Why do streetsbloggers hate ride-share, poor people and women?
Part Two
In looking at the importance of first and last mile access to transit (which I've pounded the table over), Marlon Boarnet also found where lower income residents in San Diego have up to 30 times better access to jobs when they own cars.
Who's Marlon Boarnet? https://news.usc.edu/126791/how-tran...he-difference/
Quote:
|
The researchers found that car commuters in low-income neighborhoods in San Diego have about 30 times greater job accessibility than those who take public transit... according to study’s lead author Marlon Boarnet, a professor of public policy and chair of the department of urban planning and spatial analysis at the USC Price School of Public Policy. Boarnet is an associate director of METRANS for the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST), a research center headed by the University of California, Davis. METRANS is a member of the NCST consortium.
|
A study out of UCLA also showed where increasing car ownership as a result of the improving economy, much of it among lower-socioeconomic residents added to congestion and likely added to the drop in transit ridership in Los Angeles.
Poor people shouldn't be allowed to own cars or use ride-share. Rather they should be required to use transit; after all they're poor for gods sake.
(Note: Italic print denotes sarcasm)
There's more than one problem with this stinkin' thinking. Take Denver where growth in downtown employment is approaching 140,000 and there's good access via light rail or buses. The problem is that the metro area has employment of ~1,525,000 so downtown has close to but not even 10% of the jobs. There's a ton of retail employment for example. What if people find jobs elsewhere but transit doesn't go there?
Btw, more common sense facts that the bigger problem in causing congestion is
car ownership and
not ride-share.
It isn't really my intent to accuse streetsbloggers of intentional discrimination and desire to limit poor people's personal freedom but it's the irony of hypocrisy that infects groups when they obsess over a particular agenda. Same thing happens on the right around the hypocrisy of the "Right to Life." There's also this creeping nannyism that suggests that "we know what's better for you than you do."
Time to watch the Avalanche