3 ms·

Again, that's where you lose the discussion. You think motorists love huge parking lots or wide roads. They don't. They couldn't care less - they just want suff

Again, that's where you lose the discussion. You think motorists love huge parking lots or wide roads. They don't. They couldn't care less - they just want sufficient parking and sufficient travel lanes to get around. If there's one fast lane with less traffic, they'll be happier than 5 lanes of slow traffic. They don't want congestion, and are willing to support initiatives that reduce congestion. Right now, the only consistent initiative is either painting bike lanes in the middle of no where that no one will use or adding more car lanes. But the frame of the discussion right now is to punish motorists for being motorists - they don't have a choice. They can't afford to live closer (or there's no options that give what they are looking for), and there's no safe, fast, or convenient way to any place they need to go without a car. Give them a safe, fast, and convenient way from suburbia to downtown, and they'll support reducing highways into half their size. Right now, the discussion is "suburbia bad, car bad, you bad - be better"

adrianN 4y ago
Now please suggest how you want to provide fast convenient car travel without wide roads and lots of parking. I'm all ears for clever plans that can replace five lanes of slow traffic with one lane of fast traffic. The only one I can think of is to cut the number of cars by at least 80%, probably more.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  Yes. A goal is to reduce the number of cars & to optimize the space used for other modes of transportation. However, to achieve that goal, you need wide & motivated political support. You want people to support your goal in the way MAGA crowds line up for hours to cheer for Trump - otherwise, you're not going to get it done. You don't achieve that by talking down to them, treating their choices with disdain, or telling them that they expect to much. You do that by giving them a vision they want to fight for & a path to fight for it. A vision, for example, where you don't need to drive, but you could drive - and that driving experience will be even better than today. A vision that you wouldn't want to drive, even though the driving experience is even better than today, because the alternative is even better than an improved driving experience. That's how you achieve support. If you tell them they should stop using cars, they're going to ignore you, because there's no better alternative or even remotely equivalent alternative. If you actually try implementing it without making a better alternative, they're going to resent you and your goal.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    I think what you are saying is you can't make public transport more appealing just by making the alternatives worse.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Yes, that's definitely what I am saying.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    You need to tell them that you'll take away space from cars in the dense area of the city and make the suburbs denser. Otherwise you wouldn't be telling the truth. Neither statement is popular.
- Scene_Cast2 4y ago
  One thing I haven't seem explored much is having car-carrying trains. Load your car onto a train, get to downtown fast without traffic jams, drop off the car in an adjacent parking lot once you're in the city. Walk around a mostly car-free city, then take the car-train back to suburbia where you can drive the last 5 miles back to your house and park overnight.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    That sounds like a small improvement over Park and Ride schemes that already exist.

adrianN 4y ago

Now please suggest how you want to provide fast convenient car travel without wide roads and lots of parking. I'm all ears for clever plans that can replace five lanes of slow traffic with one lane of fast traffic. The only one I can think of is to cut the number of cars by at least 80%, probably more.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
Yes. A goal is to reduce the number of cars & to optimize the space used for other modes of transportation. However, to achieve that goal, you need wide & motivated political support. You want people to support your goal in the way MAGA crowds line up for hours to cheer for Trump - otherwise, you're not going to get it done. You don't achieve that by talking down to them, treating their choices with disdain, or telling them that they expect to much. You do that by giving them a vision they want to fight for & a path to fight for it. A vision, for example, where you don't need to drive, but you could drive - and that driving experience will be even better than today. A vision that you wouldn't want to drive, even though the driving experience is even better than today, because the alternative is even better than an improved driving experience. That's how you achieve support. If you tell them they should stop using cars, they're going to ignore you, because there's no better alternative or even remotely equivalent alternative. If you actually try implementing it without making a better alternative, they're going to resent you and your goal.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I think what you are saying is you can't make public transport more appealing just by making the alternatives worse.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    Yes, that's definitely what I am saying.
- adrianN 4y ago
  You need to tell them that you'll take away space from cars in the dense area of the city and make the suburbs denser. Otherwise you wouldn't be telling the truth. Neither statement is popular.
Scene_Cast2 4y ago
One thing I haven't seem explored much is having car-carrying trains. Load your car onto a train, get to downtown fast without traffic jams, drop off the car in an adjacent parking lot once you're in the city. Walk around a mostly car-free city, then take the car-train back to suburbia where you can drive the last 5 miles back to your house and park overnight.
- adrianN 4y ago
  That sounds like a small improvement over Park and Ride schemes that already exist.