After living in the Northwest Territories for a month, I can confidently say that I’m a happy driver of my Ford F-150. I work about an hour walk away, along a dirt road with not a sidewalk in sight. Quads and side-by-sides rip around on dirt roads left and right, and the neighbours’ off-leash dog barks just aggressively enough to caution me from passing nearby. Back when I was a resident of Langford, I was not nearly this happy about my commute by car. So, what’s the difference up here?
The town I currently inhabit sits with a population of approximately 3,000, so—clearly—density and population size are key players in this discussion. With an estimated population of about 400,000 in the Greater Victoria area, transportation is in much higher demand; a small town of 3,000 usually lets you commute to work with only a few cars in sight. As populations increase, the complexity of transportation follows suit, and municipalities must dedicate more time toward the discussion of alleviating traffic concerns. But, of course, “traffic” wasn’t always about just automobiles.
Since the post-war boom of the 1940s, suburbanites in North America have relied on cars as population density pushed them further away from city centres. This is known as “suburban sprawl,” where large plots of land are developed with lower density and less amenities in between neighbourhoods. There’s now data to show that living in suburban sprawl can be directly correlated with living a more sedentary and isolated lifestyle, since commuting takes up precious time that you could otherwise use to socialize or walk around.
As a domino effect of suburban sprawl, cities began to prioritize car-centric designs to cater towards this wider cultural shift. This meant prioritizing multi-lane freeways and parking lots, while deprioritizing multi-modal transportation initiatives—such as bike lanes, street cars, or sidewalks. The problem with centralizing cars is that it neglects the broader picture—or, more specifically, the people who weren’t on board with cars to begin with.
One of the largest critiques of car-centric cities is the loss of accessible, convenient public transportation. Take, for example, Toronto’s subway line, which was built as a traffic-relief project for cars commuting through downtown. The city of Toronto was built around a well-developed streetcar system, but with the introduction of automobile drivers in the post-war period, streetcar traffic came under fire for taking up too much space. The subway system was then developed in 1954, although it received incredible backlash from its riders due to the poor layout and design.
When rapid transit is developed for the benefit of drivers instead of the benefit of those who will use them, it also disproportionately affects marginalized groups, who are more often socio-economically impacted and are therefore more likely to rely on public transportation options.
To circle back to my original position, I believe the point of this argument is not to outlaw cars outright. I’m incredibly grateful that I have a safer means of transportation where I’m living, and even back at home I value the freedom of my driver’s license, as it allows me to carry out a healthy work/life balance. The issue lies with municipalities being incentivized to invest in infrastructure that supports car-centric design strategies rather than equitable transportation initiatives that don’t require inhabitants spend all their savings to access.