• mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      All necessary vehicles can be accommodated in pedestrianised areas when needed, as they already are in many places around the world.

      Car infrastructure comes with many extra external costs, such as increased heathcare costs due to pollution, increased travel due to the extra space needed between everything, etc

      Individual transport is great when it respects the world around it. A bike doesn’t need so many resources, nor does it take up so much space or cause harm to those around it.

      Autonomous electric vehicles don’t go far enough with fixing the existing problems. Sharing helps but you still don’t need to take all that mass along with you on your commute, and there isn’t space to have everyone else in a city doing the same every morning.

        • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s cheap because it’s subsidised. Car users don’t pay all of the costs. And it’s popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren’t for driving, people will use other modes.

        • jcrm@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          because it is relatively cheap.

          It is not. Car infrastructure is some of the most expensive there is. It’s cheap because it’s heavily subsidized. It’s popular because car manufacturers made it popular, with propaganda and lobbying for making cars the default form of transportation.

          If your opinion is the obviously correct one where driving is the only thing accomodated for, why does the actual data show that the model for walkable cities with good transit have happier, healthier, more comfortable people, and are economically stronger than car dependent cities?

    • Izzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There doesn’t need to be as much road in cities if it is reserved for public transport and emergency vehicles only. Rail and subway are not the only form of public transport, but rail and subways being expensive doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make for a better city. Anything to reduce the noise and reclaim more land for public use such as walking and biking is a huge improvement to peoples well being in cities. As many non-american cities have discovered by doing just that.

      And as this article explains why people are happier in cities it has nothing to do with cars.

      Individual car transport in cities absolutely needs to be given up if there is to be any kind of improvement. Individual cars are the cause of all the congestion, noise, pollution and need for so much road space. You can fit the same amount of people in 1/10th the space using public transport such as in-road rail or busses or anything.

      Autonomous vehicles? Don’t make me laugh. This nonsense is never going to work. Sounds to me like you are drinking the Musk koolaid. The only viable use-case for automation of individual vehicles is going to be large semi-trucks on the interstates where you can actually standardized infrastructure and have as little as possible obstacles. Even then I doubt this will happen any time soon.