Hyundai and Kia are recalling a combined 3.37 million vehicles in the United States due to the risk of engine fires, telling owners to park outside and away from structures until repairs are complete.
Not to mention, to really achieve what they’re suggesting, most of the US would need to be completely razed and built back up from scratch. However, these comments always phrase it as if it’s just a simple matter of opinion whether you live in a car-centric culture or not.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that improving public transportation requires cities to be “completely razed”. What a ridiculous straw person. Incremental change is not only possible, it’s already happening.
Is that not what you referenced when you said “moving away from car-centric urban design and culture?” How does that happen without rebuilding downtown areas and suburbs? Sending a few more busses out to suburbia isn’t going to change anything.
So what does it mean? Adding a few more busses to suburbia like I said? Why don’t you explain what you mean rather than wasting so much time telling others that they’re not understanding you correctly?
Why don’t you ask me first instead of writing your first ridiculous bad faith comment? I have no obligation to take time and effort to respond carefully to that kind of intellectual dishonesty. “What, just add buses like I said?” shows an unwillingness to actually learn anything.
If you’re actually curious and asking in good faith, here’s another more reasonable way to ask your question: Is there anything reasonable that can be done to incrementally improve public transportation? The answer is obviously yes.
infill existing developments with added density. For example, we massively overbuild parking lots. Most are half empty even at the busiest times of day. Build low rise apartments in these areas. For example, a small apartment in the parking lot of supermarket strip mall. Infilling is already happening.
infill suburban neighborhoods with additional units. Allow secondary units, basement units, eliminate set backs, allow townhouses and mid rise apartments everywhere. Added density doesn’t have to look that different.
repurpose the thousands of vacant malls into housing. Malls are already conveniently located next to highways and other businesses. Parking lots around malls are a blank canvas for a new walkable urban center. This is already happening.
eliminate parking minimums for new constructions.
eliminate exclusive single family home zoning for new constructions.
don’t allow any more new suburban sprawl.
build sidewalks, bike lanes and separated bike roads. Most suburban streets are enormous and can easily be modified without greatly affecting traffic.
allow mixed zoning, such as small corner stores in suburban residential areas. Even a single small grocer, coffee shop, childcare center, etc can start to eliminate some (not all!) local car trips. The US and Canada are some of the only places where you literally can’t have anything interesting in a residential area.
in Europe and Asia, even low density suburbs get bus service. In combination with the measures above, bus service becomes worthwhile. Yes, even in the suburbs.
make city centers car free or slowly start to eliminate places cars can go. This encourages the use of other modes, increases economic activity, and makes people safer. The most valuable real estate in the world is not car centric.
the highway system is crumbling and many highways need to be totally replaced. This is an opportunity to build trains or dedicated bus lines.
These aren’t my opinion. This is what many urban planning experts propose, and the empirical evidence say they work. Don’t tell me it’s impossible because it’s already happening!
“But this wouldn’t work in my personal neighborhood!”
OK. It doesn’t have to work everywhere for things to improve. We will always need some cars, but we can at least move away from car centric urban planning.
Not to mention, to really achieve what they’re suggesting, most of the US would need to be completely razed and built back up from scratch. However, these comments always phrase it as if it’s just a simple matter of opinion whether you live in a car-centric culture or not.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that improving public transportation requires cities to be “completely razed”. What a ridiculous straw person. Incremental change is not only possible, it’s already happening.
Is that not what you referenced when you said “moving away from car-centric urban design and culture?” How does that happen without rebuilding downtown areas and suburbs? Sending a few more busses out to suburbia isn’t going to change anything.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but no, “moving away from” does not mean “completely raze”. 🙄
So what does it mean? Adding a few more busses to suburbia like I said? Why don’t you explain what you mean rather than wasting so much time telling others that they’re not understanding you correctly?
Why don’t you ask me first instead of writing your first ridiculous bad faith comment? I have no obligation to take time and effort to respond carefully to that kind of intellectual dishonesty. “What, just add buses like I said?” shows an unwillingness to actually learn anything.
If you’re actually curious and asking in good faith, here’s another more reasonable way to ask your question: Is there anything reasonable that can be done to incrementally improve public transportation? The answer is obviously yes.
These aren’t my opinion. This is what many urban planning experts propose, and the empirical evidence say they work. Don’t tell me it’s impossible because it’s already happening!
“But this wouldn’t work in my personal neighborhood!”
OK. It doesn’t have to work everywhere for things to improve. We will always need some cars, but we can at least move away from car centric urban planning.