Cycling Activists Try Opportunism

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd guess most people prefer Argyle now to what it was like during the years when the Herald was there or the years when the pit was there.

I suppose that might be hard to assess these days since nobody is there.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree. But I think most of the time the conflict is exaggerated, and money spent on cycling in particular is a very small portion of the overall budget that is proportional to the modal share.

Until relatively recently the amount of money spent on bike lane projects has been fairly modest. That has changed with significant tax money wasted on 3 iterations of the ill-advised Hollis bike lanes and the promised $10 million Macdonald Bridge bike flyover. The real cost has been that of inconvenience to citizens and businesses using vehicles in removing on-street parking in places like Windsor St for the largely unused bike lanes there, visitors to Hollis St, South Park St and several other locations where these things have been parachuted on top of existing streets, and more recently motorists trying to navigate heavier and slower-moving traffic on Young St and other routes that have been narrowed to a single lane.

Remember the complaining about how developing the parking lots around Spring Garden Road would kill it? For a lot of people those Clyde lots were their go-to spots, and you used to hear the argument that people in Halifax won't use structured parking, and women in particular are afraid of it.

That was more than simple rumor, it was supported by market research and opinion polling. Now it may be that those women have gotten used to using parking garages since then, but for many it was a very real fear, especially at night. A shadowy, largely empty parkade is not a pleasant place to be at night. And in general, retailers have found that many shoppers avoid patronizing stores that do not offer open-air parking lots, preferring those to parking structures.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That was more than simple rumor, it was supported by market research and opinion polling. Now it may be that those women have gotten used to using parking garages since then, but for many it was a very real fear, especially at night. A shadowy, largely empty parkade is not a pleasant place to be at night. And in general, retailers have found that many shoppers avoid patronizing stores that do not offer open-air parking lots, preferring those to parking structures.

Really depends on the individual structure, some new parkades are very well lit with motion sensor lights becoming green or red depending on whether it’s occupied letting you quickly scout out a free spot. But you’ve also got dark and dingy labyrinths filled with peeling paint chips, like the parkade under Toronto city hall. Just to point out that an underground parking experience can be and has been improved.

[The Crow Whisperer]

In the early 1800s, when railroads first began to spread across Great Britain, the Duke of Wellington reportedly sneered that this innovation would “only encourage the common people to move about needlessly.”

For last week’s World Car-Free Day, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, channeled the Duke of Wellington, complaining about the “domination of the car” and called for a new type of society “in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince reportedly owns two Audis, two Jaguars, a Range Rover and an Aston Martin. The Duke of Wellington undoubtedly had other means of getting around the British countryside, but despite being separated in time by two centuries, these two aristocrats had something in common — a distaste for commoners enjoying the mobility to which they themselves were born.

World Car-Free Day appeared, at first glance, to be a lifestyle event — a celebration of living without cars. But it had an underlying political agenda; its organizers call on “governments to help create permanent change to benefit pedestrians, cyclists and other people who do not drive cars.”

And these days, when the air is thick with claims of impending climate catastrophe and the need for so-called sustainability, calls for automotive restrictions are finding an increasingly receptive political audience.

But for most people in this country, the car-free life would be as desirable as being shackled to a ball-and-chain. It is easy to forget the incredibly liberating nature of the automobile. In the 1910s-1920s the car ended the crushing isolation of rural life. In 1955-56, it enabled black people to boycott the segregated buses of Montgomery, Alabama. In the 1970s-1980s, it gave mothers the ability to enter the job market while still getting their kids to day care and putting food on the table. Today, the car allows new immigrants to enter the American mainstream by vastly expanding their choices of where to work and where to live.

Even in cities with well-functioning mass transit, a car can be essential if you’re old or ill, or are carrying babies and groceries, or if the weather’s miserable, or if you’ve got to get somewhere after the busses and subways have closed. It’s no wonder that most promo shots of Car-Free Day events featured only the young and healthy, out on picture-perfect sunny days.

Being able to get around freely is not some superficial desire that can be dismissed as the product of an allegedly car-addicted Western culture. Some Americans may view India and China as countries happily populated by bicyclists and pedestrians, but consumer demand for cars in those countries is booming, especially with the introduction of new low-priced vehicles. The car, it appears, satisfies a pretty basic human need.

