• Treczoks@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Designing our streets for pedestrians first, transit/bikes next and private motor vehicles last is the way it should be.

    Nobody designed them the way they are, at least not with a grand design in mind. Traffic is shaped by planning for existing demand. To change planning, you need to change the demand first. Working against demand won’t get you anywhere, at least not in politics, and they are holding the purse strings.

    North-american style car-dependent suburbs are an aberration that should disappear altogether.

    While it is not wrong, as long as you don’t have a credible idea why millions of people should give up their homes to live in overpriced shoe boxes without a bit of green and quiet in the city, this will get you nowhere. People love living in spaceous houses they own. People love having some green around them. People love the quiet. And first of all, people love not having to deal with all the other city problems.

    It is immoral that the people living sustainably in urban centers are subsidizing the people living at large in the suburbs.

    Remember that those urban centers would and could simply not exist without people from the outskirts working and shopping in those urban centers. The dependency is definitely not one-sided.

    • frostbiker
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nobody designed them the way they are, at least not with a grand design in mind. Traffic is shaped by planning for existing demand

      That is not how it works, at all. They model future demand and they do make executive decisions to shape traffic in the way they want it to be, not just the way it is today.

      as long as you don’t have a credible idea why millions of people should give up their homes to live in overpriced shoe boxes without a bit of green and quiet in the city, this will get you nowhere

      That is happening because:

      • The rest of us are subsidizing their lifestyle through our taxes. North American suburbs don’t pay enough to cover their own infrastructure.
      • They do not experience the externalities of their lifestyle. It is us living in denser areas that suffer from the increased motor vehicle traffic that suburbanites produce.
      • Ever increasing car traffic has led to widening roads and culling of trees. Eliminate car lanes and plant trees, I say.
      • Cities aren’t loud, cars are loud. Reduce car traffic and our streets won’t be noisy.

      People love living in spaceous houses they own.

      They don’t love it so much when they have to pay for the cost of the infrastructure needed to support them. Stop subsidizing suburbs and suddenly people will be much more accepting of more modest accommodations, like most of us do.

      Remember that those urban centers would and could simply not exist without people from the outskirts working and shopping in those urban centers.

      Plainly false, as those suburbanites could simply move closer to where they work, if only zoning laws permitted them to do so, which is not the case in most of North America.

      Again, and it is a point that no amount of mental yoga can get around: what we want is something that already happens in plenty of towns around Europe and Japan that existed before the advent of the car. It is not unrealistic, it is the historical norm.