|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1578078) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:27:47 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jun 11 12:41:44 2021. > A bike is not a suitable alternative for many for most trips.I don't know what this means. Most people can't ride a bike? Most people don't have safe bike routes near them? Most people are carrying luggage or work tools most trips? I doubt anything will come close to replacing walking as the mode with the highest share of city trips and transit as the mode with the highest share of commuting trips. The tools for making our streets more walkable and bikeable and better for bus transit mostly go hand-in-hand. The capacity of 12 feet of road space is higher when used as a bus lane or a two-way bike lane than carrying vehicles with mostly one occupant. The average travel speed of vehicles Manhattan avenues declined from 2012-2019 because of the proliferation of for-hire vehicles and truck deliveries, even as the number of vehicles entering Manhattan has steadily decreased over the past 20 years. > your ridiculous example of a 55 mph speed limit on city streets That wasn't my example. The previous poster claimed that anything that lowered fuel economy was bad for the environment, and by that logic, city streets that don't permit such high speeds are bad for the environment. Not that it matters much anyway as fuel economy is a poor metric to judge the environmental sense of a given policy. |
|
|
|