A philosophy professor who emigrated here from Eastern Europe once commented on Car-Free Day by noting that, given his time behind the Iron Curtain, he’d already endured enough car-free decades.

Living car-free may be fine for many people during some phases of their lives, and it may be fine for some people for all of their lives, but it’s no way for most of us to live — regardless of what Prince Charles and his fellow aristocrats may think.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

In the early 1800s, when railroads first began to spread across Great Britain, the Duke of Wellington reportedly sneered that this innovation would “only encourage the common people to move about needlessly.”

For last week’s World Car-Free Day, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, channeled the Duke of Wellington, complaining about the “domination of the car” and called for a new type of society “in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince reportedly owns two Audis, two Jaguars, a Range Rover and an Aston Martin. The Duke of Wellington undoubtedly had other means of getting around the British countryside, but despite being separated in time by two centuries, these two aristocrats had something in common — a distaste for commoners enjoying the mobility to which they themselves were born.

World Car-Free Day appeared, at first glance, to be a lifestyle event — a celebration of living without cars. But it had an underlying political agenda; its organizers call on “governments to help create permanent change to benefit pedestrians, cyclists and other people who do not drive cars.”

And these days, when the air is thick with claims of impending climate catastrophe and the need for so-called sustainability, calls for automotive restrictions are finding an increasingly receptive political audience.

But for most people in this country, the car-free life would be as desirable as being shackled to a ball-and-chain. It is easy to forget the incredibly liberating nature of the automobile. In the 1910s-1920s the car ended the crushing isolation of rural life. In 1955-56, it enabled black people to boycott the segregated buses of Montgomery, Alabama. In the 1970s-1980s, it gave mothers the ability to enter the job market while still getting their kids to day care and putting food on the table. Today, the car allows new immigrants to enter the American mainstream by vastly expanding their choices of where to work and where to live.

Even in cities with well-functioning mass transit, a car can be essential if you’re old or ill, or are carrying babies and groceries, or if the weather’s miserable, or if you’ve got to get somewhere after the busses and subways have closed. It’s no wonder that most promo shots of Car-Free Day events featured only the young and healthy, out on picture-perfect sunny days.

Being able to get around freely is not some superficial desire that can be dismissed as the product of an allegedly car-addicted Western culture. Some Americans may view India and China as countries happily populated by bicyclists and pedestrians, but consumer demand for cars in those countries is booming, especially with the introduction of new low-priced vehicles. The car, it appears, satisfies a pretty basic human need.

A philosophy professor who emigrated here from Eastern Europe once commented on Car-Free Day by noting that, given his time behind the Iron Curtain, he’d already endured enough car-free decades.

Living car-free may be fine for many people during some phases of their lives, and it may be fine for some people for all of their lives, but it’s no way for most of us to live — regardless of what Prince Charles and his fellow aristocrats may think.

A timely article...from 11 years ago

[The Crow Whisperer]

The article still holds up to this day, and the predictions made in the article have come true haven't they?

[Colin May]

Last time I rode a bike it cost the province circa $50,000.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

The article still holds up to this day, and the predictions made in the article have come true haven't they?

In an alarmist sky is falling, dogs will marry cats way, it’s pretty outdated. In 2009, electric cars were generally in development and hybrids were only just emerging. I’m assuming that one of the reasons for car-free day was probably pollution.

But then again, the article is so airy that it doesn’t discuss the reasons why people in the last decade wanted a break from cars.

Pointing out that cars were instrumental in the civil rights movement, women’s equality, rural development or other important changes in American history or class in the western world is simplistic at best.

And maybe it was correct that there will always be a place for cars in society. But it seems to me that if the car free movement pushed for more public spaces in areas that were previously purposed for the automobile,...well, yeah it is outdated and does not seem to be a good prediction of the future.

[The Crow Whisperer]

Yes there is a war on Cars because cars = freedom and the powers-that-be cannot stand that the common people can move about the country willy-nilly. Now they have installed big purple "local only traffic only" signs everywhere for their "Quiet Streets" to soften people up for more Bike Lanes, the purpose of which is to strip away all street parking from the neighborhoods to punish car owners and make owning a car more onerous.

