Right because everyone needing a car means everyone who can’t afford one just automatically gets one.
Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.
Charge the rich. Build for the poor. Better yet, charge the rich, build for everyone. Not just cars. Because not everyone has cars.
Like FFS “good job now the poor can’t drive” is hardly a comeback when it’s like the most expensive mode of transit, massively subsidized with taxpayer money, just to kind of make it work. It wasn’t something that could be made affordable or even efficient enough for everyone to use on a daily basis to begin with.
Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.
Why can’t you start building shit before reducing their numbers? I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
What was that saying again, something along the lines of: A great city is not where the poor own and drive cars, but the rich take public transportation.
More that roads are for high occupancy or professional vehicles - buses, ambulances, construction vehicles, commercial trucks - that still need access to Manhattan but can’t be placed on a train.
I should not need to explain why running an ambulance down a bike lane is a bad idea.
Construction vehicles, commercial trucks --> single lane road
Why would reducing the number of road lanes without implementing congestion pricing be a preferable solution? How would this improve access to construction vehicles and wide-body trucks?
No, you should explain why ambulances using bike lanes is a problem as multiple european countries do that and it works perfectly.
Because reducing lanes means less people will use the road because if you literally cant get anywhere with a car you will use an alternative(of course that has to be provided). Also this is another european thing but you can just ban cars that are not there to do stuff(idk what they call it english but in hungarian its “célforgalom”).
Nice. Now cars are only for the rich like they should be.
Real solution: Ban cars in parts of NYC.
Right because everyone needing a car means everyone who can’t afford one just automatically gets one.
Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.
Charge the rich. Build for the poor. Better yet, charge the rich, build for everyone. Not just cars. Because not everyone has cars.
Like FFS “good job now the poor can’t drive” is hardly a comeback when it’s like the most expensive mode of transit, massively subsidized with taxpayer money, just to kind of make it work. It wasn’t something that could be made affordable or even efficient enough for everyone to use on a daily basis to begin with.
Zippity zoppity let’s redistribute some property
Cut to me dramatically removing my “fuck cars” jacket like a Yakuza character to reveal a “fuck private property” t-shirt
Why can’t you start building shit before reducing their numbers? I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
Of course you can. I’m using “step one” as a figure of speech to express importance.
Controlling vehicle numbers is a very “low hanging fruit” that can do a lot to improve things for a very low cost.
What was that saying again, something along the lines of: A great city is not where the poor own and drive cars, but the rich take public transportation.
- Gustavo Petro, current president of Colombia, former mayor of Bogota
I feel like what this good intentioned quote misses is that the poor are priced out of the city core entirely and pushed into banlieus
More that roads are for high occupancy or professional vehicles - buses, ambulances, construction vehicles, commercial trucks - that still need access to Manhattan but can’t be placed on a train.
Buses --> tram
Ambulances --> single lane road/biking path
Construction vehicles, commercial trucks --> single lane road
Problem solved, no need for cars inside the city
I should not need to explain why running an ambulance down a bike lane is a bad idea.
Why would reducing the number of road lanes without implementing congestion pricing be a preferable solution? How would this improve access to construction vehicles and wide-body trucks?
No, you should explain why ambulances using bike lanes is a problem as multiple european countries do that and it works perfectly.
Because reducing lanes means less people will use the road because if you literally cant get anywhere with a car you will use an alternative(of course that has to be provided). Also this is another european thing but you can just ban cars that are not there to do stuff(idk what they call it english but in hungarian its “célforgalom”).
A video posted by La Flamme Rouge shows the emergency vehicle approaching the pack head on as it drives around a corner on a narrow stretch of road.
You know that ambulances also cause accidents on roads?
What does that have to do with the OP?
True wealth is not needing to drive a car at all.
Banning cars actually works really well if you can prepare parking spaces or fully focus public transport
Source: Taksim Street
Please elaborate the “if you can prepare parking spaces” part.
Multistory and underground parking spaces with a toll on how long a car stays, turkey has İSPARK which maintains this
This’ll both allow people with cars to travel here, and will also lead to people preferring to walk or use public transport
The profit incentive to build parking is through the roof in NYC, they can charge a ton for parking, and there’s still not enough.