How do you figure? You specifically bolded “in places that don’t need them” in a reply to my “some cities make it easy to go without a car but most don’t” which sounds like you’re in agreement that some cities can do without cars. Vancouver, WA is not one of those cities.
You made an unsubstantiated claim about most cities and proceeded to then put words in my mouth asserting i agreed with you. which I never in way stated. ‘where it makes sense’ doesnt mean I agreed with your position on Vancouver. Which in fact I dont since its barely larger than my current city geographically. and crossing the city takes < 50 minutes on a bike and thats literally one corner to the other, a trip I almost never make. Its 5 minutes longer than taking the public train to the same location. and 20 minutes more than a car (assuming good traffic which is never assured).
About the only thing parking mandates do is increase urban sprawl and make the situation worse.
do you see how replying to “every city in WA except of Seattle doesn’t make it real easy to live without a car, and the city in the article is very much outside of Seattle” with “you can’t read, i was just talking about places that don’t need them” makes one think you’re saying that “the city in the article is not one of the places that don’t need them”?
yes. those are called assumptions. do you see how making assumptions and assertions about others peoples positions that they did not explicitly claim means your reading comprehension needs improvements? now kindly move on.
you really struggle with this. dont put words in other peoples mouths.
How do you figure? You specifically bolded “in places that don’t need them” in a reply to my “some cities make it easy to go without a car but most don’t” which sounds like you’re in agreement that some cities can do without cars. Vancouver, WA is not one of those cities.
You made an unsubstantiated claim about most cities and proceeded to then put words in my mouth asserting i agreed with you. which I never in way stated. ‘where it makes sense’ doesnt mean I agreed with your position on Vancouver. Which in fact I dont since its barely larger than my current city geographically. and crossing the city takes < 50 minutes on a bike and thats literally one corner to the other, a trip I almost never make. Its 5 minutes longer than taking the public train to the same location. and 20 minutes more than a car (assuming good traffic which is never assured).
About the only thing parking mandates do is increase urban sprawl and make the situation worse.
do you see how replying to “every city in WA except of Seattle doesn’t make it real easy to live without a car, and the city in the article is very much outside of Seattle” with “you can’t read, i was just talking about places that don’t need them” makes one think you’re saying that “the city in the article is not one of the places that don’t need them”?
yes. those are called assumptions. do you see how making assumptions and assertions about others peoples positions that they did not explicitly claim means your reading comprehension needs improvements? now kindly move on.
you didn’t explicitly say anything we could go on either before yesterday’s reply
can’t you just explain I’ve got no idea what you’re saying either
flippancy is just the progressive version of virtue signaling—it gets nobody else on your side
sure, you dont need a car in the vast majority of cities. bikes work fine. fin.