Mancini openly admitted on Rick Howe that "We want to make traffic congestion WORSE to force people out of their cars."

Yes he said Force us out of our cars. We won't outright ban cars we'll just make owning one so impractical that you cant go anywhere in it so you'll be forced to use our buses and bike lanes.

[alps]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

Yes there is a war on Cars because cars = freedom and the powers-that-be cannot stand that the common people can move about the country willy-nilly.

How do you reconcile this grand theory with the reality that highway construction has dominated provincial capital spending for decades?

Mancini openly admitted on Rick Howe that "We want to make traffic congestion WORSE to force people out of their cars."

Yes he said Force us out of our cars. We won't outright ban cars we'll just make owning one so impractical that you cant go anywhere in it so you'll be forced to use our buses and bike lanes.

Nobody has forced you out of your car. On the other hand, cyclists are routinely forced off their bikes by the absence of safe cycling facilities on many routes.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

Yes there is a war on Cars because cars = freedom and the powers-that-be cannot stand that the common people can move about the country willy-nilly. Now they have installed big purple "local only traffic only" signs everywhere for their "Quiet Streets" to soften people up for more Bike Lanes, the purpose of which is to strip away all street parking from the neighborhoods to punish car owners and make owning a car more onerous.

Cars = freedom is very simplistic. Cars have been beneficial in lots of ways, but they’ve also enabled the creation of far-flung and car-dependent suburbs, where huge numbers of people who can’t drive—too old, too young, too poor, or with some mental or physical disabilities—are basically trapped. Mid-century car-centric planning devastated neighbourhoods, ran highways through communities, and left huge scars in them in the form of parking facilities, roads and other car-oriented uses (look at all the housing stock ripped down over the decades in the north end and replaced with autobody shops and the like). They’ve created air and noise pollution (in my neighbourhood in summer, the drone of souped-up sports cars is constant).

So yes, cars had many wonderful benefits, but they’ve also created more than their share of negative effects, in terms of health, community cohesion, and even the aesthetics of our cities. In our cultural enthusiasm for them, we went too far in years past and let them take over. Now we’re winding that back partially, and that’s fine. There is a generation that grew post—1950s thinking cars were the ultimate expression of personal freedom and mobility, and they might be perceive any little rollback on total automobile dominance as a “war” on cars, but that’s their problem to deal with.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Cars = freedom is very simplistic.

Sometimes a simple truth is the most powerful.

Cars have been beneficial in lots of ways, but they’ve also enabled the creation of far-flung and car-dependent suburbs, where huge numbers of people who can’t drive—too old, too young, too poor, or with some mental or physical disabilities—are basically trapped.

Presumably they moved there at some point when they could drive. And are free to move again.

Mid-century car-centric planning devastated neighbourhoods, ran highways through communities, and left huge scars in them in the form of parking facilities, roads and other car-oriented uses (look at all the housing stock ripped down over the decades in the north end and replaced with autobody shops and the like). They’ve created air and noise pollution (in my neighbourhood in summer, the drone of souped-up sports cars is constant).

Any city neighborhood is under constant construction so the point is moot. Look at the number of old 1 and 2-storey wooden buildings wiped out for the construction of office towers and the like. Change is constant anf you cannot go back to the Victorian era.

So yes, cars had many wonderful benefits, but they’ve also created more than their share of negative effects, in terms of health, community cohesion, and even the aesthetics of our cities. In our cultural enthusiasm for them, we went too far in years past and let them take over. Now we’re winding that back partially, and that’s fine. There is a generation that grew post—1950s thinking cars were the ultimate expression of personal freedom and mobility, and they might be perceive any little rollback on total automobile dominance as a “war” on cars, but that’s their problem to deal with.

Hopefully one that is dealt with by voting out those pushing for this sort of revisionism.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sometimes a simple truth is the most powerful.

The purpose of the truth is accuracy, not power.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Change is constant anf you cannot go back to the Victorian era.

Change is constant and you cannot go back to the Cold War era.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Presumably they moved there at some point when they could drive. And are free to move again.

Can everyone in his list really move as easily as you say?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

The purpose of the truth is accuracy, not power.



Change is constant and you cannot go back to the Cold War era.

Zing!

