> But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. They also represent negativ

> But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. They also represent negative externalities - both in air/noise (HONK HONK HONK) pollution and in human cost. Why should a person who chose to take up more space and introduce these externalities be favored over a person that is using significantly less space and not producing those externalities. > The best way to reduce cars is to provide better (cheaper, faster, easier, safer) ways to get places that don't require cars This requires removing the cars! Buses don't work well if the streets are clogged with cars (see: 23rd St. a few months ago vs. 23rd St. now, a huge improvement, and SBS hasn't even been enabled yet). Opponents of street safety improvements love to scream above truck deliveries, but truck deliveries would certainly be easy if there weren't private cars and taxis clogging up the street and using free parking, instead of having empty streets and adequate loading-only zones. > They'd (usually) rather hit people with sticks, than offer up carrots. Is hitting people with metaphorical sticks worse than hitting them with literal cars? That's what's happening in New York currently, people are run down all the time, and the killers get away with it almost every time. This isn't just about walkability, it's about crossing the street without feeling like my life is in danger. I've almost never seen a car be ready to turn and actually stay out of the crosswalk until all of the people have left it. Who murdered Matthew Von Ohlen? The police found the car that did it, will we ever find out who owns it? Probably not.