• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    86 months ago

    The only reason people in urban centers do not have transit is because governments neglected to build it. If they can build a 6 lane highway through your city, they could build transit.

    We shouldnt use rural and spread out areas as an excuse to not build our cities and denser areas better and service them with transit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

      Sure, but be aware that your messaging isn’t so targeted. The messaging is “fuck cars” not “our dense cities need to be more walkable and transit”. In this very thread it’s “we shouldn’t do anything for EVs, cars aren’t the answer anyway, we need to be ditching cars”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        Yes and i agree with that sentiment. 20 years down the line we will realize our cities are just as unwalkable and unable to be served by transit if we build them to exclussively serve the car. We should build cities so walking, cycling, transit and driving are all realistic options. For most north American cities we only prioiritize the car.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Sure, and I’ve seen some good projects, and less than good projects.

          In my city, they took a street and closed it and redid it as pedestrians only. Worked great, more foot traffic going from any establishment to any other, and car people only had to walk an extra block or two to get to things.

          There’s a section where they made a highly walkable environment from scratch, with car access basically through entering a big mostly underground parking deck, so the surface was reasonably car free.

          On the flip side, the city loved these efforts so much they mandated mixed use zoning for all new construction. And the three big projects I’ve seen play out under this new scheme all followed the same recipe:

          • Proposal with 90% residential, and 10% “retail/commercial”
          • The proposal is phased, with hyper detailed residential plans and a vague box for the “retail/commercial” phase “to come later”
          • The residential is built, and then the company withdraws their plan for further development.

          One that did go in for the true mixed use early on suffered because no commercial tenant would tolerate streetside only parking (which was effectively part of the deal, given how the regulations were written parking lots/decks were not viable for these “walkable neighborhoods” when they could just have a parking lot or deck nearby by setting up their business somewhere else)