Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverD
I don't think your caveat at the end is necessary at all. It shouldn't be controversial to support a diversity in transportation options.
I would say the majority of pragmatic urbanists support the option of private automobile ownership. What they don't support is the prioritization of cars over every other form of mobility, every time, everywhere - certainly not if that compromises any aspect of driving your own car. I think the pushback from people who simply accept car dependency without a second though exasperates those of us who simply want alternative ways of getting around.
Personally, I'm a huge car enthusiast. It's important to me what kind of car I drive, and it always has been. I can't foresee a world in which I don't own one or more cars. But I get zero pleasure out of commuting, or driving to a big box store in the suburbs. I walk to work, I walk to visit friends, I walk to local bars and restaurants, to the market, to the grocery store, etc. Doing so poses a very real danger to my health and safety that mostly doesn't exist for drivers traveling to those same destinations. I have to be more careful and more diligent, because we default to prioritizing motor vehicles. And I live in a downtown neighbourhood!
And yet, many people simply refuse to consider compromises that may marginally slow drivers down to better accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
|
My take on it:
People who live outside the downtown, but need to go there for work or other reasons will want to take their cars for timeliness, convenience, to stay out of the weather, etc. Transit options for these people are sketchy at best, for now and the foreseeable future. Therefore, when discussions center around restricting or removing car use from some area(s), they naturally push back because they see these options as making life more difficult for them.
People who live in the downtown, or just outside it, suffer from the influx of motor vehicles the most, and understandably see the negative effects of it more than anybody. They have the most reason to complain about other peoples' cars making life difficult for them.
I think, given the choice, most people would prefer to live close enough to everything to be able to walk there, rather dealing with the stress of driving in traffic. But life is never that simple, as living downtown is not a good option for many people due to affordability, the lack of desire to live in a condo/apartment situation, etc. As in everything, there are sacrifices/compromises that have to be made.
I think most of the strife on this forum arises from:
1) Even though it's been clear for a long time that Halifax is growing and needs to improve ways of getting around, the government has been slow to react, and definitely has not been proactive. People want good options for getting around, but unfortunately for many, the car is still the best choice... so people take their cars, and are perceived to be the problem when in fact they are only reacting to the problem.
2) There will always be the anti-car, anti-bicycle, anti-this, anti-that contingent on this forum using up much of the oxygen in the room... caveats like MonctonRad's are posted for the expectant comments that would undoubtedly spew from one side or the other.
3) The city government's lack of focus on providing good alternatives:
- Our bus service is improving but still mediocre, and definitely not enough.
- Bicycling is great exercise and is fun to do in nice weather, but it has its limitations in terms of being an actual option for mass transit as I firmly believe that even with good infrastructure most people will not want to cycle in bad weather, if they have tight schedules and large distances to cover, etc.
- Fast ferries will be a great addition, but still will not be enough.
- Rail/underground transit does not even appear to be on the table for discussion at the moment, unless I'm missing something.
In general, I think that many people are not really happy with the level of infrastructure development in Halifax. For too many years it was virtually ignored and now the city is left playing catch-up in the midst of an unexpected population boom, making things that much worse.
Finally, a caveat lest I be accused of being anti-cycle for my above comments:
I too am a car enthusiast, but perhaps more accurately a transportation enthusiast. I love to cycle, but am in agreement with many that cycling is currently dangerous in most places due to the lack of decent cycling infrastructure. IMHO, the city should have started building bicycle infrastructure over 30 years ago, but didn't, and thus has been trying to catch up on something that most cities already have handled.
That said, in terms of the general population, I think that cycling still has its limitations for most people who won't cycle in bad weather, or can't choose that option for other reasons. Thus I do have concerns at times that its ability to become a method to move volumes of people is overstated a little, and tend to think that people who seem to be against bicycle lanes, etc., have just become frustrated by the city's apparent focus to play catch-up with cycling infrastructure while apparently not even looking at other viable options, such as rail/underground, etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
