Learning from Experience: A Better Transport Future with Professor Peter Norton
June 2025
Proudly supported by the
In a thought-provoking and inspiring AITPM webinar, Associate Professor Peter Norton from the University of Virginia challenged Australian audiences to rethink the future of transport— not through utopian visions of untested technologies, but by rediscovering the wisdom of the past.
Norton, a respected historian and author of Fighting Traffic and Autonorama, shared compelling insights into how both the United States and Australia have historically deprioritised walking, cycling, and community-centred transport in favour of car dominance. His central message: we already have the knowledge and tools to build safer, more liveable cities — we just need to reclaim them.
Reversing the “Radical Revision” of Our Streets
Professor Norton described how, in the early 20th century, streets were spaces for people — walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly. Over time, lobbying by automobile industries led to a “radical revision” of what streets were for. Streets became engineered for speed and dominated by cars, with pedestrian movement increasingly restricted through concepts like "jaywalking" — an American term later exported to Australia.
In both countries, car-centric policies didn’t just limit mobility; they reduced safety, especially for vulnerable users like children and women, and contributed to major public health issues such as obesity and cardiovascular disease.
The Myth of the “Love Affair with the Car”
Contrary to the popular narrative that Americans — and by extension, Australians — have a cultural love affair with the automobile, Norton revealed this idea was seeded by a 20th-century advertising campaign by General Motors. He argued that people didn’t naturally choose cars; they were left with no other viable option. Transit, cycling, and walking were actively pushed out of the mainstream.
By unpacking this history, Norton urged attendees to question modern-day car dependency and remember that the prioritisation of pedestrians was once mainstream — and can be again.
Australia’s Parallel Experience
Drawing on newly uncovered examples from Australia, Norton illustrated striking similarities. Like the US, Australia introduced jaywalking laws, disproportionately affecting women and children who lacked access to cars. He highlighted historical public backlash against these measures, showcasing a forgotten legacy of Australian advocacy for walkable streets.
He revisited the tragic 1954 deaths of two young children in Sydney, which sparked community protests — not against parental neglect, but against unsafe car-centric streets. The reaction was collective grief and a demand for safe, people-friendly environments.
A Positive Vision for the Future
Professor Norton cautioned against over-reliance on futuristic technologies like autonomous vehicles, which are often presented as magical fixes by the same industries that created the problems. “We don’t need to wait for new technology,” he said.
“We already know how to design safe, healthy, inclusive streets. We’ve done it before.”
He shared examples of modern cities like Rochester, New York, which has successfully removed sections of its freeway system to build vibrant, walkable communities. These transformations demonstrate that change is possible, even in car-dependent cultures.
Walkability is Mainstream — and Needed
Following the presentation, Anna Gurnhill from the Heart Foundation reflected on how Peter’s message aligns with emerging Australian research. The Foundation’s new survey shows Australians overwhelmingly support walkable, bikeable, people-first neighbourhoods. Their Healthy Active by Design toolkit offers resources to translate this demand into real planning and policy action.
Gurnhill and other audience members reinforced that walkability is not a niche concern — it’s a mainstream priority with benefits for public health, equity, safety, and climate.
Call to Action: Reclaiming Streets for People
The webinar concluded with a powerful reminder: walkable cities aren’t radical or futuristic. They’re our shared tradition. But to reclaim that legacy, we must challenge entrenched systems that favour car travel, shift investment priorities, and resist seductive but empty promises of high-tech salvation.
Peter Norton left attendees with a hopeful message:
“We know how to do this. We’ve done it before. It’s time for a new radical revision — one that restores what our streets were always meant to be.”
