- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5034764
from the latest NotJustBikes video: https://youtu.be/wqGxqxePihE
You must log in or register to comment.
I live in Vancouver and the difference between transit oriented and car oriented communities is huge. One feels like an actual city and the other feels desolate even if it’s in the middle of the city.
I can’t remember who said it, but somebody once framed this as “You can make a place easy to drive around or you can make it worth visiting, but you can’t do both”
I agree in the abstract, but I think you need to meet people where they are. And most working poor in the US rely on cars. I like NJB, and haven’t seen ghoulish behavior from him. But most “urbanists” love making cars even more expensive for the poors, without really considering the consequences
Bike lanes: 👍👍
Public transit: 👍👍👍👍
Aggressive ticketing, increasing parking rates, no on street overnight parking, car taxes, etc: 👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
Everyone I know wants to live on the side of high speed multi highway interchange. -s
Ah, the NIMBY problem. You like the stuff brought by highways, and the money that comes with it. But if they have to do something realistic, you dislike it.
This is remarkably true.
When I met my wife she was living in Thamesmead, a suburb of London that was built in the '60s to be a grand example of modernist city planning, with roads at ground level and raised walkways for people to get around.
Trouble is, the place has no real town centre. And over the past fifty years most of the walkways have crumbled so they’ve either been demolished or barriered off. These days you have to drive to get to, well, anything, and it’s fucking depressing.
Tell me about it. I grew up and have most lived in suburban Southern California. I do take a train and an express bus when I work onsite, but if I had to depend on the bus for things like everyday shopping? A simple trip to the supermarket and home would be 3 hours at least.
Meanwhile here in a not even particularly walkable city in Germany a trip to the supermarket on foot is less than 15 minutes for a round-trip (not counting time spent inside the supermarket since that varies a lot of course).
And that’s why we also need mixed use zoning. The grocery store doesn’t need to be so far away if it doesn’t need a huge parking lot and to feed a population from many many miles away
I don’t entirely agree. I live in NJ, a place absolutely built for cars. Without that infrastructure for cars (and trucks, and buses, and…), we wouldn’t have access to the things we do. Anything that doesn’t account for last-mile transit and shipping (or relies on bikes or walking) is a bad idea. Single mode, Origin-to-Destination transport for people and goods should be the goal.
I live in NJ, a place absolutely built for cars
That’s just more confirmation that the OP is right
@Endymion_Mallorn @culprit “single mode” is preferable to multi-modal? If there’s a choice of private car, lightrail, bus, and something else to take you from origin to destination, you would prefer not to have that choice? You want less liberty not more liberty?
Alright do you boo, I’m going to remain in the camp of more choices not less.
It’s OK for anyone who does not agree. If you haven’t been to a less car-dependent place, please consider spending a week their as a tourist and feel it. It’s still OK for anyone who had their experience and still prefer a car-dependent city.
I have had that experience. I found it to be worse in every respect. Less access to goods and services made it generally unpleasant. The lack of quick access to businesses meant that anywhere outside a brisk walk was somewhere I didn’t spend money. And anywhere else that the walk was unpleasant, I either didn’t spend money or spent as little as humanly possible.
Simply put, anti-car infrastructure means that I actively avoid businesses that try to prey on pedestrians’ lack of options. And that’s how I’ll always see it.
Less access to goods and services made it generally unpleasant.
Less access? what? What places are you comparing?
I live in a city and have never felt like I have less access than when I was in the car centered suburbs.
Uh, did you try to use public transit at all?
Ride the bus? With the other poors? I would much rather sit in the comfort of my massive SUV as I’m stuck in gridlock traffic. Damn traffic, don’t people know I’m important and have somewhere to be!?!
Thanks for your comment, but are you by any chance being satire?
I am always being satire.
where did you go that was less car dependent? Because that anecdote doesn’t reflect my experience in places like montreal and paris
Every European city I’ve been to has been a breeze to get around by public transit. Hell, the intercity trains blew my north american mind away. Even Montreal was quite good compared to what I’m used to.
I live in montréal and my take is that it’s very nice and quite walkable, but the fact it’s the most walkable city in north america by a decent margin is kinda sad.
I grew up in Moncton (picture your average american city) and that shit is so soul sucking.
@Endymion_Mallorn @culprit @racketlauncher831 Despite the fear of dogpiling, the two cities I’ve visited that contrast the most sharply are Houston and Tokyo. When we visited Houston for my BIL’s wedding we stayed in a hotel 500m from the venue where the wedding was being held. Walking those 500m was horrific and clearly everyone expected us to drive 2 miles to park 300m from the venue. Even going between two stores in the same complex was expected to be by car.
@Endymion_Mallorn @culprit @racketlauncher831 Where everything I could think of doing in Tokyo was <300m from a train station. Just tap a card to get into the station and go where you want to be. Such a fantastic city to visit, I wish I had made an opportunity to live there at some point.
Even the much smaller city of Kyoto, which has just a small metro + buses, was a pleasure to travel around. Plentiful buses and so many things are within walking distance.
