Yes, the car culture of Amsterdam, in one of the most densely populated counties on the planet, surely should be the car culture of a country with endless tracts of land.
Voters (the important part of a democracy, you see) want to drive in the US. Therefore, there should be no attempts to thwart people in that goal.
And to speak to that, Amsterdam has ample places to bike, a strong bike culture, paths, public transportation. It makes sense to remove unused parking spaces, and Amsterdam already has loads of places you cannot drive.
This is not Chicago. Suggesting people remove parking spaces before providing strong, complete, full alternatives, such as extensive piblic transport, and alternatives to cars, should be criminal.
it's not the wrong way because it's not always about the needs of the suburban/commuting community. Reducing car traffic can be a goal itself because it calms the neighbourhood for the community living in the urban areas or enables car-free, walkable zones reused for cafes etc. Those places can often fundamentally not coexist with cars. Parking can also be removed just because it's needed for other infrastructure, e.g. bike lanes. There are many reasons to remove parking spaces.
So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic.
The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about.
The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about.
That's a logical fallacy.
So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic
It should never be about either of these. Instead, provide public transportation people want to use. Carrot, never stick.
No it's not? It gives him credibility. You can not lecture someone about the car culture in an area they've lived in. He has literally lived there and in his case, as I understood it, even grown up there. It seems like you are suggesting he only knows amsterdam and does not get that chicago is different.
> It should never be about either of these. Instead, provide public transportation people want to use. Carrot, never stick.
This really ignores the effects of car traffic on the communities. Reducing traffic is a valid goal and sometimes the really only goal. It might be because of and unacceptable level of noise, or pollution or something else like an increase in safety for people on foot. Then the current amount of traffic is just not acceptable, you might not care that much if they end up not taking the trip, switching to public transit or driving somewhere else because your only goal was the reduction of car traffic in a specific area. A good example is barcelonas superblock concept, where you minimise through-traffic through specific blocks to enable more walkable, bikeable and livable neighbourhoods for the inhabitants of these urban neighbourhoods. Within reasonable bounds, neighbourhoods should have the ability to limit excessive car traffic in the area they are living in.
Yes, the car culture of Amsterdam, in one of the most densely populated counties on the planet, surely should be the car culture of a country with endless tracts of land.
Voters (the important part of a democracy, you see) want to drive in the US. Therefore, there should be no attempts to thwart people in that goal.
And to speak to that, Amsterdam has ample places to bike, a strong bike culture, paths, public transportation. It makes sense to remove unused parking spaces, and Amsterdam already has loads of places you cannot drive.
This is not Chicago. Suggesting people remove parking spaces before providing strong, complete, full alternatives, such as extensive piblic transport, and alternatives to cars, should be criminal.
It's the wrong way to approach the problem.