[OldDartmouthMark]

FWIW, I'm in support of providing cyclists with infrastructure, and I don't see a "war on the car", except in the cases of a few 'anti-car' people whose views tend to be more on the extremist side of things, but they are few and far-between in my opinion. I have driven downtown quite a bit recently, during rush hour and mid-day, and as a motorist have not witnessed any extreme chaos due to added cycling lanes, as has been alluded to.

That said, I want to address some of the ideas presented here, adding my opinions as context:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Cars = freedom is very simplistic.

IMHO, the freedom you speak of is more freedom of spirit, not complete unbridled freedom as there are responsibilities attached to car ownership that can make them seem anything but 'freedom' at times. However, taking a historical point of view and speaking from personal experience, the invention of the personal automobile allowed people to readily experience life outside their realm. The ability to go 'anywhere' whenever you want opened up possibilities that just weren't practically available before. This was a huge positive for society in general, but as with almost every benefit in life, there were compromises involved.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Cars have been beneficial in lots of ways, but they’ve also enabled the creation of far-flung and car-dependent suburbs, where huge numbers of people who can’t drive—too old, too young, too poor, or with some mental or physical disabilities—are basically trapped.

IMHO, this is somewhat overstated and skewed. it almost sounds like people have been forced to live in these remote suburbs where they have nothing to do but sit inside their houses and gaze longingly out of the window as they can't go anywhere.

I think a more realistic viewpoint is that people who live in the suburbs have chosen to live there and most will have family members to support them, just as they would if they lived in a starkly urban environment (which is an option if the suburbs are too confining).

The salient point really seems to be that many (not all) suburban neighbourhoods should have had better design, and the cities should not have allowed developers to build on the cheap (i.e. with no sidewalks in some cases). While some will point to this as being car-oriented design, in reality it's a case of letting developers off too easily in construction costs and trying to reduce future maintenance costs for the city.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Mid-century car-centric planning devastated neighbourhoods, ran highways through communities, and left huge scars in them in the form of parking facilities, roads and other car-oriented uses (look at all the housing stock ripped down over the decades in the north end and replaced with autobody shops and the like).

This feels a little one-sided IMHO.

You say that expressways running through neighbourhoods have caused devastation, and yes there is some truth to that in the neighbourhoods adjacent to those roads, but you leave out that cars have allowed industrial businesses to move out of some neighbourhoods and relocate to parts of the city planned for industrial use, therefore reducing pollution, noise, truck traffic, etc. in the areas they moved out of.

The open parking areas that you speak of were in many cases created because the land did not have a more viable use - a building was torn down and the land owner felt that paving it and charging people to park there was more economically viable than paying tax on a vacant lot. We see that reversing now as the market has switched to the point that there is now a business case to build on these vacant lots - and surface parking lots are disappearing even though there are more cars in the city than there have ever been.

In terms of "autobody shops" in the north end, I can't say that I'm aware of any more of them than any other type of business, but again... it's business. There wasn't a plot by the automotive industry to tear down houses and punish local residents by forcing them to live near unsavoury automotive businesses, there was a business case created by land values and zoning regulations that allowed those businesses to locate there. If it hadn't been car-oriented businesses it would have been some other type of business.

Comparing older maps and atlases to today's situation, there are actually more residential areas in the north end now than there were 100 years ago, and the north end is considered to be a desirable, and somewhat trendy, place to live... and there are more cars on the road now than ever. Heck, there used to even be a jail (Rockhead Prison) there, which was not a result of 'car oriented society'. The area containing CFB Willow Park, which is about to have a residential building built on it at the south end, was once the location of a rail yard and across the street was once a race track (next to the current Halifax Forum property).

The area of the north end populated by all those car dealerships, fast food outlets and strip malls was unoccupied land which developed into industrial usage and eventually car dealerships - no thriving residential neighbourhoods were ever torn down to create car-oriented businesses on that land.

In other words, there was not a plot to destroy neighbourhoods and replace residences with car bodyshops. This statement would be no more accurate than the NIMBY claims that there is a plot to ruin neighbourhoods by building tall apartment/condo buildings in the middle of them (which most people here regularly state are unreasonable views).

Originally Posted by Drybrain

They’ve created air and noise pollution (in my neighbourhood in summer, the drone of souped-up sports cars is constant).

