What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
rotten wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Pat wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
legroups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...
Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.
Simple is as simple does ;-)
Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".
There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.
Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.
Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.
But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.
-Amy
I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)
These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
suburbanized rural areas anyway.

Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
also hurt the environment in rural areas.

I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
else's transportation.

I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
appropriations.

A gas tax makes a nice user fee. So do tolls. Gas taxes are just
easier to administer.

Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The cost of a sidewalk in high traffic areas is minimal. I've never
heard anyone complain about sidewalks.

As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.

Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

Air quality has risen since they were implemented, I'd call them
effective. If people only have that option and want more they're going
to have to move, or wait until their local density reaches a point at
which mass transit becomes feasible.