4 ms·
There's obviously a balance to be struck. But motorists kill a lot of people, make a lot of noise and pollution, and use a lot of infrastructure that city-dwell
by obstinate 9y ago
There's obviously a balance to be struck. But motorists kill a lot of people, make a lot of noise and pollution, and use a lot of infrastructure that city-dwellers must pay to maintain. So I think it is not out of bounds to consider reducing the footprint of a city that is dedicated to them. To the extent demand supports it, there will still be private parking and valet services.
I'm not worried about the housing costs issue. I think it is likely that any city council able to overcome the action-potential of banning cars will also be quite pro-housing.
- closeparen 9y agoBanning cars and banning new housing have precisely the same motivation: to protect and increase quality of life for existing urban residents at the expense of everyone else. The kind of city council that imposes height limits and lot coverage maximums (tall apartment buildings and their residents are considered noise, shadow, and cultural pollution) is the most likely to ban cars.