3 ms·
> But don't think there wouldn't be economic impact if far fewer people commute in, come in for the evening, or decide to move out because visiting the suburbs
by wolverine876 3y ago
> But don't think there wouldn't be economic impact if far fewer people commute in, come in for the evening, or decide to move out because visiting the suburbs or the mountains is too much hassle.
Maybe more people would commute in, parking outside the city and taking public transit, and enjoying all the benefits of a low-traffic, pedestrian city: No parking problems or costs, no traffic, no fuel costs, highly available transit, things built for pedestrian and transit travel. Maybe they'd move in.
- ghaff 3y agoOutside of some big commuter lots, I'm skeptical a lot of people are going to do a lot of multi-mode transport into a city outside of regular commuting. I certainly don't do it. And more pedestrian friendliness wouldn't tempt me to move into a city either.
- bedobi 3y agoSo you don’t even live in the city, you don’t find pedestrian or bike friendliness attractive, yet you demand that cities bend over backwards in a never ending attempt to accommodate more cars, faster bigger roads, parking lots etc etc Glad we have that on the record
- ghaff 3y agoI never wrote anything like that. I said that cities should make choices about what their residents (and businesses) want to accommodate or not. Personally, I don't care much.. If I'm traveling I'm mostly not driving (so I do prefer pedestrian-friendly cities with good transit). And I rarely feel like dealing with the hassle of driving into the only nearby large city for the evening--so I mostly don't do it, which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm not demanding anything.