5 ms·
See, I lived in upstate NY for a while in Saratoga Springs. You can walk all the way across that town very easily (I did a few times). But with my car I was a
by cobrausn 15y ago
See, I lived in upstate NY for a while in Saratoga Springs. You can walk all the way across that town very easily (I did a few times). But with my car I was able to drive up to the Adirondacks and go hiking on a whim, or drive myself and a bunch of other bored Navy guys across the border into Montreal as soon as we got off a 36-hour shift and had to be back in exactly 24 hours. Some of my local friends without vehicles ended up relying on me to get them anywhere outside of the city when they needed to.
There are definite advantages to living in an area where you rarely need a vehicle, but I will always want to own one anyway. :-)
- mitjak 15y agoI suppose you are an exception then, because the traffic problems, at least here in Toronto, arise from a large majority of people who positively do not need a personal vehicle for their day-to-day activities.
- cobrausn 15y agoWell, I would argue that the traffic problems arise because of a failure on the part of city planners to design their roadways to accommodate the amount of traffic that they receive (not a problem unique to Toronto), but yes, the traffic problems would certainly be reduced if less people used vehicles.
- philwelch 15y agoCar traffic fundamentally isn't scalable in urban areas. The only failure on the part of city planners is attempting to accomodate that kind of selfish, wasteful behavior.
- angersock 15y agoPlease clarify on your "selfish" remark. Thanks!
- anthonyb 15y agoCars ruin the amenity of your city. Space taken up with roads and parking can't be used for anything else, and cars are dangerous to be in or around. If you know that, and still choose to drive, then you are, to some extent, selfish.
- cobrausn 15y agoI think it's actually a bit more selfish to want people to give up their earned conveniences to satisfy your own particular desires, in this case, making the city 'how it should be', when it clearly works fairly well the way it is. Saying cities are 'ruined' by cars is hyperbole and guilt-based rhetoric, plain and simple.
- philwelch 15y ago> earned conveniences Subsidized conveniences when you add it all up, really. > when it clearly works fairly well the way it is Aside from the traffic, smog, and high number of accidental deaths directly attributable to automobile traffic, you mean?
- figglesonrails 15y agoAgreed, no accidental deaths/smog if everyone walked/biked, but that doesn't mean city+cars aren't accomplishing their job of A to B. It isn't the cleanest or safest way, but I don't think he argued "greater good" so much as "good enough". If these were deal-breaker issues for everyone, then people would walk/bike instead of use cars (or just leave the city), but clearly cars are a definite "want" item. Which is to say, yeah, I suppose we're selfish, but then again, owning property is selfish, comrade.
- philwelch 15y agoIt's questionable to base public policy on individual choices when the costs of those choices are socialized and the benefits of those choices are privatized.
- ericd 15y agoFair, but a lot of the city planners weren't planning for cars at all, because cars didn't exist.
- DuncanB 15y ago...and often were a lot nicer for it. Venice? Did you read the other posts by the author? http://progressivetransit.wordpress.com/2011/12/ http://progressivetransit.wordpress.com/2011/12/
- cobrausn 15y agoSomewhat of a cherry-picked example. Why aren't we also discussing Rio or Cairo? Not exactly car friendly. Not exactly paradise either.