|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1578244) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 13:30:13 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:11:09 2021. No it wouldn't. Making them less vehicle friendly would ony work with significant improvements to mass transit. That means new rapid transit lines and doubling the frequency of buses and network redesign to better serve the people and eliminating double fares. NONE OF THAT IS ON THE TABLE.Making the streets less vehicle friendly without these improvements will only accelerate middle class flight. No one is arguing that making streets car-friendly in and of itself is the solution, but rather an effective solution when done in tandem with increasing public transportation. The problem is that politicians are too afraid to put any real investment into improving our public transportation because of the amount of tax revenue that the auto industry generates as well as the baffling prevalence of anti-public transit NIMBYs in this city where the majority of residents don't own a car. 🤔 Streetcars weren't taken out of service because they couldn't compete with autos. They were removed because of the huge conspiracy by oil companies and auto companies. Almost every major city in America used to have a streetcar, and they were without a doubt a fast and efficient way to get around town before the automobile. Once the automobile was invented, streetcars that were able to carry dozens of passengers were jilted for automobiles that took up ~100 square feet for each driver who used to get around by streetcar. All of those automobiles of course meant traffic, and once all of the roads were gridlocked by traffic, streetcars became too slow to effective and had to be taken out of commission, leaving cars as the only way to get around, and forcing once walkable cities to build around cars, tearing down homes and businesses to build large concrete plots where your car can sleep for 8 1/2 hours a day. Walkable cities built around public transit is a great idea. But unfortunately we don't have that here. If you want some to be built where there is vacant land, I have no problem with that. But we have what we have and we have to deal with it effectively. Thinking that everyone should, could and would ride a bike by destroying your option to use your personal vehicle is not the right path and will have detrimental results including higher fatalities and devastating effects on the economy as the middle class seeks greener pastures. As I explained above, the personal automobile is the least efficient mode of transportation, and in an ideal world would be prioritized as such. It's less about screwing over drivers and more about being able to move the maximum amount of people in a fast and efficient manner, something that the personal automobile just can't do. As has already been mentioned, it looks like the problem isn't Anti-car democrats, but rather Anti-public transit politicians who are misled by their misinformed constituents. I'm waiting for the day when the city says enough is enough and finally puts some real investment into the public transportation system, vocal minority NIMBYs be damned. Sure, it would suck for some people near 31st Street/Astoria Blvd to lose their homes and businesses, but the Astoria line needs to be extended to LGA already to give an example. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|