View Single Post
Old 09-18-18, 04:48 PM
  #76  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8069 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
The damage that people would do if they could access more of nature without cars, is trivial compared to the damage they actually do
every day and have done for generations with their cars and with the infrastructure their cars require. For every remote, pristine valley that people might want to flock to, to escape from crowds and cars, there is another one, or several, that have been despoiled and developed and permanently removed from nature, because cars made it available for development or necessary as a transportation corridor.
I agree, and when I go to otherwise-wonderful natural preserves and see all the cars parked and all the people walking as if they're at an amusement park, it bothers me; but when I think about what it would be like if there was a train line or direct bus connection, I think it might get even worse. Compare US national parks with touristy parts of, say, Switzerland, where there are trains and cable lifts, etc. Gatlinburg and Pidgeon Forge are touristy, and it's certainly understandable to have some touristy areas like that, but given the way humans behave when they all flock to just about any destination, I wonder if making such places transit accessible isn't even worse than having them easily accessible by driving. I don't know if it's possible to entrust the transit-using public with responsible stewardship of natural areas if they get car-free access to them.
tandempower is offline