4 ms·

What are the most effective ways to get cars out of cities?

1 points by f_allwein 5y ago

incomingpain 5y ago
I failed to read WHY we need to do this. Every place that did this have been tremendously unsuccessful. 60% of swedes said they need to stop this asap. They didn't address congestion at all, in fact it got worse. So really it's just a tax revenue grab. It's really just a sign of bad politicians failing. So what did Stockholm do in 2016 facing complete failure of this system? They increased rates! So idiotic. How very embarrassing.
- f_allwein 5y ago
  Are you serious? We need to do this because cities tend to grow and individual traffic by car is spectacularly ineffective (cars are used less than an hour a day and spend the rest of time standing around, often in public spaces). Cars cause accidents, death and pollution, all of which could be reduced if more people chose other forms of transportation. > Every place that did this have been tremendously unsuccessful Citation needed/ contradicts the content of the article. I only know about London, which _has_ been successful in reducing traffic to the city centre.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >We need to do this because cities tend to grow and individual traffic by car is spectacularly ineffective (cars are used less than an hour a day and spend the rest of time standing around, often in public spaces). Cars cause accidents, death and pollution, all of which could be reduced if more people chose other forms of transportation. Ok lets say that's the argument. These cities with congestion taxes never addressed ANY of those. Congestion increased after every single one of those cities implemented it. By your argument you oppose congestion taxes because they fail utterly to address any of these. They are badly distracting from actual possible options to address these issues. >Citation needed/ contradicts the content of the article. I only know about London, which _has_ been successful in reducing traffic to the city centre. You only know about London? Not say Stockholm or Milan? Here's the reality. If the congestion charge works and there's a dramatic decrease in traffic. What happens? You collapse your economy. You destroy what you are trying to protect. So congestion charges can't work and if it did work, it would instantly be ended. How is pollution in London? It's much worse right? You switched clean gasoline for dirty public transit diesel. Did you know diesel exhaust is tremendously unhealthy eh? Being near it occasionally is ok but being near it every day will cut 10 years off your life expectancy. How about actual congestion in London? Oh much worse despite less cars? How in the world did London manage that? If your goal is fixing congestion, death, pollution. The plan has been tremendously unsuccessful for london.

1 points by f_allwein 5y ago

I failed to read WHY we need to do this. Every place that did this have been tremendously unsuccessful. 60% of swedes said they need to stop this asap. They didn't address congestion at all, in fact it got worse. So really it's just a tax revenue grab. It's really just a sign of bad politicians failing. So what did Stockholm do in 2016 facing complete failure of this system? They increased rates! So idiotic. How very embarrassing.

f_allwein 5y ago
Are you serious? We need to do this because cities tend to grow and individual traffic by car is spectacularly ineffective (cars are used less than an hour a day and spend the rest of time standing around, often in public spaces). Cars cause accidents, death and pollution, all of which could be reduced if more people chose other forms of transportation. > Every place that did this have been tremendously unsuccessful Citation needed/ contradicts the content of the article. I only know about London, which _has_ been successful in reducing traffic to the city centre.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >We need to do this because cities tend to grow and individual traffic by car is spectacularly ineffective (cars are used less than an hour a day and spend the rest of time standing around, often in public spaces). Cars cause accidents, death and pollution, all of which could be reduced if more people chose other forms of transportation. Ok lets say that's the argument. These cities with congestion taxes never addressed ANY of those. Congestion increased after every single one of those cities implemented it. By your argument you oppose congestion taxes because they fail utterly to address any of these. They are badly distracting from actual possible options to address these issues. >Citation needed/ contradicts the content of the article. I only know about London, which _has_ been successful in reducing traffic to the city centre. You only know about London? Not say Stockholm or Milan? Here's the reality. If the congestion charge works and there's a dramatic decrease in traffic. What happens? You collapse your economy. You destroy what you are trying to protect. So congestion charges can't work and if it did work, it would instantly be ended. How is pollution in London? It's much worse right? You switched clean gasoline for dirty public transit diesel. Did you know diesel exhaust is tremendously unhealthy eh? Being near it occasionally is ok but being near it every day will cut 10 years off your life expectancy. How about actual congestion in London? Oh much worse despite less cars? How in the world did London manage that? If your goal is fixing congestion, death, pollution. The plan has been tremendously unsuccessful for london.