3 ms·
"it's a way to make sure people who need the road most are the ones who get to use it" It is too regressive to achieve that end. If you have a lot of money, it
by WillPostForFood 8y ago
"it's a way to make sure people who need the road most are the ones who get to use it"
It is too regressive to achieve that end. If you have a lot of money, it is a trivial cost for convenience. If you are poor, but would really benefit from road access, you still may not be able to afford it. You could easily frame this as "keep the poor off the road so the rich don't have to deal with traffic".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- CalRobert 8y agoBut we already do that with homes, so why not be consistent and do it with cars? Anyway, making walking and cycling as crappy as possible by giving people congested, polluted, dangerous streets is pretty inconsiderate to poor people as is. And the article specifically mentions waivers for low income people.
- closeparen 8y agoCongestion makes cycling a little nicer, since the cars are slower and more predictable, and you’re the one zipping past them.
- CalRobert 8y agoI've cycled in lots of congested cities. This isn't completely wrong, but it's like going from one to two when we should aim for ten. But true, the _worst_ for cycling is very busy but still fast roads. Wilshire blvd on a Saturday comes to mind
- bobthepanda 8y agoThere are rebates for specific use cases like that. It’s a lot cheaper than just fire hosing subsidies for everyone.