Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Philitian t1_j9z60kt wrote

I don't get it, then. I've only ever worked in the city & I've always either biked or taken transit. If it's simply a matter of those types of infrastructure being improved, then it's a different discussion entirely. And yes - even if you need a vehicle for work, reducing the amount of traffic in the city will only benefit you.

0

mustang__1 t1_j9zaeu1 wrote

I don't get your point. I wasn't against expanding infra. I was against setting it up so you both can't use a car and can't commute to within city limits.

1

Philitian t1_j9ziw91 wrote

Urban highways primarily function to channel commuters to-and-from the city limits. If there were less of that exchange in commuting patterns, they would not be necessary. It's not about uprooting the car infrastructure entirely, but reducing traffic to the extent where it can flow effectively without these humongous blights diving our neighborhoods, spitting pollution onto its residents, and putting everyone at risk who needs to walk past their exits.

Highways ought to encircle a city's perimeter and terminate when they enter the city limits. The rest of the way, the traffic can move at speeds safe for pedestrians. Philly actually does this much better than most other cities in the US, but we should still make sure they don't expand further - otherwise, the only outcome is more displacement and urban blight.

2