or would you rather take the metro?
2006-11-26 03:38:02 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ Other - Destinations
LOL! I was in Boston for the MacWorld Convention in 1996, when the 'Big Dig' had been well underway. I was staying in a Holiday Inn about 2 miles from the convention center in the downtown area.
Thank God I didn't have a car. I saw the traffic and decided to just walk it. Seriously, by the time I turned the corner to the convention center about 30 minutes later, the cars I'd passed way back at the beginning of my walk had moved about 3 blocks, if even that.
Everyone I've spoken to in the area say that things have only gotten worse since then.
You decide.
Personally, I think that passenger cars should be prohibited in cities like New York and Boston, where the never-increasing thoroughfares are so obviously inadequate for the ever-increasing traffic volume. This would force people to take public transportation, would restrict the streets to emergency vehicles, taxis, public transport, and non-motor traffic.
In 2006, it seems to be the only thing that makes sense.
Let's see which large city that has this problem, has the kahunas to be the first to create such a policy!
______________________
2006-11-26 03:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by funnyrob01 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have friends in Boston and have been there myself. It's a crazy place to drive and no place to park. I'd rather take the T (subway) and walk.
2006-11-26 17:24:41 · answer #2 · answered by chefgrille 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DRIVE A CAR!
2006-11-26 11:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by I'm mad 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ride a bike.healtier, no polluting,free
2006-11-26 11:46:58 · answer #4 · answered by BUCI BUCI 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