4 ms·
I'm all for reducing the traffic, but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy is among the worst ways to solve that problem. In a way it's analogous
by e1ven 8y ago
I'm all for reducing the traffic, but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy is among the worst ways to solve that problem.
In a way it's analogous to any other resource allocation problem. There are lots of approaches other than "richest wins"
- paulgb 8y agoThe congestion in NYC makes it dangerous to bike and slows down busses. Allowing cars to own the roads is precisely a "richest wins" approach, at least in Manhattan.
- CalRobert 8y ago"but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy" but that's basically what they are now, in as much as they are catering for the most expensive form of transport (aircraft and tanks notwithstanding). Having the streets for everyone means having them be for walking, cycling, scooters, bikes, buses, etc. Hell, donkeys while we're at it.
- e1ven 8y agoYes, but why should the debate be framed in terms of only looking at fees or living with congestion? There are other approaches to what is essentially distributing limited resources.
- CalRobert 8y agowell, there's pricing, or rationing, or some combination (e.g. Pricing, with exceptions for those where we want to accept the externalities as a society for a greater good, like not charging ambulances). Which do you prefer?