Please listen to a non…

Please listen to a non-Liberal’s informed understanding about a ‘Cars-first’ vs ‘Mixed-transport’ transportation system. It is 7 very short points, and will take no time to read.

My goal is to advocate for efficiency and economic benefit. I am not an anti-car radical.

There is no such thing as a “war-on-cars”. Traffic engineering is not a “culture war”. This is about efficient transportation and the benefits of a mixed-transport system, including economic and health.

The following applies primarily to urban & suburban environments, as opposed to heavily rural areas, who have different needs.

This is a brief run-down of an informed understanding of how a cars-first commuting system affects traffic, as well as health and economic outcomes.

1A) Traffic is caused by cars on the road.

1B) The majority of car trips are one-driver, zero-passenger, zero-cargo. These trips could be done more efficiently with mixed-transport, from cycling to public transport and more.

1C) Trips transporting multiple passengers, cargo including materials and equipment, utility vehicles, emergency vehicles and freight, etc. do not contribute to traffic significantly. Leisure driving also does not contribute significantly to traffic.

2) More car lanes DO NOT decrease traffic. Additional lanes fill with cars resulting in the same volume of traffic but with more cars on the road. This does not decrease traffic on the roadway and increases congestion everywhere else on the road network.

3) Cycling REDUCES cars on the road.

4) People need SAFE & COMPLETE cycling routes. Without this, they will not feel safe and will not cycle. A significant number of trips taken by car every day could easily be taken by cycle, but cannot accomplish this with an incomplete cycling network.

5) Local economies LOOSE MONEY when there is only car infrastructure. Local economies GAIN MONEY when they reduce car-first infrastructure in favour of MIXED-TRANSPORT infrastructure.

6) Travel is ground to a halt and at the same time, a chaotic, stressful, dangerous mess when it is built for cars first.

7A) EVERY person, driver, cyclist, pedestrian, experiences massive of stress navigating the cars-first transportation system. This stress represents a significant, meaningful and immediate public health concern that could easily be mitigated by mixed-transport infrastructure.

7B) Mixed-transport results in positive health outcomes not limited to the benefits of walking and cycling. Reduced stress, reduced emissions and particulate matter and reduced noise pollution are just a few.

7C) Increased positive health outcomes directly result in reduced healthcare costs and increased economic productivity.

CONCLUSION:

Cars-first is inefficient. Cars-first is expensive to the individual and to the economy. Cars-first is dangerous and bad for public health.

Mixed-transport is efficient. Mixed-transport makes money. Mixed-transport increases health, saving even more money.

Mixed-transport is just good engineering.

Mixed-transport SAVES MONEY and MAKES THINFS FASTER.

Mixed-transport is CONSERVATIVE.

Mixed-transport is conservative.

Thank you for your time.