Read the piece on thetransportpolitic.com ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsThough elected officials and planners claim an interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing transit use, and producing more livable, walkable communities, when push comes to shove, it's nearly impossible for them to make the hard choice: Reducing or eliminating space for automobiles.
Their wordsThere is, just as importantly, significant evidence that cities that have replaced waterfront highways with surface boulevards or simply pedestrian space don't suffer from massive congestion on nearby streets or a crushed economy, as some transportation models would suggest.
Our reading
Expanding automobile circulation and doubling transit ridership are irreconcilable goals.
Their wordsRegional plans to double transit ridership won't happen at the same time as space for automobile circulation is expanded. These two are irreconcilable; cities are going to have to choose what is more important to them.
Keep reading