3 ms·
It’s not that you can’t achieve the goal, it’s that you can’t force people into it by making their daily lives worse. Or at least that seems like that would be
by jrsj 3y ago
It’s not that you can’t achieve the goal, it’s that you can’t force people into it by making their daily lives worse. Or at least that seems like that would be the least effective political strategy.
- spankalee 3y agoLess car dependency will make lives better, not worse.
- jrsj 3y agoOP suggested intentionally making commutes unbearable as a means of forcing people into cities to achieve this. That’s the wrong order of operations and would backfire politically imo. Personally I work remote, so I would probably just go to the city less if it were made more inconvenient to do so. This has already happened to an extent. No free parking? I’m not going unless I have to. Public transit as it exists isn’t a good alternative either. It’s slow and I don’t want to be harassed by addicts at the bus stop. Any plan that involves coercion isn’t something I’m interested in.
- novok 3y agoThis is exactly it. You go with solutions that doesn't anger the car political class, like just building more rail vs. destroying car infra. You drag you're feet on maintaining the car infra. Traffic gets really bad, but man, the train is so much more convenient now, safe, clean and 3x faster than driving, your an idiot for driving man. You start running tearjerker ads about how an older person couldn't drive anymore, but now with a real transit system, they can still get around. Then people don't really drive that much and the car infra starts getting replaced by buildings because that makes more money, etc, etc.