4 ms·
I appreciate your interesting stance on this, but you're missing my point. I am not saying "ban cars and everything is fixed." I am saying "we will not fix our
by ethanbond 10y ago
I appreciate your interesting stance on this, but you're missing my point. I am not saying "ban cars and everything is fixed." I am saying "we will not fix our cities as long as we continue to invest in cars."
The best way I can think of to get people to divest from cars in a fair, gradual, legal, cheap, and realistic way is to eliminate parking over time.
- barrkel 10y agoDid you even read what I said? I directly refuted your argument! Your suggestion is both politically difficult and would damage cities by decreasing the very thing that makes them cities: the time proximity between people!
- vasilipupkin 10y agoYou don't have to eliminate parking at all to achieve this. All you have to do is shift city taxation towards taxing parking more in relative terms. Encourage people to use existing public transportation more
- mamon 10y ago>> All you have to do is shift city taxation towards taxing parking more And that's exactly what's wrong with this idea: in a democratic society such taxation changes would be temoporary at best - people would just vote for politicians that would change it back during the next elections. On the other hand, gradualy increasing quality of public transportation by investing more money in it would be something that noone would protest against, and once public transportation is equaly or more convenient than car travel people would switch on their own.
- ethanbond 10y agoAh so just magically make money appear. Not by tax policy nor by fare hikes (which people certainly do protest against, wildly).
- vasilipupkin 10y agoPeople are not stupid, they are often uninformed. Politicians' job is to advocate for good policies in a way that people understand and support