4 ms·
Parent commenter wrote: "[t]he problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost... if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in S
by rev_bird 10y ago
Parent commenter wrote: "[t]he problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost... if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in San Ramon... you now need to drive your car to work on an elevated freeway through Oakland."
You wrote: "[i]t's the road users who are enjoying benefits while foisting costs off on the residents whose property they drive past (or whose former property they drive over)."
I'm pretty sure you two agree.
- mikeash 10y agoI do think you're right. I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. Sorry! Consider that to be strenuous agreement instead, OP.
- baddox 10y ago> I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. I think there's some truth to that as well. Government roads in suburbs obviously drive down the population density and encourage the use of cars, which definitely makes mass transportation less viable.