Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Joe R.

    Getting rid of private autos entirely would be a extreme position if I suggested it for the entire USA, which I don’t. I’m suggesting it for the borough of Manhattan for starters, eventually for the other four boroughs as we improve mass transit. That’s hardly an extreme position. It’s an eminently sensible one which would make life way better for all city residents. Calling something you don’t like an extreme position is a typical way to avoid discussing the topic rationally.

    As for public lynching of police officers, take a look at the culture of abuse at the NYPD which starts at the top. A public lynching of the last few police chiefs wouldn’t be entirely out of order given that. In fact, I think they would be getting off easy compared to some other ideas I had (think of the dining room scene towards the end in the movie Hannibal). These people are no better than leaders of criminal enterprise, and should be treated as such. China often public executes officials who have abused their power. I think it’s a good policy to keep leaders more honest.



    When is it you expect NYC to be free of these cars that cause problems for “100%” of the people? Extreme positions are divisive, which seems your intent. And your comment history has a divisive pattern, including public lynching of police officers? Anger management… consider it.



    Extremes. That’s what is so prevalent on streetsblog. I didn’t mention “car only ” planning. Its not transit vs mass transit, or cars vs everything else. Should be a balance, and a need for coordination. As we move away from ICE power to EV, cars will remain.



    Presumably if a city is not allowed to set, say, a 20 mph speed limit because of state law, then it also isn’t allowed to do an end-run around that state law by simply sticking speed bumps everywhere to achieve the same effect.


    Kevin Love

    The CityLab article is an excellent example of the principle of “correlation does not equal causation.”

    The article shows that people in the UK who moved recently have lower rates of car use than people who moved longer ago in time. Therefore “Moving can break your car commuting habits.”

    Please note that this is UK data. And the trend in the last few years is to move to London, which is booming. It costs more to pay for car parking in London than to buy the car itself… OK, I exaggerate a bit, but not much. Car parking, the congestion charge and the fact that the streets were definitely not made for cars all strongly discourage car use in London.

    To sum up, people in the UK who moved years in the past tended to move to places that were not London. People who moved more recently tended to move to London.

    That is why more recent movers have a lower car usage rate.



    And hence the reason to design streets for the speeds you want people to drive. If you want them to drive 20 mph, they shouldn’t be designed for 40 mph, e.g.


    Joe R.

    At this point the chances of a long term economic uptick are slim to none. We’re entering a new era where we’re resource limited. That means two choices—either reduce the population or get used to a lower standard of living. Private autos are the most resource intensive way to travel. As such, simple supply and demand for the raw materials used to make cars and build roads will see to it that they’re unaffordable for an ever larger percentage of the population. The days of mass motoring are over. The only question is will they end with a whimper or a boom? Or put another way, will car ownership/use just gradually fall with each generation, or will it happen suddenly when we have a critical shortage or price jump of some commodity needed for mass motoring, like crude oil?



    not surprising for a NYC point of view but not reflective of the bulk of the US in any way.

    As someone who lives hundreds of miles away from NYC, please speak for yourself only and not “the bulk of the US.” I want to reduce car-only planning in my area, too.


    Joe R.

    I wouldn’t read too much into that. It seems like an unusual turn of events caused a temporary uptick in car buying. Low interest rates won’t stay around forever, and gas prices are already starting to tick up. I’d say many of these millenials bought their first car. Unlike previous generations, they won’t be back for the next one in 3 to 5 years. They’ll keep their car until it wears out, which could be 15 to 20 years easily. By then the landscape in the US may have changed so much they won’t be interested in replacing it.



    Your anti-whatever *you* don’t like

    Nice way to accentuate your shitty reading comprehension.


    Joe R.

    I think there are several fundamental differences here between millennials and the preceding generations:

    1) Cars are more a need than a want. Unfortunately due to the relative scarcity of places where you can live without a private car, millennials are forced into owning one. Compare this to older generations where a car represented status, freedom, your personality, etc. Older generations wanted to own cars, even if they lived in a place where they didn’t really need to.

