3 ms·
This kind of thing makes sense in Manhattan. Manhattan is relatively tiny, and it is dense, and there is workable public transit. A subway system with stations
by thrower123 7y ago
This kind of thing makes sense in Manhattan. Manhattan is relatively tiny, and it is dense, and there is workable public transit. A subway system with stations every quarter mile or less does wonders.
It just doesn't extrapolate to anywhere else in the country particularly well. Even Boston is a shit-show without cars, and that is another dense, old, East Coast city with legacy public transit, albeit much less well designed.
It's a complete non-starter most places.
- kunai 7y agoCongestion charges and upzoning would fix that issue, but people with the same outlook on this problem (aka NIMBYs) that you do seem to hate those things as well. People often forget this fact but the vast majority of cities east of the Mississippi in the U.S. developed without cars for most of their existence. Streetcars were the name of the game until the 1950s, after which personal car ownership was heavily pushed and subsidized by the government after bending to the will of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The entire idea of designing our cities around car ownership and the single-family household is extraordinarily new and unnatural. There's nothing prohibiting us from creating density in these post-WWII cities; just look at Denver or Portland and their massive successes with public transit and upzoning.