Air pollution, sure, although emissions regulations and technological advancements over the years have vastly reduced the air pollution created by cars - which will advance even more as hybrid and fully electric cars become the norm. Motorcycles, however, are unregulated and pollute the same amount now as they did decades ago.

Noise? Well, I can't speak to your experience, but most of the noise I hear on the roads in non-winter seasons would be attributed to motorcycles, who seem to be able to get away with running loud exhaust systems, or no mufflers at all in the case of some Harleys. Yes, even still there are lots of noisy cars around, but from what I've noticed 99% of them are young guys who have installed 'fart cans' on their compact cars to make them sound sporty, and likewise young pickup truck drivers who also seem to like the push the limits of exhaust noise regulations. There are actually very few noisy sports cars on the road that I've seen.

There are noise regulations that could be enforced, if there was the political will to have them enforced, BTW.

If your idea is to force these people to ride bicycles instead of driving cars or trucks, and to dampen their enthusiasm for their 'sporty' vehicles, then this would sound like forcing one's values on others, and would perhaps add fuel the argument that there is a 'war on the car'?

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So yes, cars had many wonderful benefits, but they’ve also created more than their share of negative effects, in terms of health, community cohesion, and even the aesthetics of our cities. In our cultural enthusiasm for them, we went too far in years past and let them take over. Now we’re winding that back partially, and that’s fine. There is a generation that grew post—1950s thinking cars were the ultimate expression of personal freedom and mobility, and they might be perceive any little rollback on total automobile dominance as a “war” on cars, but that’s their problem to deal with.

I mostly agree with your last statement, or at least I can see how somebody would view it this way. There are still many people who view cars as the ultimate expression of personal freedom, and not all from one generation, but this is a free, democratic society, so it's OK for people to have different opinions on different things - in fact IMHO this richens our society, it doesn't destroy it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Cars have been beneficial in lots of ways, but they’ve also enabled the creation of far-flung and car-dependent suburbs, where huge numbers of people who can’t drive—too old, too young, too poor, or with some mental or physical disabilities—are basically trapped.

Additionally, I could play devil's advocate here and state that these very people would not benefit from a bicycle-centric society. Cars have actually helped abilities-challenged people to escape their homes and neighbourhoods and go places where they would not have been able to otherwise. Many with the help of others in the form of friends, family members, taxi drivers, etc., but also on their own, as I have known people who do not have use of their legs being able to drive their own cars using hand controls - they toss their wheelchairs in the back, or in some cases have vans designed for wheelchair use, and away they go.

I am supportive of cycling as a good way to get around, with many benefits to society in general... but the elephant in the room is that it does absolutely nothing for anybody with physical or mental limitations that are not able to ride a bicycle, and it does provide the most benefit to young, healthy adults.

So please, let's see things as they really are. Bicycling is mostly a niche activity that will hopefully catch on as infrastructure improves the riding situation, but it is not, nor will it ever be, the be-all end-all for everybody. There will always be a need for other forms of transportation, and currently the car is the best one available that serves the most people - the future will probably reveal a better form of conveyance, but for the masses this will not likely be the bicycle.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You say that expressways running through neighbourhoods have caused devastation, and yes there is some truth to that in the neighbourhoods adjacent to those roads, but you leave out that cars have allowed industrial businesses to move out of some neighbourhoods and relocate to parts of the city planned for industrial use, therefore reducing pollution, noise, truck traffic, etc. in the areas they moved out of.

All we have to do is look at the Cogswell to see an area where literally thousands of people were displaced by government fiat to accomodate auto infrastructure. Smaller-scale examples of that can be found across the region, and larger examples in other cities. Some American cities were more or less dismantled for the purposes of running expressways through them. That's not explicitly the fault of cars so much as poor planning--but our societal over-enthusiasm for car infrastructure resulted in the degradation and in many cases total elimination of entire communities. That's not an exaggeration.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In terms of "autobody shops" in the north end, I can't say that I'm aware of any more of them than any other type of business, but again... it's business. There wasn't a plot by the automotive industry to tear down houses and punish local residents by forcing them to live near unsavoury automotive businesses, there was a business case created by land values and zoning regulations that allowed those businesses to locate there. If it hadn't been car-oriented businesses it would have been some other type of business.

