5 ms·
Well, and the externalities of the driver's carbon emissions are a massive negative impact on all of us. In a city as dense as San Francisco, transit, walking,
by dbingham 7y ago
Well, and the externalities of the driver's carbon emissions are a massive negative impact on all of us. In a city as dense as San Francisco, transit, walking, or biking can easily cover most people's transportation needs. The more we build safe and effective infrastructure for those modes, the more people will use them. And that will be good - in the end - for the remaining few who do absolutely need to drive (though I believe that if we get creative, with things like bike rikshaws, we can even cover that segment with out cars).
If we don't change these sorts of habits, the climate will change them for us.
- Traster 7y agoI'm not advocating for designing life around increasing car ownership. I'm pointing out that re-designing existing systems to disadvantage a specific group of commuters is more than a little problematic. Let's put it this way - how would you feel if we shut down your nearest train station and used the money saved to give everyone a tax break. We can also decrease carbon emissions by just shutting down every power station in China, but targetting a single group of people to take the vast majority of the cost of fixing climate change is not reasonable.
- wpietri 7y agoYour point is that changes can be bad for some people while being good for others? I'm pretty sure everybody knows that. Given that they spent 10 years planning this, and given the enormous infrastructural support cars get, I'm quite sure the city was aware.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- megablast 7y ago> Well, and the externalities of the driver's carbon emissions are a massive negative impact on all of us. This is just one part of it. 40,000 people are killed every year in the US, and over 4 million seriously injured or disabled.