News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 635     0 

Car Capacity Is Not Sacred

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Car Capacity Is Not Sacred


September 1, 2010

By Dan Bertolet

Read More: http://www.publicola.net/2010/09/01...ed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+publico

Supporters of “road diets†are quick to point out that even when car travel lanes are eliminated to make room for bikes, not to worry, there will still be sufficient capacity for cars. And even though that has been blindingly indisputable in several recent Seattle cases, the naysayers howled away nonetheless—a sad commentary on how deeply in denial our culture still is when it comes to the problem of car dependence. But to me, the dynamic of that debate also reveals a troubling acquiescence—by both sides—to an ostensibly inviolable ground rule: Car capacity is sacred.

- It may well be that in today’s political climate, the only way cycling and pedestrian advocates will get the infrastructure they want is if they assure the masses that car travel will not be impacted in any way. But the trouble is, that position suppresses the reality that cars are in fundamental conflict with walking, biking, and transit.

- In urban areas that are dense enough to support efficient public transit systems, officials often negate their own efforts to increase usage, by simultaneously spending huge sums to make it easier for people to get around in cars. When a city’s streets or highways become crowded, for example, the standard response is to create additional capacity by building new roads or widening existing ones. Projects like these almost always end up making the original problem worse—while also usually taking years to complete and costing many millions of dollars—because they generate what transportation planners call “induced trafficâ€.

- The eventual result that the new roads become at least as clogged as the old roads, though at higher traffic volumes, and the efficiency of transit declines. These negative outcomes are compounded by the fact that, in the short term, temporarily improved traffic flow reduces commute times for drivers on the expanded roadways, making it easier for people to justify building houses, malls, and office buildings in formerly inaccessible outlying areas—and , in turn, eventually makes all the original problems worse.

- The only way to break the vicious cycle is to invest our limited transportation dollars in infrastructure that will help make walking, biking, and transit more attractive than driving. And here’s where we need to start being honest with ourselves: If we are serious about creating a city in which significant numbers of trips are made by modes other than cars, then we will have to accept that driving will become less convenient than it is today.




Boise_sprawl-545.jpg
 
So true

This is so true, but the sad part is that he's right in that there are still way too many people who just dont get it!

And one thing he could have added which has a similar cultural entrenchment in North America is what goes hand in hand with the might auto and that is 'suburban sprawl' and their belief that it is somehow a 'right' and 'sacred'.

Just like the car, words like 'need' are used to justify huge houses along with the increasing energy consumption they require. Fear and misinformation are also used like when they say that it's somehow impossible to raise children in any environment that's not suburban in design as if the human race only existed in the last 60 years, and those people in Europe and Asia living in ruban settings even right now somehow are not able to raise kids!

It's insane, but true...and these ideas are so incredibly ingrained in the North American mindset that I think only when it hits them in the pocket book (i.e. high gas prices) will they stand a chance of actually 'getting it', but than even then it's likely they'll somehow look to blame others.

I remember a couple years ago when gas went to $1.50/litre and everyone in my suburban office was complaining, I would always ask them one simple question..."Who's fault is it that you have only one means of getting around? Who's fault is it that you are now dependent on your car (and it's holding you hostage for more money)? Who's fault is it that it costs so much just to 'move'?

Obviously it made me no friends and their responses showed that even THEN, they didn't get it b/c they'd come back with things like, "Well, how are people supposed to get around then, smartass?!"

...again, it's as if they 'truly' had no clue as to any other way to live...as if the human race only existed since cars had been around...

...and if that's not disturbing enough...most of these people HAVE been to Europe and most liked it, yet for some reason choose to live in the burbs here and complain that we don't have good transit like in Paris, etc...

...they really don't make the connection between their chosen lifestyle/urban design (low density) and transit feasibility...

...anyway, I just realized I'm on a bit of a rant... ;)
 

Back
Top