IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdvh30h wrote

Only a person who drives everywhere would claim that statement isn’t true. Go ride a bus and see how effective they are when stuck behind a bunch of cars. Or ride a bike on mass Ave and see how safe you feel. Hell try crossing a crosswalk and deal with idiots running red lights.

Every statistic under the sun disagrees with your assessment of the situation.

And it will not be long before Boston implements a congestion tax.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdvfx6h wrote

Streets exist to allow for the movement of people and goods, what are you on about that they exist for cars? And yes, there is an injustice. Cars make it impossible for anyone not in a car to effectively and safely use the streets. They take more space than any other mode of transit but simultaneously are the least efficient way of moving people around.

If streets in boston were exclusively designed to move the largest number of people most quickly, cars simply would not be allowed. There would be dedicated lanes for buses, streetcars, and/or light rail. You can look up any statistic on transit flux for various modes of transit.

But you’re right, nothing is going to change. That is until Boston decides to implement a congestion tax, which I promise you is not far away.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdvdwbk wrote

Boston is not a big place.

And yea, electric vehicles are not going to solve injuries and deaths to people, they are going to make them worse because they are a thousand pounds heavier. Electric vehicles are not going to solve the fundamental issues of geometry imposed by how large cars are relative to people and streets. Electric vehicles are not going to fix the injustice of city streets being clogged by a handful of people in private vehicles, most of whom don’t even live in the city, while residents can’t safely bike and are crammed on narrow sidewalks. Electric vehicles are not going to fix the primary source of particulate pollution from cars which is brake dust.

The list goes on and on.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdv6zg1 wrote

Then why are you going on about privilege if you don’t. One group causes 40,000 deaths and 1M hospital requiring injuries per year and is the leading source of CO2 in the US, the other isn’t. It isn’t “both sides are right”. Cars have been a disaster for our health, our cities and our environment.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jdv48zx wrote

There is nothing inherently expensive about towns that don’t require cars. They are denser, make more efficient use of infrastructure and land, have a larger and more diverse tax base to pay for things, and most importantly the residents don’t need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a vehicle. They are expensive because you can literally count on one hand how many towns survived the 1950s without getting demolished for cars. Supply is low and demand is high for that type of living.

If you don’t want it to be a privilege then write your reps and vote for candidates that support those types of towns. Otherwise keep driving your car and bitching about people who don’t.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jczkobu wrote

oh my fucking god is that what they actually wrote? These people, who constantly complain about not being heard, want a committee formed exclusively of unelected, uncredentialed homeowners who clearly have a vested interest in preventing housing construction? My god. When you think these people can’t get worse, they somehow do.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jcymzf0 wrote

A lot of people are not interested in a good-faith discussion on this issue. The people who wrote this city's zoning code knew exactly what they were doing. It didn't escape anyone's notice that almost all of the existing multifamily housing stock in Cambridge would be made illegal.


Their goal was to remake the city into a dull, soulless suburb. The layers of laws that prevent apartment construction are numerous and complex. They probably only failed to see it through because there are simply too many existing apartment builds for the culture of urbanism to be stamped out.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jcylqza wrote

Carlone is probably the only one who would oppose this. He'll trot out his Robert Moses era Urban Planning degree as if that is a positive thing and talk about how this popular urban amenity is actually a bad thing.


Because, you know, Cambridge needs to be like every other soulless suburb in this country. Any semblance of culture and fun is to be stamped out immediately.


IntelligentCicada363 t1_jcykov6 wrote

It is very clear that at least a couple councillors (Nolan, Carlone, potentially others) plan to try to "upzone" the city without changing other aspects of the zoning code that make multifamily housing uneconomical to build.

The city could allow 6-plexes citywide tomorrow and every single one of those projects would still being going in front of the BZA for a dimensional variance.

The way I see it we are no where even close to fixing this problem. They can't even do the upzoning, let alone everything else.