Quote:
Originally Posted by Young-Sneezy
1. get a car.
2. the rest of us waited longer in traffic
the reason i say get a car, is not because im an ass, or mean or anything, but its a simple fact, that we NEED cars in this city. you cannot manage to get around to school and work, on the bus. My girlfriend "does" and it just means i "drive her everywhere"....
the bottom line is that we live in a city where a) the infrastructure for public transit is like 30 years behind and planned by a boob and b) geographically we are nearly beyond repair, our city is just TOO BIG.
maybe im biased cause i get to deal with people who don't drive on a daily basis, and it makes you want to pull your eyes out. but i have also lived in cities (Paris, France) where public transport is the only way people can get around efficiently, and its because it was planned DECADES ago.
so your solution? Complain to an old person who might have been part of planning it in the 50's
or
get a car like everyone else.
ps. no im not rich, im a student, infact im completely assbackwards broke...but manage cause its a necessity
|
So much wrong with this post.
First, some assumptions you make, and why they are wrong:
1. People who ride transit (and the poster you replied to in particular) don't own vehicles. This is simply not true (in general, not sure about Matata). Look no further than the existence of Park N' Ride lots and several members of this forum.
2. People need cars in this city. Not true. Your girlfriend aside, many people do manage without cars. I did for several years of my adult life, as have countless friends. Transportation is a need, not one particular mode. A car is not a need, and by the same token, neither is a transit system or even a working set of legs.
3. Transit infrastructure isn't 30 years behind. While there are significant problems (bus scheduling in particular has come up in this thread) you need look no further than the LRT expansion done since 2001. In the period of 2001-2012, the LRT will have doubled in track length and number of cars, and have added 15 new stations with a 16th by 2014. Hell, the C-Train system itself doesn't even turn 30 until 2011.
4. City layout and auto-dependence is irreversible. False. Calgary will never be Paris or Seoul or Tokyo, nor should it be. Calgary already has freakishly high transit ridership for a North American city of its size, due in large part to the strides made it both transit and, yes, city planning of the last 30 years. It is an uphill battle for sure, but it is far from hopeless. The historical trend in this city says otherwise. Examples of other cities abound.
Now to address the general logic of your post. You mention that "the rest of us waited longer in traffic." Other than the statement being completely unverifiable, what do you think your solution of transit users (or even just the single one you addressed) getting cars and driving them to their destinations would have done to your own drive time? Ever pass a full bus (or even a half-full one) on your commute? Picture all those people piling into private automobiles for their trip every day, at a rate of 1.2 people per car, rather than 50+ people per bus. Were you around for the 2001 transit strike (for the sake of argument, I wasn't)?
The solution to transportation issues has to be struck by some sort of balance between all modes, not just cars. This includes walking, cycling, public transit (LRT, streetcar, bus), and cars (private, carshare, carpooling). If you plan for only cars, that's exactly what you'll get. Traffic and congestion are self-fulfilling prophesies.
Just for the sake of clarity, I'm not anti-car. They are here to stay and have to be part of planning and transportation solutions. Your post is circular logic and basically stating that the solution to the problem is the problem itself.