4 ms·

"Ohh. Ok. I didn't realize we were doing trick questions. What's the safest way to go skiing? Don't ski!" Basically the argument here is to stop traffic jams f

"Ohh. Ok. I didn't realize we were doing trick questions. What's the safest way to go skiing? Don't ski!" Basically the argument here is to stop traffic jams from happening just make it so annoying that people won't drive. Well here in Texas you literally can't get anywhere without driving. Buses don't really run, there isn't public transportation to utilize, and you're going to tell me on a 100F day to ride a bike 15 miles?

CydeWeys 10y ago
Funny, here in Manhattan I have no problems going anywhere without having to drive my own passenger vehicle (that I don't have). Texas made its choice, New York City made a different one, and you can easily compare the outcomes. If you think one is better than the other, then you need to actually take steps in that direction.
- post_break 10y ago
  New york city has the public transportation and population density of Japan. If Texas made its choice by being the size of Germany, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Austria combined, sure I agree completely...
  - hrydgard 10y ago
    You can choose to build practical denser cities even in huge states. There'll just be more space between them.
    - h3st 10y ago
      Which means more wilderness & biodiversity, or more farmland, depending on the area. In Oslo you can ride the subway to the edge of the forest & hiking trails. Some people want to replace the hiking trails with suburbs and detached housing. They're not popular people.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    New York City is actually not a good location for a modern, dense city. The preponderance of rivers is problematic, and makes transit a lot more expensive than it would otherwise be (just look at the cost of new rivers and bridges). Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn and Queens (on Long Island) are all islands. Houston and Dallas have much more amenable geography for becoming denser, larger cities with better mass transit. Yet they haven't, because they chose not to. And there's plenty of unused space in New York state, anyway. It's big and only moderately populated north of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Compare New York with Texas: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/New_York_Population_Map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/New_York... https://i.redditmedia.com/cn1OstwGd24Katakx1DFdC8cVzAjUVyOFhld5up3iwA.jpg?w=600&s=b567ca1261fa946c5c81fa9187dc70e5 https://i.redditmedia.com/cn1OstwGd24Katakx1DFdC8cVzAjUVyOFh...
cooper12 10y ago
The point of the article is that parking takes up tons of space and costs. These are resources that could go towards more infrastructure, especially public transportation. (buses for example could get their own lane, speeding them up) In my city there are proposals for new bike lanes all the time, but they are never implemented because drivers complain that they would take away parking. In general I feel that the article is mostly talking about cities, but I see no reason why you couldn't have buses and trains in Texas. (sprawl just means that some people might have to walk a bit before accessing these) And I can guarantee you people still cycle in Texas. It just requires bringing ample water and taking precautions from succumbing to the heat.

CydeWeys 10y ago

Funny, here in Manhattan I have no problems going anywhere without having to drive my own passenger vehicle (that I don't have). Texas made its choice, New York City made a different one, and you can easily compare the outcomes. If you think one is better than the other, then you need to actually take steps in that direction.

post_break 10y ago
New york city has the public transportation and population density of Japan. If Texas made its choice by being the size of Germany, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Austria combined, sure I agree completely...
- hrydgard 10y ago
  You can choose to build practical denser cities even in huge states. There'll just be more space between them.
  - h3st 10y ago
    Which means more wilderness & biodiversity, or more farmland, depending on the area. In Oslo you can ride the subway to the edge of the forest & hiking trails. Some people want to replace the hiking trails with suburbs and detached housing. They're not popular people.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  New York City is actually not a good location for a modern, dense city. The preponderance of rivers is problematic, and makes transit a lot more expensive than it would otherwise be (just look at the cost of new rivers and bridges). Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn and Queens (on Long Island) are all islands. Houston and Dallas have much more amenable geography for becoming denser, larger cities with better mass transit. Yet they haven't, because they chose not to. And there's plenty of unused space in New York state, anyway. It's big and only moderately populated north of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Compare New York with Texas: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/New_York_Population_Map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/New_York... https://i.redditmedia.com/cn1OstwGd24Katakx1DFdC8cVzAjUVyOFhld5up3iwA.jpg?w=600&s=b567ca1261fa946c5c81fa9187dc70e5 https://i.redditmedia.com/cn1OstwGd24Katakx1DFdC8cVzAjUVyOFh...

cooper12 10y ago

The point of the article is that parking takes up tons of space and costs. These are resources that could go towards more infrastructure, especially public transportation. (buses for example could get their own lane, speeding them up) In my city there are proposals for new bike lanes all the time, but they are never implemented because drivers complain that they would take away parking. In general I feel that the article is mostly talking about cities, but I see no reason why you couldn't have buses and trains in Texas. (sprawl just means that some people might have to walk a bit before accessing these) And I can guarantee you people still cycle in Texas. It just requires bringing ample water and taking precautions from succumbing to the heat.