|
|
| Re: What Really Causes Traffic Congestion (1234171) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: What Really Causes Traffic Congestion |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 10 23:05:09 2013, in response to Re: What Really Causes Traffic Congestion, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 10 21:48:36 2013. You can't compare the $27 billion to the $7 billion. Most of the country is not urban where subways are appropriate. Money has to be spent on highways there. If you are going to compare money spent on highways vs. ass transit, it only makes sense if you do it for an area where you have a choice of spending it on mass transit or highways. I really doubt we spend more money in NYC on highways than we do on mass transit. Do you have those numbers?I never said the AAA doesn't have political interests, only that they no longer carry the same amount of power they once did. I never shut out viable alternatives to automobile traffic. You are reading what you want to read, not what I wrote. I said tat SBS is not a panacea. I believe it's usefulness is exaggerated. It saves money for the MTA, but little time for users. For example, we read that the new Webster Avenue SBS will save riders up to 10 minutes. That's not huge because most riders do not ride the entire SBS route. The average savings may be closer to 5 minutes, and it isn't clear if those savings even include the extra walk to te SBS stop so the average savings may even be less. I stated fixing route inefficiencies in many cases would save more time than an SBS route. Riding a bicycle is not a viable alternative to driving a car, but you just believe that it is and refuse to accept tat it isn't. Solutions 1 and 6 are totally different, not the same. Reducing car traffic is different from reducing automobile traffic. You just want to lump all vehicles into a single category. Why don't you propose delivering all our goods using bicycle messengers? Strategies to reduce congestion are not ridiculous. People like you believe congestion is a good thing because it discourages driving, except instead of calling it what is it "traffic congestion", you renamed it as "traffic calming." You don't care who you inconvenience. And reducing congestion does not result in the building of new highways. Where is your source that it does? Oh, you don't need sources, only I do. |
|
|
|