Comment 73404

By the fundamentals (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2012 at 12:30:49 in reply to Comment 73399

Again, creative word use - no one said "sharply". 15-20% is not a sharp decline.

To address your question:

Because a fundamental goal of balancing the network is to entice those who don't really need to be in a car toward using more efficient means. Because the amount of car travel is way too high. It is the cause of the imbalance. It's not about FORCING anyone to abandon a car, it's about making the other options more viable for more people so that they CHOOSE to leave their car at home.

Anyone screaming about the war on cars needs to chill out and realize that no one is taking their car away. The goal is to improve choice. Most people right now have no choice because the alternatives are terribly crippled, because we have been so busy building away at our car infrastructure that we basically left all other transportation modes collecting dust. We have a lot of catching up to do and it makes no sense to talk about this work without realizing that the goal is to give people alternative options - meaning their previously preferred option (car) might not be preferred anymore.

I don't even understand why this needs to be explained to anyone. Look up the definitions of "alternative" and "balance" and figure out for yourself why all of the plans include reduction in car trips.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds