4 ms·
But in fact the end goal wasn’t to remove vehicles, it was to reduce congestion, emissions, etc. Those things are caused by vehicles, so policies to remove them
by pastel8739 7mo ago
But in fact the end goal wasn’t to remove vehicles, it was to reduce congestion, emissions, etc. Those things are caused by vehicles, so policies to remove them will affect vehicles, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that their motivation is anti-vehicle.
- kjkjadksj 7mo agoIt is also anti vehicle. Moving people in nyc at densities of 10ft by 20ft apart from the next human at the best theoretical case is astoundingly stupid.
- tzs 7mo ago> Moving people in nyc at densities of 10ft by 20ft apart from the next human at the best theoretical case is astoundingly stupid Are you sure? I would expect that it is average density of people over the length of the route that is important when it comes from moving people from some point A to some point B on a road. With for example buses you have high density where the buses are actually at, but 0 density where they are not. The average over the entire route can easily be lower than the density for cars where you can have that 1 person per 20 feet over the whole route. If an observer at a fixed point on the route sees more than about 50 cars pass between buses passing the cars will have higher throughput.
- chiefalchemist 7mo agoNo one ever said anything along the lines of EVs are ok, we're just trying to tax the petrol vehicles. The goal was anti-vehicle. They didn't not directly but indirectly. Like it or not, the strategy was legal and political genius.