By following the debates on the policy of mobility in the city, one could believe that a real cultural battle has taken place. Cycling, public transport, car or walking: the choice of mode of transport ceases to be a practical question to become ideological and moral, an identity marker.
Yet we all know that is not the case. Most of us are, in turn, pedestrians, public transport users, motorists or cyclists. “A pedestrian is a person who goes to get his car,” said Frédéric Dard. Today, the trains are also full of people who go to get their cars. And the roads filled with motorists who rejoice to walk in the city.
“In the 1960s, Lausanne dismantled its tram lines to make room for cars.”
Challenging simplistic contrasts makes it possible to pose the central question, yet often overlooked, that of the distribution of a limited resource. Space in the city is not expandable. We must therefore arbitrate. Do politics.
In this context, making maximalist promises to all modes of transport, as demanded by the supposed defenders of freedom, is an illusion. In the same street, wanting to both lay out a cycle path, widen the sidewalk, create a reserved lane for the bus while preserving space for cars, is like wanting to spend the same amount of money four times over. It does not work. And to demand that everyone be able to go everywhere by car at all times is not to make free choice reign. It is to organize traffic jams.
There is no reason to demonize the car, any more than other modes of transport. Let us simply remember that the place of car traffic in our cities is not a natural given. In the inter-war period, it had to be imposed, often against the will of the inhabitants.
In the 1960s, Lausanne dismantled its tram lines to make room for cars, a project that even the staunchest defenders of the individual vehicle would no longer support. Conversely, the pedestrian areas of Lausanne, decried by shopkeepers when they were created, are now part of the heritage.
let’s be concrete
Our debates on mobility in the city therefore deserve better than sterile and moralizing oppositions. Let’s talk about concrete things: children who live in the city, and who dream of wider sidewalks. Elderly people who no longer have a car and rely on regular and punctual buses. Tomorrow’s cyclists, who also have a car in the garage but will leave it there a little longer if the tracks are secure. Neighborhoods, often popular, crossed by very busy and too noisy roads. Of those who arrive in town by car, but are ready to complete the journey by public transport if it is cheap and reliable.
Let’s talk about a new urban social contract. Without building unnecessary conflicts. But by accepting that the city must be shared.
You found an error?Please let us know.
– Let’s talk about a new urban social contract
Benoît Gaillard would like a calm and constructive debate on the distribution of space in the city.
Benoit Gaillard