Comment 72468

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2011 at 18:06:31 in reply to Comment 72447

Your question assumes the status quo is desirable, and then seeks to ask "can we have bike lanes that serve both without unduly disrupting" the status quo. Additionally it sees bike service as something de facto less desirable than transit, transport and auto traffic, as bike lanes cannot "unduly disrupt" the other three, but presumably the other three can unduly disrupt biking all they want.

Who is to say the present balance is acceptable, and that we should avoid "unduly disrupting" it? Perhaps unduly disrupting the status quo is exactly what needs to be done?

You need a more neutral question, like, Given the current road widths in many parts of Hamilton what is the appropriate mix of cycling, public transit, auto traffic, and commercial goods transport which the city should pursue in order to best meet its stated objectives (e.g. the best place to raise a child)?

Hand in hand with that question should be, When planning new developments, what is the appropriate mix of cycling, public transit, auto traffic and commercial goods transport which the city should be aspiring to in order to best meet its stated objectives?

Then you'll be able to do a multi-faceted weighing of the importance of commercial transport, public transit, auto traffic,a nd cycling not only to economic development and travel times, but also to their impact on the environment, on health, on the development of livable/walkable cities, and all the other factors needed to be the best place to raise a child. I'm not saying walkable streets trump economic development, but I don't think economic development should trump walkable streets either. The two should be balanced, and its up to the city, through its citizens, to decide where that balance should be.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds