Bike lanes are typically seen as being environmentally friendly. But some Bay Area leaders say the one on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is causing an increase in pollution.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. They’re still needed for many places, when moving stuff around, when public transportation isn’t developed enough, which is pretty much the case worldwide if you want to go to a specific address
Banning all cars from the bridge was not meant as a serious proposal, but just to show that these people do not care about pollution at all.
Meanwhile, you seem to have taken that proposal as serious and that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge. Banning cars everywhere is a fringe opinion even here, and I think no one ever suggested you have to “move stuff” with cargo bikes and public transport exclusively. On top of that, I personally don’t quite agree with the way you said public transport is “underdeveloped”. Yes there are specific addresses you can barely reach pretty much everywhere, but you comment reads as any specific address can’t be reached. I think we can expect people to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
Well knowing the community, can you really blame me for understanding it this way?
that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge
That bridge is probably the fastest way to go in this direction so I’m making a big deal of it because of this.
I do believe people won’t switch for public transportation if they have to wait more than a couple of minutes or if there isn’t a bus stop nearby. I can’t imagine doing many short daily travel by other means than cars because buses are often super late and turn some short itineraries into long ones, at the point where I regularly find myself in a situation where walking is faster than waiting for the bus
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
I won’t censor my opinion because I’m somewhere where everyone thinks the same
If they wanted to cut pollution, they’d ban all cars from the bridge and make it public transit + bike only. Cars aren’t idling when there’s no cars.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. They’re still needed for many places, when moving stuff around, when public transportation isn’t developed enough, which is pretty much the case worldwide if you want to go to a specific address
This is a clear example of miscommunication.
Banning all cars from the bridge was not meant as a serious proposal, but just to show that these people do not care about pollution at all.
Meanwhile, you seem to have taken that proposal as serious and that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge. Banning cars everywhere is a fringe opinion even here, and I think no one ever suggested you have to “move stuff” with cargo bikes and public transport exclusively. On top of that, I personally don’t quite agree with the way you said public transport is “underdeveloped”. Yes there are specific addresses you can barely reach pretty much everywhere, but you comment reads as any specific address can’t be reached. I think we can expect people to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
Well knowing the community, can you really blame me for understanding it this way?
That bridge is probably the fastest way to go in this direction so I’m making a big deal of it because of this.
I do believe people won’t switch for public transportation if they have to wait more than a couple of minutes or if there isn’t a bus stop nearby. I can’t imagine doing many short daily travel by other means than cars because buses are often super late and turn some short itineraries into long ones, at the point where I regularly find myself in a situation where walking is faster than waiting for the bus
I won’t censor my opinion because I’m somewhere where everyone thinks the same