Wow, similar reasoning too. But that article sure is something...
Manhattan, already one of the most car-free places in the country, is the best place to start.
Fucking what? Yeah, Manhattan definitely doesn't have any cars. I guess he must mean per capita, but is it per capita ownership, or per capita usage? And either way, is that a particularly good measure of how important cars are for the population? It's also funny how whether a given article controls for population size is entirely dependent on whether that would make the numbers look better for the point they're trying to make, as evidence, look at basically any article on the wuhan virus.
...Most cars would be banished from Manhattan.
Of course that's how they'd do it. Of course they don't just focus on making their alternatives as good as possible then let people make a free choice about their transit, and reduce the number of cars by increasing the quality of mass transit. And the beautiful part of that method is that you by definition don't make the situation worse- if you fuck up and don't make public transit much better, people can just continue to drive. No, it's done by banning cars. That's the problem with giving people freedom- they might not behave how you want. So you'd get the result you want by banning the results you don't like. And if it makes things worse instead of better because your public transport still sucks, the public has no choice, cars are still banned.
They approach traffic the same way they approach speech. Remember when the internet was new, and there were all these left-wing professors talking about how great it was that the downtrodden masses would finally have a voice? Yeah, and then those people started speaking, and some of them said things those professors didn't agree with, then suddenly the left didn't support freedom of expression on the internet any more.
PAU’s proposal would not ban all motor vehicles, just privately owned cars. There would still be delivery trucks, paratransit, emergency vehicles, and taxicabs and rideshare cars, if you needed them.
So it's not actually about reducing traffic at all, because people would just shift to using rideshares and taxis. Have they actually thought this through at all?
More than a century of car ads and a good deal of hagiographic cultural propaganda has done a job on a lot of us
This is retarded. First, someone at the NYT calling something else propaganda is pretty rich. Second, "more than a century ... has done a job on a lot of us"? Yeah, the average person has seen a century worth of car ads, I guess? I'm always seeing ads for the model T, myself.
Uber and Lyft once promised to reduce traffic through car-pooling. In fact, ride-hailing services have greatly worsened traffic in many big cities.
...Which your proposal is not banning.
Imagine you’d like to transport 50 people from one end of Manhattan to the other. If you were to send them by bus, you could stuff everyone in a single bus car — taking up around 450 square feet of road space, about the size of a tiny studio apartment. But if you were going to send 50 people by automobile, you’d need a lot more road. For 50 people, each driving alone, you’d need 2,750 square feet of space — basically a McMansion of roadway to transport 50 fat cats.
Of course it all comes down to hatred of the rich, this is the NYT. Also note the entire argument is moronic: 1 bus goes from one place to one other place, in series. 50 cars go from 50 places to 50 other places. Does this guy have a brain?
There’s more road for cars than there is sidewalk for pedestrians.
Are the people on the sidewalks the same size as cars? Are the sidewalks as constricted for traffic as the roads are? Or is this factoid totally worthless?
The amount of space devoted to cars in Manhattan is not just wasteful, but, in a deeper sense, also unfair to the millions of New Yorkers who have no need for cars.
“It really does feel like there is a silent majority that doesn’t get any real say in how the public space is used,” Chakrabarti told me.
It's called democracy, fucker. Your alleged car-hating majority is allowed to vote, too.
New York’s drivers are essentially being given enormous tracts of land for their own pleasure and convenience.
That anyone can fucking drive on! They're public goddamn roads! It's not like people who don't drive aren't allowed to, they just choose not to! This is not "unjust"! Hey, here's an example that works even better than this: Basically only left-wing radio listeners listen to NPR, yet it still receives federal funding. Since this guy is against public funds being given to things only a percentage of the population uses, he supports defunding NPR, right?
“it’s in your best interest for walking, biking and public transit to be as attractive as possible for everyone else — because that means you’re going to be able to drive easier.”
