In an Edmonton Journal editorial on driving there is the following statement: “People drive in cities like Edmonton because the combination of cost and convenience makes it more attractive to them . . . than the alternative.” See “Driving isn’t like junk food,” The Journal, May 20, 2010.
Who can deny the claim? Of course, in cities like Edmonton, the combination of cost and convenience makes driving more attractive than the alternative. That’s because we’ve loaded the dice and shaved the deck in the driver’s favour.
In cities like Edmonton, wherever life’s journey takes us, we expect the roads to be smooth, the fuel cheap, and the parking free; yet the cost of it all, whether we are aware of it or not, unfairly subsidized and the ramifications—a persistent cough, suburban sprawl, polluted skies, degraded landscapes, oiled oceans, political turmoil, a warming globe—ignored.
There is a connection here.
I contend that if all the costs are taken into account, driving would be the least attractive mode of transport in cities like Edmonton.