    2) Cars will be more likely to be kept until they wear out, not until some newer model they lust for comes out. Contrast this to the boomers who often bought new cars every 3 to 5 years.

    3) Millennials are actually very highly likely to want to live in cities and use public transit. Unfortunately, 60 years of suburban-centric planning means both things are in short supply. If we started infill development, rezoning, and building transit the number of millennials owning cars would decline drastically. To many in that generation, it’s a necessary evil they would just as soon not spend their money on.

    4) Lack of money to buy cars. Unlike previous generations, many millennials can’t afford a car. Even those who have one through necessity often really can’t.

    When you put all these things together it’s clear cars aren’t going away in the near future but at the same time the trend is down. That downward trend will get even steeper when self-driving cars are viable. It will take decades to get rid of the sprawl which necessitates car dependency, but self-driving cars could obviate the need to own a car in such places in the not too distant future. Given 1 through 4, I think it’s highly likely many millennials (and also those of other generations) will do exactly that. No matter how you slice it, a car is a huge expense. With upward mobility pretty much gone, people will want to trim their budgets any way they can. Getting rid of your car is the best way to start.


    Joe R.

    No, it’s being against something which causes 100% of the people who live in cities problems but at best benefits a tiny minority. It’s a shame you just can’t see that private automobiles are bad fit in cities. The math works against cars in cities. There wouldn’t be enough space for roads and parking if 100% of city dwellers used private automobiles. Moreover, the ensuing congestion would pretty much make them useless for practical transport. Therefore, at best only a small number can derive any benefit from private autos before their sheer numbers overwhelm the space. However, even that small percentage causes massive delays to buses, bikes, and pedestrians. It also negatively affects the air quality.

    Cars are best used in rural areas where by definition there aren’t enough potential users to congest roads or affect the air quality very much. Advocating for cars in cities makes about as much sense as advocating for a subway in rural Nebraska.



    Exactly. Your anti-whatever *you* don’t like attitude is precisely the reputation that streetsblog is known for.


    Joe R.

    No, it’s a movement against autos in places where they’re an awful fit, like NYC. I personally don’t give a rat’s behind if most of the rest of the country chooses an auto-addicted lifestyle. Just keep your cars out of dense urban areas. And don’t ask us urbanites to continue subsidizing sprawling development as we’ve been doing for the last 60 years.


    Kevin Love

    New York vs. London may be a “grass is greener on the other side of the fence” situation. But some other places really are doing it better. Such as every city in The Netherlands.


    Kevin Love



    Sadly, no it’s not. There is the element that isn’t even subtle, that is loudly against autos, roads, and parking. Starting with editor-in-chief Ben Fried, who editorializes aganst lifestyle areas such as “highway-enabled land use”, not surprising for a NYC point of view but not reflective of the bulk of the US in any way.


    Marven Norman

    The Superhighways are turning out alright, but the Quietways are still suffering a bit. That’s the area that the new mayor should really strive to improve.



    There was a posting on Facebook in memory of US military personnel killed in Vietnam. Their loss should be remembered and mourned, but my comment was, “Why were they there in the first place?” Another FB post showed the US Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, truly a marvel of modern technology–but it doesn’t help US soldiers attacked by raggedy “militants” with home-made bombs.



    Regarding the “Car-Free” neighborhood in Mannheim, Germany. The developer of this new suburb is “Traumhaus” which is German for “Dreamhouse”.


    Kenny Easwaran

    Isn’t *everything* on Streetsblog about the need to incorporate automobiles into planning and infrastructure elements, instead of just layering them on top and destroying the planning and infrastructure with automobiles?


    Kenny Easwaran

    The complaint then is that if some little town gets to set its own speed limits without state regulation, then some little towns will set the speed limit drastically lower in order to extract speeding fines from a large number of drivers going through.

    Of course, a major city can’t function as a speed trap – it *is* the destination rather than an obstacle on the way. So the logic doesn’t really apply. But it’s what the law is meant to deal with.



