6 ms·
> that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead. Only if you assume that individual private transport can get you door-to-door. Which i
by Beldin 4y ago
> that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead.
Only if you assume that individual private transport can get you door-to-door. Which is a rather unfair comparison. "cars are better because unlike public transport, you can drive up to basically any building and park there" is only true if you build roads and parkings to basically every building.
- anticensor 4y agoStreets have to access all buildings due to fire fighting reasons, unless you also plan to rearchitecture the firefighting infrastructure to use pipelines branching from a huge central fire extinction station.
- fomine3 4y agoFirefighting vehicle doesn't need parking space
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIt is obvious that a building requires road access. The issue of emergency services access has already been mentioned but there is also obviously the issue of deliveries, including large items like appliances and furniture. I did mention the caveat that sometimes private transport (which includes bikes) may be inconvenient. That includes issues with parking space. I'd argue that making private transport very impractical is not the same as making public transport "so good it becomes the first choice"... it's making private transport bad enough that it becomes more inconvenient than public transport... Realistically I think people prefer private transport and will use private transport when on balance they consider than driving/cycling has become too inconvenient (traffic is really too bad, no parking as you mention, etc). But if private transport works then public transport cannot be made more convenient for obvious reasons.