Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
Ah, so you are pointing out cause and effect... and not placing a value on it? If so, your use of "anti-motoring" as a label makes this less than clear. These are policies, yes, but their intent isn't to keep cars off the road. Their intent, in all cases, is to keep urban sprawl in check - a more descriptive term would be "anti-sprawl policies". The effect these policies have on motorists and car travel is secondary. By way of showing this, I was making the point that these "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, enabled by the motoring public. Hence, at the very least, the "anti-motoring" label is a misnomer. I assumed, perhaps errantly, that you used this non-descriptive and retorically loaded (in terms of this discussion) term in order to make a retorical point.
I agree. Though it's technically accurate, I think it's semantically misleading to label a policy or program "anti-X" when the intent of the program or policy, or the motivation behind it, is not necessarily to oppose X.
To illustrate an extreme example... it's like accusing prescription eyeglass companies of being "anti-20/20", since they do not cater to people with 20/20 vision.
Semantics aside, by pointing out that motoring challenges (including the difficulties and costs of parking as well as the list of reasons he provided) are why cycling has gained popularity in Portland, Forester supported his refutation of Gene's claim, which is how this particular discussion started:
Originally Posted by
John Forester
Originally Posted by
genec
... in Portland, where there is NO difference in social and urban conditions compared to similar sized US cities.
Portland OR has the strongest, and very complex, set of anti-motoring regulations of any significant city in the USA. (The exceptions are summer resort communities such as Martha's Vineyard).
Portland's cyclists do so because motoring has become difficult.