5 ms·

It doesn't even need to be no cars, just design spaces where people don't need cars.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
It is an either or situation. If you give people the option to use cars, they will use them to drive 20min to a Costco and big grocery store for all their needs. They will also politically support measures that make their lives easier, such as minimum parking and bigger roads which then lead to needing cars. Severely restricting cars is the only way to have viable local businesses tailored to non-car shoppers and political support for advancing non-car infrastructure (i.e. sufficient density for sufficient people to live without cars and support businesses in walking/bicycling distance). The second a road more than 4 small car lanes across gets constructed (or 40ft), you make walking too cumbersome and risky.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Gresham's law of urban planning? Auto-viable design drives out pedestrian-centric usage?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I guess? I think of it as a simple physics problem. Walking and cycling requires distances between destinations to be small. And individual cars, especially the American variety, require tremendous amounts of space. The two situations require complete opposite parameters.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      So, yes, that. But also, once you have and permit cars, there's more that can be done with a car, and other characteristics tend to support them: - Large car parks and less walkable space. - Businesses distributed more broadly across the city or town. - Lack of services for pedestrians (e.g., deliveries for purchases, bus service or transit, etc.) - Greater risk for pedestrians and cyclists (more and faster traffic). Et cetera. So the initial imbalance grows with time.
- chii 4y ago
  > have viable local businesses tailored to non-car shoppers i would imagine these local small shops cannot have the economy of scale that would allow a big retailer like costco to have cheap items. Which means the cost of living is going to be higher - it may or may not offset the savings of not having to pay for a car.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Huge externalities of “paying” for a car are not paid by car users. Costs of fossil fuel pollution, tire pollution, brake dust pollution, danger to pedestrians/cyclists, health costs due to sedentary lifestyles, increased fuel consumption due to distances between destinations being further which means mass has to travel further which means more energy consumed. I could even add kids not being able to play outside freely. Could maybe even more stratified societies and less communal atmospheres due to cars allowing people to be spread out.

It is an either or situation. If you give people the option to use cars, they will use them to drive 20min to a Costco and big grocery store for all their needs. They will also politically support measures that make their lives easier, such as minimum parking and bigger roads which then lead to needing cars. Severely restricting cars is the only way to have viable local businesses tailored to non-car shoppers and political support for advancing non-car infrastructure (i.e. sufficient density for sufficient people to live without cars and support businesses in walking/bicycling distance). The second a road more than 4 small car lanes across gets constructed (or 40ft), you make walking too cumbersome and risky.

dredmorbius 4y ago
Gresham's law of urban planning? Auto-viable design drives out pedestrian-centric usage?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I guess? I think of it as a simple physics problem. Walking and cycling requires distances between destinations to be small. And individual cars, especially the American variety, require tremendous amounts of space. The two situations require complete opposite parameters.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    So, yes, that. But also, once you have and permit cars, there's more that can be done with a car, and other characteristics tend to support them: - Large car parks and less walkable space. - Businesses distributed more broadly across the city or town. - Lack of services for pedestrians (e.g., deliveries for purchases, bus service or transit, etc.) - Greater risk for pedestrians and cyclists (more and faster traffic). Et cetera. So the initial imbalance grows with time.
chii 4y ago
> have viable local businesses tailored to non-car shoppers i would imagine these local small shops cannot have the economy of scale that would allow a big retailer like costco to have cheap items. Which means the cost of living is going to be higher - it may or may not offset the savings of not having to pay for a car.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Huge externalities of “paying” for a car are not paid by car users. Costs of fossil fuel pollution, tire pollution, brake dust pollution, danger to pedestrians/cyclists, health costs due to sedentary lifestyles, increased fuel consumption due to distances between destinations being further which means mass has to travel further which means more energy consumed. I could even add kids not being able to play outside freely. Could maybe even more stratified societies and less communal atmospheres due to cars allowing people to be spread out.