The recent Blue Zone-related talk in Albert Lea about looking at the ways people get around in new ways is not something that is merely local or unique. Cities across the country are taking second looks at transportation.

The old way of thinking was: If there were too many cars, widen the road or build more roads. Sometimes it alleviated traffic but often it made the problem worse. It is expensive, too.

The new way of thinking is: If there are too many cars, narrow the roads or shut them down altogether, while encouraging other modes of transportation.

It makes sense, too.

When you decide how you are going to go somewhere, you first consider the available options. If the infrastructure encourages driving an automobile, then you take an automobile. If there are convenient ways to get somewhere on a motorcycle, a bicycle or by foot, then sometimes — not all the time — you’ll take those.

Hassle is a factor, too. If you can anticipate closed streets or roads, you tend to not take unnecessary trips. It limits the traffic to necessary drivers.

“Field of Dreams” was right: “If you build it, they will come.”

A story in the present issue of Newsweek describes how cities such as New York and San Francisco are getting better traffic results with fewer streets than with more streets. Their goal is to have greener, more livable cities.

New York’s transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, is quoted in the story as saying, “I think that 21st-century cities are looking at their streets differently. They’re saying, ‘We need a fresh look at how we’re getting people around, and it’s more than just pushing as many cars into a city as possible.’”

Sure, Albert Lea isn’t New York, but it isn’t Walters, either. We need to be ahead of the curve if we expect to get through the century with growth.

Here’s a suggestion: Read “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do” by Tom Vanderbilt.