In order to make new travel decisions, we must have viable choice

Calgarians want reasonable mobility alternatives

There was an article in the Herald in August that reported on new numbers reflecting a change in Calgarians’ commuting habits over the past 5 years. The basic conclusion is nicely summed up in the title: Carpooling and cycling increase while majority opt to drive. The article dovetailed nicely with the 1 millionth trip recorded on the cycle track network, and for that reason generated some interesting reactions from people in the public sphere.

My own initial reaction to the Herald article and the cycle track numbers was something along the lines of “hey look, the cycle tracks are doing their job”. Cycling infrastructure has caused people to commute by bike from farther out, and given more people the confidence to navigate the downtown core. This is the positive, healthy side of induced demand that is problematic for car traffic.

On the other hand, some of the responses I saw indicated a misunderstanding of what I see as the fundamental goal of the cycle track: providing a viable alternative to the default option. The Herald article is clear enough evidence that in our city the default option is a single occupancy vehicle.

Sometimes, city decision makers can miss the point of the excitement that is generated by this type of news. Councillor Keating is a strong supporter of the new Green Line LRT, and has talked about the direct effect induced demand has had on not improving Deerfoot congestion. From what I can tell he understands the critical role transit and cycling can play in improving the lives of Calgarians. Still, he felt the need to come to the “defense” of drivers in the midst all this positive transportation hubub:

Being transit and pedstrian friendly is great progress for #yyc but we can’t ignore that some still need cars https://t.co/d5ow6ijoHG #yyccc — Shane Keating (@CouncillorKeats) August 15, 2016

Sometimes (in this case potential) decision makers bring that confusion to a whole new level by introducing strong rhetoric into the conversation and producing seemingly conflicting arguments. Here’s Ward 11 candidate Jeromy Farkas in response to the issue:

Let’s expand the quality of mobility choices available & trust families to make informed decisions #yyccc #yycbike pic.twitter.com/xQgmTYXoYt — Jeromy Farkas (@JeromyYYC) August 17, 2016

I’m going to pick on this Tweet in particular (sorry Mr. Farkas) because it really ties up in a bow one of the major confusions that I hear when people oppose spending money and space on alternatives to our city’s default option. In the attached image, Farkas gets right to the point by introducing a Fox News-esque “war on cars” and, as Keating does, makes sure to explicitly defend cars as if they are under attack. This is the type of language polarizes the discussion of an issue that is not binary. It’s even more confusing when contrasted with another portion of the Tweet: “Let’s expand the quality of mobility choices available”.

As far as I can tell, Farkas does support the cycle track and transit to some degree, and so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is more concerned with expanding mobility choices than he is with opposing any transportation initiatives that don’t make it explicitly easier to drive around Calgary. If that is the case (hopefully Mr. Farkas can clarify at some point), then he must understand the real issue here: People have a fundamental desire to get around easily. Driving is not the default for Calgarians because they have a fundamental desire to drive, but because there often is no real choice for them. In many cases, driving is the only option, but given good alternatives it is often not the best option. If Farkas supports quality choices, he must first understand this. When Calgarians are given a viable choice, many of them will use that choice.

I hope Keating, Farkas, and anyone else who responded similarly to that article will consider this. It is not desire that is creating design, it is design that is creating desire. Many articles at Spur The New West show how design can conflict with desire or reveal desires that were hidden. In all of these discussions we must look at what people fundamentally desire instead of just their current behaviour. In the case of transportation it’s mobility, and in a city, that means efficient, useful, and effective choices.

