4 ms·
This seems like a great start, but unfortunately it will likely be so lucrative, it will make it even less politically acceptable to further reduce/ban cars in
by pxeboot 3y ago
This seems like a great start, but unfortunately it will likely be so lucrative, it will make it even less politically acceptable to further reduce/ban cars in the future.
- lwansbrough 3y agoWhen the income pays for more transit and reduces transit times for buses, why would the public want to stop that trend?
- pxeboot 3y agoBecause cars/parking still take up far to much space in dense city centers, making them more loud, dirty and dangerous than they would be without (most) cars.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shipscode 3y agoBecause the public by and large doesn’t enjoy public transit?
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoMost New Yorkers commute via public transit.
- sgjohnson 3y agoNot because they like it.
- lwansbrough 3y agoIt’s literally the only way to move that many people. What’s your point?
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoIt's far faster to travel on subway than by car. Why wouldn't they like it?
- lwansbrough 3y agoNo you’re right people rave about the car centric design of Los Angeles and it’s very efficient. Phoenix is a bastion of free movement and doesn’t demand everyone own a vehicle. The public very much enjoys the convenience and speed of well funded public transit. Even if they don’t always enjoy the actual process if it isn’t well kept and clean.
- hedora 3y agoIf the income is tied to actual SLAs for transit, then great. Otherwise, they can just use the toll money to divert general funds away from transit to other stuff.