3 ms·

I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit.

I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. If ridership grew, that number would as well. Regardless, a move like that is as much about demonstrating that alternatives are possible as it is about direct savings. The Netherlands started building excellent bike infrastructure around that time, and they’re now in a better position than we are to get by with less oil use.

_ea1k 4y ago
> I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. I agree. In general, I'm finding that people underestimate the importance of small improvements here. I remember people saying that Russia provides 10% of the world's oil as if that were a small amount. No, its actually a pretty critical amount in terms of price volatility. But the good news it that all it takes is a few 2-3% improvements across the board to effectively negate it. It "only" requires our willingness to take those steps.