Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
This isn't just something interesting that we can sit back and casually watch like fashion trends. This is something which affects our energy and resource budget (and therefore economy), our physical health, and overall quality of life. We know we're running out of fossil fuels and we have no replacement option to give us as much energy for as little cost. And we know the effects it's having on the environment. We have to change and the urgency is too great for sitting around thinking "Hmm, it looks like things will eventually change at some point so let's not worry about it". Of course they're going to change at some point because we won't have oil forever. But we need to prepare for that transition if want to make it as painless as possible.
|
You're making the assumption that technological advancement of the automobile has stagnated and therefore its use will be tied to oil consumption and oil combustion products forever. That is not the case.
On top of that, the environment is a global entity and thus affected by many things, not just the automobile. While it is often easy and convenient to target that as the main source of pollution, there are many more which
also need to be targeted but do not have a clear pathway to a solution, mainly due to political and financial reasons.
That's a huge topic, not suited to this thread, so I'll leave it at that.
Quote:
No one said anything about legislation, and I didn't advocate letting it run it's natural course (I was interpreting that as your preference). My post was simply condemning what I considered a problematic suggestion that counter made without going into potential solutions.
That being said, I reject suggestion that the concept of planning in the content of a society is anti-freedom or somehow a form of coercion. In order to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of such there are things we must share including basic infrastructure, and we cannot have separate infrastructure to suit every possible taste or preference as it isn't financially feasible. Planning based on the type of infrastructure we can actually afford is our society responding to reality, not an active intent to oppress anyone.
When it comes to freedom, I believe in real freedom, but not false freedom. Real freedom is what I would describe as being able to sustain the cost or side affects of a particular choice or action rather than externalise them (like stealing from someone) or be limited by the costs of adverse affects later on (like choosing to sit around the apartment all day and relax only to be kicked out for not paying the rent). For instance, a real freedom would be to choosing to buy a fancy car when you have $50,000 in the bank or the reliable income to finance it. False freedom would be to take out loans and run up credit card debt to live in a way you feel entitled to when you cannot afford it. Eventually you'll run out of credit.
Now it may not be illegal to manage one's finances poorly, but I feel it should be open to criticism. And that's basically what I was doing with my criticism of counter's suggestion that encouraging more downtown parking is a positive thing, except on a societal level rather than on an individual level. Letting the market decide and having things run their course would be like a consumer living above their means until they run out of credit and are forced to change, and perhaps end up declaring bankruptcy, rather than seeing the trend ahead of time and adjusting accordingly. It isn't just bad planning, it isn't planning at all.
Given the amount of disposable income some people devote to their automobiles, I think saying that they're "Focusing their lives around the car" is quite fair. Not to mention the amount of space allocated for this method of conveyance.
I remember reading a study out of Seattle I believe showing the relationship between the rates of car ownership and their mandatory parking spaces laws. I'll have to see if I can find it.
|
Many good points here. I don't have the time to answer them individually, but I appreciate the thought you put into your response.
Quote:
Also, i don't believe that last statement for a second. Most people do what is fastest and most convenient and/or cheapest. Many people use cars now because they're the fastest and most convenient option (because we've designed things that way) but if that stops being the case, most people are not going to put themselves through torment as some sort of political protest when there's an easier way for them to get to their destination. Have you even heard of the concept of induced demand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
Plus, designing things is a less auto-focused way improves the quality of life for other people, and lowers costs in terms of road infrastructure and maintenance, so I would dispute the claim regarding the end result. The net results would include a variety of things with the positives easily outweighing the negatives.
|
Yes, but you've just supported my assertion that if we make transit efficient, easy, and convenient, that people will be drawn away from the car and thus the situation will be improved. The whole concept is to make it a positive experience rather than a negative one - that's all I was getting at.
So yes, I agree.
Anyway, let's get back to the Brenton Place project... we've beaten this tangent to death. Thanks for answering my initial question re: parking.
Threaded Mode