Indeed, PAU’s plan bears this out. Banning private cars on Manhattan would reduce traffic by as much as 20 percent on routes that start and end within New York’s other boroughs
No, what that guy says and what you're saying are totally different. He's talking about making public transit better to attract people into using it, you're talking about banning private transport. His version makes things better, yours probably makes things worse.
The most polluted air in New York hangs over the Bronx and Queens, in communities largely populated by immigrants and people of color.
The NYT to white people: We genuinely don't give a fuck if you die, we only care about immigrants and "people of color".
(We can’t even get some people to agree to wear masks to stop the spread of a devastating pandemic.)
Because it wouldn't "stop" it, and because it's not devastating. You're retarded.
Given these threats, how can American cities continue to justify wasting such enormous tracts of land on death machines?
LOL, so much for car ads being "propaganda". Fucking "death machines", get a grip.
Maybe they decided to go after cars as death machines because they were tired of people defending guns with car comparisons. It is easier to ban more things with the violence of the state than argue with reality.
They already want to ban cars.
They always use the language of the revolution. New Yorkers are the ones parking there.....
The real New Yorkers are the bums that just got into town because they heard they could get a free pent house.
Wow, similar reasoning too. But that article sure is something...
Fucking what? Yeah, Manhattan definitely doesn't have any cars. I guess he must mean per capita, but is it per capita ownership, or per capita usage? And either way, is that a particularly good measure of how important cars are for the population? It's also funny how whether a given article controls for population size is entirely dependent on whether that would make the numbers look better for the point they're trying to make, as evidence, look at basically any article on the wuhan virus.
Of course that's how they'd do it. Of course they don't just focus on making their alternatives as good as possible then let people make a free choice about their transit, and reduce the number of cars by increasing the quality of mass transit. And the beautiful part of that method is that you by definition don't make the situation worse- if you fuck up and don't make public transit much better, people can just continue to drive. No, it's done by banning cars. That's the problem with giving people freedom- they might not behave how you want. So you'd get the result you want by banning the results you don't like. And if it makes things worse instead of better because your public transport still sucks, the public has no choice, cars are still banned.
They approach traffic the same way they approach speech. Remember when the internet was new, and there were all these left-wing professors talking about how great it was that the downtrodden masses would finally have a voice? Yeah, and then those people started speaking, and some of them said things those professors didn't agree with, then suddenly the left didn't support freedom of expression on the internet any more.
So it's not actually about reducing traffic at all, because people would just shift to using rideshares and taxis. Have they actually thought this through at all?
This is retarded. First, someone at the NYT calling something else propaganda is pretty rich. Second, "more than a century ... has done a job on a lot of us"? Yeah, the average person has seen a century worth of car ads, I guess? I'm always seeing ads for the model T, myself.
...Which your proposal is not banning.
Of course it all comes down to hatred of the rich, this is the NYT. Also note the entire argument is moronic: 1 bus goes from one place to one other place, in series. 50 cars go from 50 places to 50 other places. Does this guy have a brain?
Are the people on the sidewalks the same size as cars? Are the sidewalks as constricted for traffic as the roads are? Or is this factoid totally worthless?
It's called democracy, fucker. Your alleged car-hating majority is allowed to vote, too.
That anyone can fucking drive on! They're public goddamn roads! It's not like people who don't drive aren't allowed to, they just choose not to! This is not "unjust"! Hey, here's an example that works even better than this: Basically only left-wing radio listeners listen to NPR, yet it still receives federal funding. Since this guy is against public funds being given to things only a percentage of the population uses, he supports defunding NPR, right?
No, what that guy says and what you're saying are totally different. He's talking about making public transit better to attract people into using it, you're talking about banning private transport. His version makes things better, yours probably makes things worse.
The NYT to white people: We genuinely don't give a fuck if you die, we only care about immigrants and "people of color".
Because it wouldn't "stop" it, and because it's not devastating. You're retarded.
LOL, so much for car ads being "propaganda". Fucking "death machines", get a grip.
Maybe they decided to go after cars as death machines because they were tired of people defending guns with car comparisons. It is easier to ban more things with the violence of the state than argue with reality.