That’s a good point to illustrate the importance of banning cars for personal transportation; all of the traffic is making your partner’s job slower and more stressful
Yeah, but I believe she did this because the domocrat leaders in the House and the Senate (who both happen to be from Brooklyn) thought the unpopularity of congestion pricing amoung swing voters may cause Republicans to win the house of representatives.
Now they aren’t going to vote for another 2 years, when congestion pricing will probably be popular, so it’s safe to get it done now
This fun city nerd video is somewhat relevant: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsbkvsyN-O8 Cities where the lowest percent of median income goes to median (housing + transportation). The winners were Seattle and San Francisco. This suggests that salaries may be able to compensate for increased housing costs. Of course, a longitudinal study would be necessary to answer this question.
Places without off-street parking mandates still usually have on-street and even off-street parking
The problem comes when people who insist on living away from civilization demand the perks of civilization by being able to drive to a city and park their cars for free.
This becomes very expensive, and degrades the quality of life of those who live in the City.
That puts you at an extreme, where there are not many like you. So I don’t care if you have a gas car. But you should not stand in the way for most people to live more ethicaly, without a car. Support dense cities so there are plenty of pristine caves for hermits to live in.
In America, it’s 5:1 urban to rural. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html
And the threshold for rural is 500 people per square mile. So the 5 minutes to neighbor is at a rare extreme. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acsgeo-1.pdf
You can have nice land to work on in rural village. Being miles from your neighbor is not a sustainable way to live. And probably not healthy for a social animal like humans.
Transit between rural villages and the nearest city is possible and has been implemented in other countries
Very few people ought to be living that way. I think it’s fine for those people to use ICE cars. I also don’t care very much if the tractors use fossil fuels.
I see, my favorite podcast (“A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs”)[https://500songs.com/] has no ads. I’d strongly recommend if your interested in that kind of music
I don’t understand what you mean. I just skip the ads with my skip 30 seconds button.
George W Bush won the popular vote in 2004
If you’re doing it over an app, without the chance for the person you’re dumping to respond, I see no risk of things turning nasty
I’m generally against the idea of planting as many trees as possible.
Trees are not very good carbon sinks because they decompose and burn. Also, there are also some ecological communities where adding trees makes the land a worse carbon sink.
Avoiding cutting down forests to build suburbs is something I can certainly get behind though.
Do you think anyone ought to go to prison?
If a person has harmed others, and is likely to do more harm in the future, it’s appropriate to remove them from society. This is why prisons exist.
Drivers licence suspension typically is the consequence of crimes that are too minor to warrant prison. In this case, the perpetrator has the chance to make changes to their life to avoid prison. For example, they can accept slow public transit, bike to work, get a closer job, move to a place where it’s easier to live without a car.
Obviously, It will be challenging for the perpetrator to reorganize their life in a way that does not require them to risk harming others, and many will fail.
But your argument that society is required to accept being victimized by dangerous drivers because it would be inhumane to force them to use alternative forms of transportation (used by millions of people too poor to afford a car, even in the most car dependent cities) is absurd.
In Amsterdam the mode share for all trips is like 30% for biking and for walking and like 20% for driving and for transit
In the US you sometimes hear that phones in class are necessary to see if your kids are OK in a school shooting scenario.
I think this isn’t a good argument, since school shootings are rare, and it’s unclear if each student having a phone would do more harm than good in that kind of situation.
I wouldnt bike on that painted bike lane across a right turn slip lane designed to make cars slow down as little as possible coming off the freeway
There should be a protected bike lane in the median with a dedicated signal where the diamonds cross