    In Manhattan below 60th the car:bike ratio is 10;1. In some parts of lower Manhattan, the ratio is now 5:1.

    1:1 ratio is Tokyo and a good goal to strive for


    Robert Wright

    There’s always a tendency in street safety activism to think that some other place is doing it better. I’ve lived and cycled (in two blocks) 11 years in London as an adult. I’ve spent the last four years in New York and am moving back to London this summer. People from London are always telling me how envious they are of the great things being done in New York. People in New York are always telling me how great things seem in London.

    The truth, inevitably, is a bit more complicated. Cycling in London has come a long way – the commuting rate in London was around 4 per cent in the last figures I saw, against 1 per cent in New York. It’s true that the new Superhighways look really good and effective. It’s worth bearing in mind, meanwhile, the catastrophic policies that led to them. The original Superhighways, painted on busy main roads, were insanely dangerous. I, as a hardened, 4,000-mile-a-year commuter cyclist, didn’t dare use them a lot of the time. Transport for London ended up being pushed into building the new, protected lanes essentially because it was so embarrassing that commuters kept getting killed on the painted superhighways. I’m glad they’re being built but we shouldn’t forget that they were born out of the atrocious, ill-thought-out policies.

    It’s also worth pointing out that transport policy in London is complicated. Transport for London runs the arterial roads. But the other roads are run by the 32 separate boroughs. Many of these boroughs, particularly in outer London, are actively hostile to putting in better cycling provision. Cycling there remains, as far as I know, far more like trying to cycle in Staten Island than rolling up the Allen St protected bike lanes in Manhattan. The cycling growth is heavily concentrated in inner London, particularly in boroughs like Hackney that are poorly served by the underground, rather than evenly throughout the capital.

    On the quietways, meanwhile, I’m no expert. But many of these are, I think, developments of the London Cycle Network laid out along quiet back streets in the 1990s. It’s a complicated network, whose layout one has to learn. But it was useful for journeys where there wasn’t a decent alternative on the arterial roads. I always had the impression that Boris Johnson developed the original, dangerous superhighways partly because he thought the London Cycle Network was too associated with Ken Livingstone and he wanted to do something for himself.



    well, in California for instance, speed limits are set to the 85th percentile of observed traffic. Generally the reasoning is that it does little good and possible harm to set the limit lower than what people actually drive. As a pedestrian I question that reasoning, but right now this is what the law says.


    Marven Norman

    The ability to tabulate LOS for bicyclists and pedestrians already exists, it just is rarely used. As such, everyone needs to demand that their local, regional, and state transportation agencies start using and applying the metrics for all modes.



    Are 20mph speed zones not a thing? Just put up a sign every direction coming into the city.

    Better yet would be to reconstruct the streets so that even 20mph would feel uncomfortable when driving.



    Great story in Lohud about Westchester County, New York, but how much parking will these buildings have?
    Creating housing in suburban downtowns does not necessarily translate into more commercial activity and pedestrians on the streets. As we’ve seen in the past decade, those new residents rarely venture out on foot. Instead, they hop on the regional rail lines to get to work, and then hop in their conveniently located cars to do anything else.

    What’s really scary is seeing former EDC-head Seth Pinsky as part of this. His parking extravaganzas in urban places like the South Bronx are infamous.



    Revealing. The streetsblog mindset isn’t primarily about improving transportation. Rather, the editorial reach implicates “GHG impact of highway-enabled land use”. Propaganda, behavior modification and master nanny-planning of lifestyles.. don’t be shy. Sadly, your anti-lifestyle editorial component serves to alienate factions of those truly wanting better transportation.


    Mark Raymond

    Environmentalists have been hoping for that in Los Angeles for the past 50 years. It’s gone nowhere.



    Yes, in once-upon-a-time land, almost everything has occurred. Foxx is almost out of his job position, and these late 9th inning comments by him hold minimal weight or value, policy wise.


    good will




    Buffalo has been one of the test cities for SoBi…for a couple of years now…



    Is this sarcasm? If not, maybe you’d like to volunteer your children to be killed by car crashes.