Probably hundreds of houses were torn down over the decades to make way for streetscapes that look like this, or this, or this, or this, or this. Every other block has one of these in some areas, and there are a couple where entire blocks have been largely razed and converted to garages. It's strange enough that I had a friend visiting from out-of-town last year remark upon all the "car businesses" in the neighbourhood, and she wasn't a super-urbanist type who would be attuned to that sort of thing. It's not normal to have this many garages and parking lots and so forth littered across a single neighbourhood.

I'm not saying there was any plot to do so, but it was an unfortunate consequence of the under-valuing of urban neighbourhoods and the aforementioned enthusiasm for all things automobile.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If your idea is to force these people to ride bicycles instead of driving cars or trucks, and to dampen their enthusiasm for their 'sporty' vehicles, then this would sound like forcing one's values on others, and would perhaps add fuel the argument that there is a 'war on the car'?

No one wants to force anyone to do anything, that's a red herring. The idea is to create more infrastructure for other road users as well and create alternatives, especially at the level of individual neighbourhoods, or adjoining neighbourhoods. If cars have gotten 95 percent of the road space and infrastructure spending over the past half-century, any change in that status quo may appear to be a "war" on the car, but it's just providing more choice. And sure, it will probably mean people's drive time may be lengthened or their convenience mildly curtailed, but that's in the interest of rebalancing things, and creating more convenience, efficiency--and more importantly, safety--for people who choose other modes of transport.

And let's not forget that most people who are cyclists and pedestrians are also drivers. Most people who advocate for cycling infrastructure aren't trying to induce some large-scale social-engineering project to force everyone out of cars and make bikes the dominant means of transportation. This is a false notion. But a city of Halifax's size and compactness (centrally speaking, and in the inner suburbs) can easily become the kind of place where a very substantial percentage of trips happen by bike. Compare to Victoria, where seven percent of commuters cycle to work. That's a city in most ways not much different than Halifax. And seven percent of all trips, not just commuting, happen by bicycle in the city (not CMA) of Vancouver, up from four percent in 2013.

Those cities have less severe winters, but we can look at cities like Ottawa and Winnipeg and Montreal, with longer and/or colder winters than Halifax, and see even better numbers. In some parts of central Montreal, fully one-fifth of trips are by bicycle, and in some parts of Winnipeg, around 15 percent. For that matter, 10 percent of commuting trips originating in the South End already happen by bike. There's plenty of room to expand and improve those numbers throughout the regional centre, which will reduce pollution, reduce congestion, etc.

[The Crow Whisperer]

Why do the People With The Correct Opinions(TM) despise cars so much?

Is it because cars cause pollution? Well, we improved catalytic converters and took the sulfur out of the gas, and reduced smog.

Then they moved the goal posts from smog to global warming and then to climate change. But Mancini said we are to be forced out of our cars, he didn't say forced out of our gas or diesel cars and into EV or hydrogen cars, he said CARS.

If cars are bad because they cause traffic congestion, then build more hiways and roads better to reduce congestion. But the planners are deliberately causing congestion. Mancini said "congestion is a tool we can use to force people out of their cars."

So if the problem isn't smog, climate change or congestion, then what is it? The answer: the problem is the car itself.

Simple: Cars = freedom.

Central Planners and Social Engineers really do just cannot stand the idea of the common man owning a private car, that should be a privilege reserved for Party Members only. Private car ownership = people can't be cowed into behaving the way the planners think they should behave. The People With The Correct Opinions expect everyone who lives in Clayton Park to ride their bikes to the Lacewood Bus terminal, park their bikes in the palatial extravagant bike shelter, then ride to bus downtown to work or school. But people say "F that I'll just drive." That drives the Planners Crazy.
Why do we have "Quiet Streets" and Local Traffic Only neighborhoods now? Remember when we had freedom to move in our own country on the roads we pay taxes for? After the pandemic is over do you think they will end the Quiet Streets and Local Traffic Only Neighborhoods?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

that (car ownership) should be a privilege reserved for Party Members only.

No doubt so they can get to their dachas out in the country for the weekends.

Meanwhile the proletariate can sweat all summer in their commie blocks downtown............

Just kidding BTW.