←back to thread

472 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.557s | source
Show context
offsign ◴[] No.46220254[source]
One thing that irks me about these schemes is that they often ignore cities role as regional hubs -- i.e. many cities became cities because they serve as geographical gateways interlocking the surrounding region. They are happy to take the benefits of being at the hub, but (increasingly) adopt a nativistic dialogue with the rest of the spokes.

I get that no one likes highways running through their communities, but when you decommission historical arteries while aggressively adopting anti-car transportation policies throughout the rest of the hub, it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled.

Maybe congestion pricing is the way to go -- it can certainly work for major European cities built inland, and surrounded by ring roads. For NYC / SF (surrounded by water), I'm less convinced. Sure, I'll 'just take public transport' to go downtown, but the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.

replies(9): >>46220346 #>>46220356 #>>46220406 #>>46220457 #>>46220516 #>>46221009 #>>46221027 #>>46221068 #>>46221978 #
1. michael1999 ◴[] No.46221027[source]
Both NY and SF were regional hubs before cars disfigured them. No commercial vehicle is going to be discouraged by a $10 dollar charge, and trade is so much easier when the roads aren't clogged by single people demanding 1000 sq-ft of ground space to move around.