If you ever wondered why the "old town" felt nicer somehow, here's why.Check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/adamsomethingJoin my Discord: https://di...
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.
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.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
@UserDoesNotExist @mondoman712
deleted by creator
@UserDoesNotExist @Untonplusbas This is what happens when you reply to a lemmy thread, from twitter.
They are replying to you and the other person is OP.
How about responding to the stats?
deleted by creator