What if they simultaneously think transit stations lower their property value, high-density housing lowers their property value, but also they are “poor” because they can’t afford to move elsewhere?

Have you considered their opinions, mhmmmm? /s

No shit sherlock. Now build more public transport.

The City of Montreal currently has the goal of reaching a 75 per cent active mode share, including cycling, walking and public transit, by 2050.

“In order to achieve that level of public transportation use, we need a lot more than just densifying around public transportation,” Roncace said. “We also need to discourage car use…

Translation: fuck cars

The only hostile infrastructure that I support is roads that permit cars, but makes them intentionally slower than the public transportation that they have to see running faster in the next lane over

Seems obvious, but I guess it’s good to have more support.

Economic benefits for whom? I’m pretty sure politicians don’t economically benefit for pushing public transport against the wishes of the car and fossil fuel lobbyist owning them. And it gets even better (for their personal calculation that is…) when you realize it isn’t their money they are spending anyway.

Duck Ford (yes, I know, he isn’t in Montreal) and the like don’t care and don’t read this.

Link to study?

Also makes a hell of a lot more sense to build gtid-tied electric busses and trains than electric cars full of heavy batteries ffs

W

O

W

Ferda jerbs!