Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016)
by michaelmrose on Monday November 02, 2020 @02:44PM
(#24972248)
Anyone who proposed this idea can enjoy their retirement when voters fire them. People own actual cars now. They have arranged their lives around currently available modes of transportation including distance between work and homes.
They don't live a good distance from work because they want to they do because they can't afford to do otherwise. If you told one of the multitude of people who commute via car they have to spend 5000 on a clown car and an an hour to their commute which amounts to 500 hours annually or 20 days spent commuting they would be in your front yard with torches.
Instead what you need is enough housing to bring its price low enough for more people to live closer to work and enough transit that people want to use it not a clown car mandate.
When you have successfully convinced most people to commute differently you can start to limit cars not before.
Re:The Case Against More Ethanol (2016)
by adrianN on Monday November 02, 2020 @11:27PM
(#24976288)
Cities can change and people adapt. It takes multiple decades , but is has happened before, and it probably will happen again. Cars use too much space and don't scale. That's a simple fact.
They don't live a good distance from work because they want to they do because they can't afford to do otherwise. If you told one of the multitude of people who commute via car they have to spend 5000 on a clown car and an an hour to their commute which amounts to 500 hours annually or 20 days spent commuting they would be in your front yard with torches.
Instead what you need is enough housing to bring its price low enough for more people to live closer to work and enough transit that people want to use it not a clown car mandate.
When you have successfully convinced most people to commute differently you can start to limit cars not before.