4 ms·
>Parking and road access isn't about individuals, it's about making an entire metropolitan area functional. You don't need cars for a metro to be functional. T
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>Parking and road access isn't about individuals, it's about making an entire metropolitan area functional.
You don't need cars for a metro to be functional. This is purely a 1st world construct that we've burdened ourselves with. It can and should be undone.
>where do they get their groceries and other goods?
From stores in the neighborhood. There is typically truck access and back alley ways for things to get unloaded. If there is not, most roads have some wiggle room to them where the truck can pull over.
>how do they expect medical services to reach them in an emergency?
Via the road. But you don't need parking for emergency vehicles. Not sure what world you're in, but emergency services don't just throw their hands up in the air if all the parking spaces are taken. Not sure why you think they'd act any different with less parking. It's a really funny example, to be honest.
>How do they expect commerce to occur within an arms reach but at reasonable prices?
Not having a car free's up a lot of money. Assuming you think the cost of goods would rise to some absurd amount, it'd still be way, way cheaper to pay for those goods in comparison to getting cheap goods because you own a car, and forcing the entire community to pay for miles and miles and miles of road.
>We all pay for the roads because we all use them
Roads aren't going away. We just probably need less of them, and we need to not construct our cities and metro's with a "car's first" attitude. Because it just shifts the costs elsewhere, for absolutely no gain and quite a few negatives.
You know what's great? Not having to drive 30 minutes somewhere. That's 30 minutes I can spend walking out in the sunshine. Not dealing with traffic while risking life and limb, and not paying a boat load of money to go buy $20 worth of goods.
- closeparen 8y agoThey money freed up by not having a car is promptly swallowed up by contending for a smaller pool of usable land.
- kadendogthing 8y agoI'm sorry, what? Why does having less cars create less usable land? If anything it provides way more of it, since you need less road, less parking lots/garages, less infrastructure to support cars like gas stations, huge on/off ramps, toll roads, etc.
- maxsilver 8y ago> Why does having less cars create less usable land? Not "usable-as-in-present", but "usable-as-in-available". Having less cars drives up the value of land, making land more expensive for everyone, and making that land less usable for any one person specifically.
- kadendogthing 8y ago>Having less cars drives up the value of land, making land more expensive for everyone You just repeated what he said... while also repeating it again. I want to know how having less cars drives up the value of land.
- closeparen 8y agoThe N-minute radius around a destination is a lot smaller when you are walking to transit vs. driving. People who can afford to will spend to keep their door to door times low. A huge chunk of American housing supply is in places that only made sense to settle because they were connected by freeways to downtown parking. Take that away and there will be just as much money, chasing less land.
- kadendogthing 8y ago>A huge chunk of American housing supply is in places that only made sense to settle because they were connected by freeways to downtown parking. Err, no. It's because the government heavily subsidized it at the detriment to city centers. You don't have to be NYC. City centers by their very nature our extremely economical beneficial and affordable. Our current housing infrastructure is in no way reasonably affordable or even sane. Building houses in a dense manner is not expensive. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]