Got a flyer from a political candidate saying he opposes:

  • Good Move
  • Parking Brussels
  • Aux taxes et aux impôts abusifs

I had to look up the 1st two items. Couple goals of good move is:

  • Reduce the need for private cars by offering a set of attractive options addressing the different needs for travel;

  • prioritising off-street parking, adapting tariffs per sector, reducing the number of places in public spaces

Seems to be a success. I found this: One year Good Move in Brussels city: 25% less car-traffic and 36% more bicycles.

Less car traffic is also good for car drivers because they have fewer other cars in their way. So it’s unclear what the guy’s problem is.

I also had to look up Parking Brussels to work out what his issue may be. Goals of that project:

  • Make it easier for residents to park in their neighbourhood
  • Encourage short-stay parking
  • Discourage long-stay on-street parking

That’s wise. It’s a bad idea for public parking to be used for long-term parking. My street is always clusterfucked with cars that fill the public parking so there is no way to have visitors or deliveries. I’m not sure why Good Move and Parking Brussels have failed to solve the problem for my street, but canceling them would seem to just make that problem less likely to be solved.

  • Servais (il/le)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    The Brussels mobility is a highly debated topics. Due to the salary car system, a lot of people don’t mind commuting from far away to Brussels to work. On the other hand, the people from Brussels suffer from that congestion and pollution, and Brussels stays poor as people pay communal taxes where they live.

    Both groups have diametrically opposed interests