4 ms·

I live in a town with good transit that borders a major city with excellent transit, and it's shocking how much people fight everything that would make our town

by rtlfe 6y ago

I live in a town with good transit that borders a major city with excellent transit, and it's shocking how much people fight everything that would make our town better. Bike lanes, bus lanes, and increased density are routinely rejected because they would make life harder for car drivers.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
This image rebuts pretty much all pro car arguments: https://ggwash.org/view/36573/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny-space-with-danger-just-beside https://ggwash.org/view/36573/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny...
- rtlfe 6y ago
  I feel like my neighbors would say "yeah that's how it's supposed to be, get a car if you want to be safe"
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The underlying message is that they don’t want to be near people who can’t afford cars and the accompanying expenses. Which is a valid reason, as the data clearly shows the benefits of growing up in neighborhoods with high income earners, and the disadvantages of growing up in neighborhoods with low income earners: https://opportunityatlas.org/ https://opportunityatlas.org/
    - rtlfe 6y ago
      > the data clearly shows the benefits of growing up in neighborhoods with high income earners, and the disadvantages of growing up in neighborhoods with low income earners Of course being in a wealthy area is better than being in a poor area. But does the existence of such areas benefit society? What would it look like if more neighborhoods were mixed income and public resources were shared equitably?
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Sacrificing individual benefit for societal benefit is always the questions. We’re always making decisions about which tribe to benefit at the expense of another tribe such as individual, family, religious, geographic, racial, socioeconomic, nation state, present, future, etc. An imbalance will cause discord and disorder. Hopefully you catch yourself on the right side of it. Prioritizing cars is very much a “me and my immediate family” above all else move, and that can be an easy choice when you don’t see others as belonging to your tribe, or vice versa.
- imtringued 6y ago
  What are you going to do? Get rid of all roads? Roads are still necessary for delivery, garbage disposal, emergency services (fire engine, ambulances, police cars) and construction equipment. The picture is extreme to the point that it fails to deliver it's message.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    To me, the picture shows the trade off of prioritizing cars vs walking/biking. You can’t have both. Fewer cars means fewer lanes are needed. I’ve seen intersections 9 or 10 lanes wide in US cities. How can any senior citizen walk across 9 lanes of traffic, especially at night. One or two lanes is sufficient for all infrastructure like waste removal or emergency services. But the root of the problem is insufficiently dense living. People have to make a choice to sacrifice their expansive living quarters (such as in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, London, etc), otherwise the whole public transit and de-prioritizing motor vehicles doesn’t work. As I explained in other comments, obviously people do want their space. But is that a luxury they can afford? They’re future generations can afford in terms of infrastructure debt repayments and environmental damage? Health damage from over reliance on cars? I guess we’ll see...but I’m betting not.
  - rtlfe 6y ago
    There's a lot between what the US has today and eliminating roads. To start, we should have fewer motor vehicle lanes, wider sidewalks, lower speed limits, more protected bike lanes, intersections designed to minimize crossing distance for pedestrians, and centerline hardening for left turns.

by rtlfe 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

This image rebuts pretty much all pro car arguments: https://ggwash.org/view/36573/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny-space-with-danger-just-beside https://ggwash.org/view/36573/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny...

rtlfe 6y ago
I feel like my neighbors would say "yeah that's how it's supposed to be, get a car if you want to be safe"
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The underlying message is that they don’t want to be near people who can’t afford cars and the accompanying expenses. Which is a valid reason, as the data clearly shows the benefits of growing up in neighborhoods with high income earners, and the disadvantages of growing up in neighborhoods with low income earners: https://opportunityatlas.org/ https://opportunityatlas.org/
  - rtlfe 6y ago
    > the data clearly shows the benefits of growing up in neighborhoods with high income earners, and the disadvantages of growing up in neighborhoods with low income earners Of course being in a wealthy area is better than being in a poor area. But does the existence of such areas benefit society? What would it look like if more neighborhoods were mixed income and public resources were shared equitably?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Sacrificing individual benefit for societal benefit is always the questions. We’re always making decisions about which tribe to benefit at the expense of another tribe such as individual, family, religious, geographic, racial, socioeconomic, nation state, present, future, etc. An imbalance will cause discord and disorder. Hopefully you catch yourself on the right side of it. Prioritizing cars is very much a “me and my immediate family” above all else move, and that can be an easy choice when you don’t see others as belonging to your tribe, or vice versa.
imtringued 6y ago
What are you going to do? Get rid of all roads? Roads are still necessary for delivery, garbage disposal, emergency services (fire engine, ambulances, police cars) and construction equipment. The picture is extreme to the point that it fails to deliver it's message.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  To me, the picture shows the trade off of prioritizing cars vs walking/biking. You can’t have both. Fewer cars means fewer lanes are needed. I’ve seen intersections 9 or 10 lanes wide in US cities. How can any senior citizen walk across 9 lanes of traffic, especially at night. One or two lanes is sufficient for all infrastructure like waste removal or emergency services. But the root of the problem is insufficiently dense living. People have to make a choice to sacrifice their expansive living quarters (such as in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, London, etc), otherwise the whole public transit and de-prioritizing motor vehicles doesn’t work. As I explained in other comments, obviously people do want their space. But is that a luxury they can afford? They’re future generations can afford in terms of infrastructure debt repayments and environmental damage? Health damage from over reliance on cars? I guess we’ll see...but I’m betting not.
- rtlfe 6y ago
  There's a lot between what the US has today and eliminating roads. To start, we should have fewer motor vehicle lanes, wider sidewalks, lower speed limits, more protected bike lanes, intersections designed to minimize crossing distance for pedestrians, and centerline hardening for left turns.