    Another disadvantage of the proposed subsidy is that it extends massive surveillance. You can take a bus or train anonymously and pay cash, but Uber and Lyft track their passengers’ identities and movements. Massive surveillance threatens our freedom, and even our democracy, so we should oppose any plan to extend surveillance. See

    In addition, using Uber or Lyft requires a smartphone, which (aside from the fact that it tracks you everywhere and its microphone can be remotely activated) also tends to be rather expensive.The people this plan is intended to serve might be unable to use it.

    A non-smart portable phone also tracks you everywhere, and also allows its microphone to be remotely activated — but it can’t be used to call Uber or Lyft.

    See for more reasons to reject Uber. I have made it a personal rule never to use Uber.


    Charles Siegel

    There was a time when the majority believed in slavery, but it turned out that the minority was right.



    Who cares. People will speed anyway. Vision 0 is absolute stupidity. And anyone who thinks its with time and energy needs to get a real job, and not telling people what’s good for them. Angie you need to be hit by a speeding car you nitwit.


    Walter Crunch

    Who cares of every town has different speed limits?



    Is this really so hard? Don’t lower the statewide guidance, just allow cities and towns to go lower if they so choose. Alternativley, do what is frequently done in IL, allow it in cities with a population over X. There are plenty of laws in IL that only apply to municipalities with a population over 1 million. Guess where those apply?


    Vickie Raney Stapleton

    I am fun…and I like to have fun. And Fair Park is my happy place. I have gone there all my life, and hope my grandchildren have that same opportunity. Let’s fix Fair Park so that it can help generations to come create lasting memories.


    Vickie Raney Stapleton

    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I know there are many improvements that need to be made…but PARKING is not the main issue. Fair Park is a historic sight in Dallas….in fact, in Texas. It has always been the site of our State Fair, and that is not something I am willing to see changed. The buildings need to be restored, or renovated. Their needs to be better marketing for the many events that happen at Fair Park. There is so much to offer there, but most people just don’t know what is available. Let’s start there and then worry about where people will park.


    Kevin Love

    You mean like in Finland?

    Or The Netherlands?

    Or Canada? Where there is a “coldest day of the year” ride in Toronto every year in the exact middle of winter?

    I see that David Hembrow conveniently put all the myths and phoney excuses together:



    Additionally, subsidizing a now-major corporation which has shown to have little regard for laws not suiting their business model.



    What’s amazing is that people think this is some kind of new idea, made possible only because of Uber and Lyft.

    This is just a natural extension of paratransit ideas going back over several decades — in this case, subsidizing taxis to provide last mile services supplementing public transit. That’s a big part of what they do anyway.

    The idea has its merits. However, subsidizing these particular taxi services — the massive cab corporations, Uber and Lyft — is a terrible idea. No public entity should get in bed with these crooks. They are too powerful and too used to getting everything they want. The transit agencies will end up being their hapless puppets.

    So sure, subsidize last mile rides, but do it with locally regulated taxi companies, that you can control. Uber and Lyft will control you, and treat you just as poorly as they treat their drivers.



    Here’s the new link to Foxx’s presentation to Center for American Progress:



    Not a solution for winter-climate cities.



    it’s amusing because the lavish subsidies Required to sustain the ex-urbs are Never addressed


    Matthias Leyrer!!

    Link is broken on the Baltimore story



    The “Burbs Will Be Different This Time”… apparently according to the article’s illustrations they’ll look like Syd Mead paintings with some drones thrown in. Pure 1950s “gee-whiz” “technology-will-save-us” stuff.


    Andy Chow

    Why should a transit agency subsidizing an operation where the worker does not get any worker benefit or protection? These drivers don’t earn an hourly wage, get any overtime pay, workers compensation, and so forth. It is actually more fair to contract with companies in the likes of Walmart that actually treat their workers as employees not contractors.

    What they would subsidize is the financial return for the venture capitalists. If there’s a subsidy, they should go to support the bottom not the top.