🚀 go-pugleaf

Steven M. O'Neill (steveo@panix.com) wrote:
> In article <tz8d8k1loxy.fsf@aimnet.com>, Thomas <nouser@nohost.nodomain> wrote:
>>[...] in the US, there
>>is at least one large city (Manhattan) where you neither
>>want nor need a car.
> 
> As a Manhattan resident, I have always said this, which leads me to my
> next question: THEN WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DAMNED CARS HERE???

A combinations of factors: for starters, most of them are not Manhattan
residents.

There will always be some percentage of people for whom transit is not a
realistic option - for example, real estate salespeople. 

While you see the gridlocked cars, what is harder to spot is the huge
numbers of people on foot and in the subways, commuter trains, and buses.
The stats are there that the car drivers are a small minority of total
trips. They just happen to be the most visible because they take up the
most space. 

Picture each of those solo car drivers sitting on a kitchen chair in the
middle of the road, at the locations where they would be seated in their
cars, but without the cars around them. It's a pretty ludicrous image,
isn't it? Or picture how much space 60 cars take up, and how much space 
1 bus takes. Same idea. (In fact, these two images were part of a
promotional campaign by the Toronto Transit Commission several years ago.)
--
####    |\^/|     Colin R. Leech     ag414 or crleech@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\|   |/|_  Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### >         <  Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
####  >_./|\._<   "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown