobbered by cars. I first grew up in San Francisco. As a kid, the streets of SF were truly dangerous as I quickly discovered on my first bicycle outing when I hadn't figured out the whole foot-brake thing on a descent, going through a stop sign, almost being squashed like a bug by a large sky-blue Caddy. I always remember colors with near-death experiences.
We then moved to an unincorporated suburb, trading SF's steep hills for the LeMans Raceway, living on a road that had no street lamps, and nothing more than a painted line for walking. If memory serves me correctly, the line itself was your place to walk, maybe 3 inches wide. Sometimes there was a shoulder, but often, the painted line was placed at the edge of a ditch.
The objective for survival was to run quickly from shoulder to shoulder, during any lulls in the traffic. You had to listen carefully for cars (including possible blaring radio, backfiring, or any other warning sounds) and then still be prepared to jump into the ditch when you heard squealing rubber of the "neighborhood" nut job with his '69 Chevelle. I was once knocked into the ditch by the side-view mirror of a large blue and white pick-up truck. Many animals also got clobbered on this non-walkable, non-runable, non-cyclable road, judging from the putrid carnage of cats, dogs, deer, and raccoons often found in the ditch. So I know what "non-walkable" is. It ain't Hercules.
Hercules is walkable, and jog-able and skippable and hoppable. If I had a heavy drinking problem, I would like Hercules because of the sidewalks which would lead from my favorite watering hole to my front door. No excuse for drinking and driving when you have such nice sidewalks. Maybe a slight detour to take care of some business behind a bush or next to the railroad track, but then, back on the very walkable sidewalks you go. Plenty of room to sway, reel, stumble, and stagger. I once braved my childhood road, blottoed from a high school keggar party, almost joining the carcasses in the ditch. Yes, Hercules does need to add a continuous sidewalk to Rodeo and a stretch of sidewalk to Pinole, and to the transit center, but other than that, in my book, Hercules is very walkable.
As for cul-de-sacs and driveways, I like it all. As family members move home during this economic downturn, garages become storage space, and driveways used for cars. I like the layout of Hercules. A lot. That's why I moved here. I like some breathing room. I am not a Generation Y'er seeking a commune. I like people, but I also like some space.
As I jogged through the neighborhoods last night, I kept thinking to myself how lucky I am to live in Hercules, even with it's assortment of maladies. I never saw Hercules as a fixer-upper, like some pathetic girlfriend that needed rescuing. I have no complaint with the vision of the New Urbanists as much of it is very positive. I just don't understand their complaint with what is currently Hercules, especially the streets. Maybe I'm missing something, as is often the case.
