|
|
|
|
|
by LeanderK
1020 days ago
|
|
it's not the wrong way because it's not always about the needs of the suburban/commuting community. Reducing car traffic can be a goal itself because it calms the neighbourhood for the community living in the urban areas or enables car-free, walkable zones reused for cafes etc. Those places can often fundamentally not coexist with cars. Parking can also be removed just because it's needed for other infrastructure, e.g. bike lanes. There are many reasons to remove parking spaces. So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic. The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about. |
|
That's a logical fallacy.
So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic
It should never be about either of these. Instead, provide public transportation people want to use. Carrot, never stick.