231–240 of 595 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kids can't play in streets as now the new predators are cyclists who don't slow down or get down of their bikes. Besides, cars are a staple for families, and hardly substituable. Good luck doing groceries for 6 without one.
Cargo bike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they're used less frequently. Most middle class people have a car, but they're often only used for irregular trips. Commuting and errands use alternative means at much higher rates than elsewhere.
Point is, they still need cars if they have them. And Netherlands are very far from Paris, infrastructure-wise. In Paris, for instance, leaving your cargo or e-bike outside for the night means finding nothing when you wake up (I got two bikes stolen already, and they were the cheapest available).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One would also expect that EVs wouldn't emit that many particles from brakes since the brakes typically wear much more slowly than with ICE cars.
But they are heavier. Not saying it offsets the effect but it's just not straight forward to assume either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend of mine is writing a history of the Massachusetts Hill towns. The Strathmore paper company plays a big part in that history the mill owners built housing for their workers within walking distance of the mills. I also know of a tourism industry company that is buying up older hotels that are no longer competitive in the local market to use as seasonal worker housing. There are solutions other than having some…
Yeah, "company towns" were another issue that cars solved.
Please just....stop. Stop trying to talk about how poor people lived or live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suburbs are fine. We are in 2025, not 1925, there is no reason why work from home isn't an option for information workers and others who don't need to be physically on premises. You are completely ignoring how much that cuts down on traffic and would lower the cost of real estate, so more people who aren't millionaires could live downtown. We also have electric cars that have basically zero emissions, there is a tech…
Private cars are an economic sinkhole. They make no financial sense. My town in the exurbs used to have rail service and stagecoaches. The necessity of private cars is a marketing triumph. Not a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people are HELPED by anti-car legislation because it clears the congestion for them to run their business. Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
If it's really only a difference of a few cars then there should be a dozen other ways to get a similar effect without enacting a regressive tax. Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are heavier. Not saying it offsets the effect but it's just not straight forward to assume either way.
They're not inherently heavier. They're only heavier if you put a long-range battery in them, even then it's not by very much, and even that may not persist as higher energy density batteries are developed. Or to put it another way, the difference between a small car and a large SUV is far greater than the difference between an electric car and a gasoline car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people are HELPED by anti-car legislation because it clears the congestion for them to run their business. Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
The infrastructure changes required to get cars out meant to reduce the flow speed of cars. As a result, even buses, who have dedicated lanes, are much slower. [EDIT]: since I'm being answered that it isn't true, here is a chart made by the city hall about the decreasing speed on Paris' roads: https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2024/07/12/original-4ee2d20dafdc9...
EDIT: Okay, to expand, it's true that speed limits in progressive cities have been falling for a while. This is meant reduce the number of pedestrain fatalities and overall make the cities safer and more pleasant.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that traveling by car is worse. These, in combination with anti-congestion legislation, make driving faster. The thing about driving is that broad roads and clear visibility encourage bad behavior, like speeding and tailgating. This actually increases traffic. It's counter-productive, but reducing speed can improve flow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paris is not a city of 10 millions, it has only two million habitants. And cars are not reserved to rich people, why would they be? I grew up in Paris, my parents weren't rich, we were living in public housing and we had a car. Families are not second-tier citizens, and currently the public transports are not suited for them. On top of the other problems, such as the pleasure of having to deal with crackheads and var…
When it comes to traffic and urban planning, Paris is best understood as a city of 10+ million people. The administrative subdivision called Paris has only ~2 million people, but the city doesn't end at its borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lived in downtown Rome, Italy. By far the biggest pollution you get in your house, it's...dust from brakes. It's a tragedy. Not saying diesel ain't bad, but even now that diesels have been largely banned or reduced to euro 6, it has changed nothing about brake dust. My flat would fill with it in a single day. It's everywhere. And I lived on a third floor, not even at street level.
How do you know the dust was specifically brake dust?