You should wall yourselves off, dynamite all the bridges and tunnels and starve to death you yuppie, metrosexual scum. My god, reading this lunacy proves my point that the people who live in cities are so devoid of intelligence and are simply committed to living the metrosexual existence of manicures, lattes, 'aesthetics' and ipods. Their sense of entitlement has left them in lala land.

Stop cramming yuppies into 8x9 $2000 a month cells with doormen.

I have to look into using leaded fuel in my Sequoia, better yet maybe I could burn irradiated diesel and rev my engine up and down every street. I could help rid the planet of whining yuppie scum who undoubtedly sit around watching 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' while sipping their lattes and convincing themselves how superior they are to everyone in the 'stix.' You people are the same ones who were abused in school for being freaks and fled to the West Village where you found your little communes before the rents went through the roof.

The cities produce none of the stuff to sustain life. You people are so isolated from where all the products that keep your brazilian waxed asses so comfortable come from. Try producing something you whining bimbos.

The cities are the problem, they breed nothing but vermin for the rest of the world. Cars are not the problem. The unwashed hordes cramming into 'luxury' roach motels they pass off as city apartments these days are.

Capn - There are plenty of techniques for slowing drivers, all explained in detail on this site. Chicanes, neckdowns, humps, traffic circles, and of course the mild-mannered stop sign.

We don't need to waste half the street space on traffic that is designed not to move.

(I can't believe I just used Las Vegas an example of good city planning).

Also see this entertaining video of what happens when truck and bollard go head-to-head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BUrfaJ2AnE

No problem with that argument, but this report posits several straw men arguments only to disregard them with their own trumped up conclusions.

Someone needs to go to statistics class. The 45% number is a complete crock it's not even supported by their own data. Lying to prove your point shouldn't be necessary.

I've been thinking about that: "What if there is a cheap, low-polluting automobile that is mass produced in the next 10 years?"

My concern is with urban areas and land use. I think the only thing that could save the urban fabric in that case is still the amount of traffic that would be created if everyone felt compelled to drive.

The fact remains that regardless of the type of car that is invented, we will still never be able to build enough roads to accommodate the number of cars a region the size of NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Dallas, Atlanta, etc would require to move everyone around.

If fighting TRAFFIC congestion in the city is our objective (and I think it is)

Oh, well that's easy. It's certainly an objective, but it's not my only objective, and it's not the only objective of the editors of this blog. I quote from the About page:

We are part of a growing coalition of individuals and organizations in cities around the world working to transform our cities by reducing dependence on private automobiles and improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

I, for one, am just as concerned about reducing traffic congestion during Friday and Sunday evenings as during rush hours. I've also discussed the negative impact that auto-dependent vacationing city-dwellers have on country areas, which you have not yet addressed.

Finally, although you've declared your disagreement with the conclusions of the study, you have yet to provide any basis for that disagreement other than stating that you don't want to be inconvenienced.

I want to discourage "destination" parking so as to reduce traffic CONGESTION during rush hours IN THE CITY.

People should feel free to use their cars, on the weekend for example, to go wherever they might wish - outside of rush hour times, outside of the city, and they Should NOT have to worry about needing to spend 45 minutes trying to find a stinkin parking spot when they come home.

THIS is my whole point. If fighting TRAFFIC congestion in the city is our objective (and I think it is) then let us fight JUST THAT - and not inconvenience ourselves by worsening and already pretty bad residential or source parking picture.

Thanks.

I think the addition of off-street paid parking lots allows us to free up the parking lanes for bus lanes, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, all the dreams of non-drivers.

Sounds nice, but there's the matter that parked cars do provide a buffer to protect pedestrians. If you take that away you decrease safety. How do you propose to compensate for that?

USING you car during rush hour to commute to an already over-crowded city should be discouraged as should "destination" parking.... PARKING your vehicle near where you live ("source" parking) should NOT.

Everyone feel me here?

Let me see if I do. You want to discourage all "destination" parking (work, shopping and recreation) to discourage driving. If you succeed, and people get rid of their cars, then what do you need the "source" parking for?

The reason I suggest large OFF-street UNDERGROUND parking as a way to solve the issue is these reasons:

Only 1 (one) curb cut for many many cars - So Less Dangerous to pederstrian

Underground: So less unsightly, doesn't materially impact housing costs and contains emissions (somewhat)

Efficient: Large underground garages which hold 100 or 200 cars can make life for EVERYONE, including non-car owners better as it will reduce the need to drive around to find a spot (less emissions), will reduce associated traffic (safer) and congestion and will improve neighborhood dynamics & home values (more desirable neighborhood)

None of this is to take away the fact that DRIVING to the city SHOULD be expensive - With this I agree...

USING you car during rush hour to commute to an already over-crowded city should be discouraged as should "destination" parking.... PARKING your vehicle near where you live ("source" parking) should NOT.

Everyone feel me here?

Lunatic Fringe: Great addiction metaphor. I don't think anything has decreased the amount of smoking as much as huge taxes on cigarettes.

I don't care if people smoke cigarettes as long as they don't do it at the table next to mine at the restaurant, and I don't care if people park their cars as long as I don't have to look at the cars when I walk down the street. On street parking should be for deliveries and quick visits. Residents should be economically motivated to get their cars off the street.

Hide these ugly monsters away.