4 ms·

Actually, I find that conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is exactly the solution. As the general population experiences bo

Actually, I find that conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is exactly the solution. As the general population experiences both the benefits and the drawbacks of powered transport, cities are much more responsive to creating dedicated space for vehicles of this type. Even painted bike lanes are preferable to the usual status quo of rolling the dice in a regular lane against multiple F150 drivers on cell phones on a city street. And as such infrastructure improves further, the benefits of using that infrastructure for the powered transport rider increase dramatically vs competing against people walking on a sidewalk.

throwaway290 4y ago
Every new lane you add makes a city less dense and less walkable. If you prefer sprawling suburbia and drivers ignoring traffic rules as the norm, that's your choice. The denser the city, the smaller and fewer the roads and intersections, the less resources you need to handle and prevent reckless driving, the more people choose against driving, the more viable the public transport system, the smaller the environmental footprint of the city, the less pollution from car tyres and exhaust, etc.
- rob74 4y ago
  Well of course there is no "one size fits all" solution. Where there is space for sidewalks, bike lanes beside the road and an adequate amount of greenery/trees, that's the way to go (even if it means sacrificing some parking space or a car lane); where there is not enough space, either create a "shared zone" where all vehicles are limited to walking speed, or convert it to a pedestrian area.
- barnabee 4y ago
  Agreed. Don't add lanes at the expense of density, take the existing lanes away from cars. Make the experience hellish and expensive for them so they stop driving around in cities where, for the most part, they shouldn't be, and turn that space into pedestrian walkways, cycle/micromobility infrastructure, and perhaps the occasional park or extra canal. Declare war on the automobile in urban environments, electric or otherwise.

throwaway290 4y ago

Every new lane you add makes a city less dense and less walkable. If you prefer sprawling suburbia and drivers ignoring traffic rules as the norm, that's your choice. The denser the city, the smaller and fewer the roads and intersections, the less resources you need to handle and prevent reckless driving, the more people choose against driving, the more viable the public transport system, the smaller the environmental footprint of the city, the less pollution from car tyres and exhaust, etc.

rob74 4y ago
Well of course there is no "one size fits all" solution. Where there is space for sidewalks, bike lanes beside the road and an adequate amount of greenery/trees, that's the way to go (even if it means sacrificing some parking space or a car lane); where there is not enough space, either create a "shared zone" where all vehicles are limited to walking speed, or convert it to a pedestrian area.
barnabee 4y ago
Agreed. Don't add lanes at the expense of density, take the existing lanes away from cars. Make the experience hellish and expensive for them so they stop driving around in cities where, for the most part, they shouldn't be, and turn that space into pedestrian walkways, cycle/micromobility infrastructure, and perhaps the occasional park or extra canal. Declare war on the automobile in urban environments, electric or otherwise.