cityplanner.ca
Discussing big picture urban/city planning and design issues.
Jun 13, 2010
Choices, if they are legitimate, and provide some reason or incentive to do the “right” thing or the “sustainable” thing, are great. However many times the general public is offered a rather false choice…
Based on a real-life example, for an individual needing to get to work in downtown Edmonton from the southeast side of the city, will you:
A. Drive 25 minutes to/from work. (50 minutes return)
B. Take 90 minute bus rides with two transfers to/from work. (180 minutes return)
C. Bike 60+ minutes to/from work. (120+ minutes return)
For those with the economic means, the “choice” is a clear one. But for those without, who either can’t afford or legally drive a car, and can’t realistically bike that distance, they end up “stuck” taking the transit.
The reality is that people, if they can comfortably afford to, will not walk 10 minutes to a bus stop to wait another 20 minutes (especially in bad weather) before taking a 20 minute bus ride to work, when driving takes considerably less time.
It's not so simple to say, "Just get rid of the car," since upwards of 30% of the population don’t/can’t drive and don’t have a car. It's also not realistic to say "Just live closer to downtown," since in many cities, it might be too expensive to live in the core, and selected central neighbourhoods which are not so expensive might not be so safe.
Some interesting references to the idea of choice are made by Peter Calthorpe in his book, The Next American Metropolis. Calthorpe writes:
- “The praise of the status quo is reinforced by the belief that design can’t change human behaviour. Simply stated, building walkable neighborhoods may not get people out of their cars and building front porches and neighbourhood parks may not create more integrated, convivial communities. To this I can only assert that people should be given the choice and that, neither black nor white, the result will probably be mixed – and that is OK. People are not simple and we should not attempt to make them so with cities and suburbs that limit their choices. I believe a diverse and inclusionary environment filled with alternative ways of getting around is inherently better than a world of private enclaves dominated by the car.” (p.10)
This only holds true if the "alternative ways of getting around" are at least equal in speed, practicality, affordability, and accessibility as a city designed for the private. Typical suburban neighbourhoods are designed for cars, and one transit stop in the middle of a spaghetti-street neighbourhood without a bus shelter won't cut the mustard. So the automobile wins because of the volume, size and scale of the infrastructure required to support it. As Calthorpe acknowledges:
– “As the ideas presented here have been implemented, they have become less pure, more contextual, and, some claim, compromised. Design becomes ‘the art of the possible.’ This, in the end, is what interests me most; the intersection between an ideal and the real world.” (p.12)
So the design of an auto-focused neighbourhood is tweaked slightly to allow for some transit opportunities and affordable housing, but is still not ideal. Then compromises are made, tipping the design in favour of the automobile again.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can provide more good job opportunities closer to people's homes. We can also provide transit more frequently and directly, and we can make the transit that arrives travel faster; via dedicated bus lanes, for example. We can design our neighbourhoods for people instead of cars. And we can design our neighbourhoods for everyone, because someone always suffers when we don't.
Based on a real-life example, for an individual needing to get to work in downtown Edmonton from the southeast side of the city, will you:
A. Drive 25 minutes to/from work. (50 minutes return)
B. Take 90 minute bus rides with two transfers to/from work. (180 minutes return)
C. Bike 60+ minutes to/from work. (120+ minutes return)
For those with the economic means, the “choice” is a clear one. But for those without, who either can’t afford or legally drive a car, and can’t realistically bike that distance, they end up “stuck” taking the transit.
The reality is that people, if they can comfortably afford to, will not walk 10 minutes to a bus stop to wait another 20 minutes (especially in bad weather) before taking a 20 minute bus ride to work, when driving takes considerably less time.
It's not so simple to say, "Just get rid of the car," since upwards of 30% of the population don’t/can’t drive and don’t have a car. It's also not realistic to say "Just live closer to downtown," since in many cities, it might be too expensive to live in the core, and selected central neighbourhoods which are not so expensive might not be so safe.
Some interesting references to the idea of choice are made by Peter Calthorpe in his book, The Next American Metropolis. Calthorpe writes:
- “The praise of the status quo is reinforced by the belief that design can’t change human behaviour. Simply stated, building walkable neighborhoods may not get people out of their cars and building front porches and neighbourhood parks may not create more integrated, convivial communities. To this I can only assert that people should be given the choice and that, neither black nor white, the result will probably be mixed – and that is OK. People are not simple and we should not attempt to make them so with cities and suburbs that limit their choices. I believe a diverse and inclusionary environment filled with alternative ways of getting around is inherently better than a world of private enclaves dominated by the car.” (p.10)
This only holds true if the "alternative ways of getting around" are at least equal in speed, practicality, affordability, and accessibility as a city designed for the private. Typical suburban neighbourhoods are designed for cars, and one transit stop in the middle of a spaghetti-street neighbourhood without a bus shelter won't cut the mustard. So the automobile wins because of the volume, size and scale of the infrastructure required to support it. As Calthorpe acknowledges:
– “As the ideas presented here have been implemented, they have become less pure, more contextual, and, some claim, compromised. Design becomes ‘the art of the possible.’ This, in the end, is what interests me most; the intersection between an ideal and the real world.” (p.12)
So the design of an auto-focused neighbourhood is tweaked slightly to allow for some transit opportunities and affordable housing, but is still not ideal. Then compromises are made, tipping the design in favour of the automobile again.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can provide more good job opportunities closer to people's homes. We can also provide transit more frequently and directly, and we can make the transit that arrives travel faster; via dedicated bus lanes, for example. We can design our neighbourhoods for people instead of cars. And we can design our neighbourhoods for everyone, because someone always suffers when we don't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.