4 ms·
my dream: urban roads (and parking) underground and multimodal streets above-ground severely road-dieted, with ample trees and micromobility lanes along them al
by clairity 4y ago
my dream: urban roads (and parking) underground and multimodal streets above-ground severely road-dieted, with ample trees and micromobility lanes along them all. trees provide shade, reduces the heat island effect, reduces noise pollution (a bit), reduces air pollution (a bit), preserves soil and helps it hold more water, and overall reduces stress for pedestrians. adding mixed-use everywhere, with smaller pedestrian/micromobility alleys for accessibility, means people have somewhere to walk to rather than hopping into their cars for everything.
then you don't need to rely so much on speed limits, signs, and signals, because you've segregated (most of) the cars from people.
- idiotsecant 4y agoIt's a beautiful dream but we can barely manage upkeep in our existing road network, which is mostly just layers of dirt and asphalt. If we need to maintain tunnel systems I imagine the maintenance goes up by at least an order of magnitude.
- danny_codes 4y agoThe great part is that we don't need fancy underground roads at all because trains and subways exist! So we can just do all the multi-modal mobility stuff and just skip the car-tunnel part
- clairity 4y agojapan has an extensive network of tunnels and manages them just fine. and it's not a money problem. california, for instance, is the 5th largest economy in the world (~$3.6T), with greater LA ~$1.2T and the bay area ~$1T of that. cars have great utility, and while the economic benefits of roads/streets more than offset their cost in urban areas, a better mix of transportation reduces the amount of roads & streets we need overall (not to mention needing to repair them less often when usage is lower), mitigating the cost issue a bit. people react viscerally to moving away from a sole reliance on cars, but most people intuitively enjoy human-centered environments more than car-centered ones. i wouldn't advocate taking away cars, but rather providing a more human-centered environment that de-emphasizes cars in our lives so that we can better build relationships and communities with each other.
- idiotsecant 4y agoI agree it's not a money problem, but it seldom really is when we're discussing big projects. It's a problem of priority and perception. These might seem like trivial things when you're making grand designs but it matters a great deal when it's time to actually do something in the real world.
- tomcam 4y agoHow is it not a money problem?
- idiotsecant 4y agoIt's not a money problem because we spend vastly more money on much more trivial and wasteful things. If there is anything I have learned, it's that if powerful interests care about a thing it doesn't really matter how much it costs.
- tomcam 4y agoIt's a beautiful vision, and I mean that. But I must also ask: How much more in taxes should Californians pay for the privilege? Give it a number. Because your average HN reader in California is paying close to 60% of their salary in state and federal taxes.
- gallopingcomp 4y agoI don’t know how rich the average HN reader is but, for a bit of perspective: I’m solidly middle class and I only pay about 30% total (and that’s if you include property taxes).
- tomcam 4y agoDo you live in California?
- 4y ago
- _dain_ 4y agothere are places like you describe and they get along just fine without those underground car roads. if you're going to the enormous expense of tunneling you should get your money's worth by building high-capacity transit.