Does prioritizing active transport and public transport necessarily mean disincentivizing motorized transport?

Ask any transport professional who's accomplished anything (and those still fighting lol) the answer is: yes. Here's why. 1/n

There's only so much space to go around! Actually I could end the thread here but let's go on.

A history of decisions segregated land such that motorized transport was the only dignified way to get around. Don't believe me? Walk along C-5 and ask yourself how you feel. 2/n

Even if we wanted to make walking and cycling more dignified today, there isn't a way to do it on most streets unless you remove motor vehicles from road lanes. This is because motor vehicles are inherently dangerous to other road users especially if operated carelessly. 3/n

Many suggest going elevated/underground with shiny concept art. This is a multi-layered value statement: we will improve sustainable transpo only if 1) we don't reduce car lanes 2) we can raise the huge funds required and 3) walkers/bikers accept difficulty in changing levels 4/n

This is why an elevated bike/pedestrian superhighway over EDSA has never happened and will never happen. It's because the people who push those ideas hold car culture more sacred than the basic human safety and dignity of people without cars. 5/n

It's also the same thought behind those people who say "I love public transport ! But only subways, not BRT " because BRT involves taking land away from driving and from car culture. 6/n

If you don't want to or can't recreate streets in the time required, the only other way to improve sustainable transport is to reduce car volumes because of 1) the inherent danger to active transport and 2) the congestion that blocks public transport. Aka road/fuel taxes. 7/n

Anyway, to sum up: any statement that says we can improve sustainable transport modes without making driving just a little bit harder is also a statement that sustainable transport just doesn't. Matter. That much. Remember this when you hear it. 8/8