3 ms·
I mean, sure, but going carless is literally not an option for people who live in more dispersed places with poor public transit. Unfortunately that describes n
by ubermonkey 3y ago
I mean, sure, but going carless is literally not an option for people who live in more dispersed places with poor public transit. Unfortunately that describes nearly all of the U.S. -- only a few American cities have the required infrastructure and density.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoYour comment follows the pattern of the twitter trend where someone posts: “Enjoying coffee with my husband!” And gets replies about how not everyone has the privilege of affording coffee and being married.
- ubermonkey 3y agoNah.
- _dain_ 3y agoYou're not wrong exactly, but this mentality gets the causation backwards and induces a kind of helplessness -- "we can't have better transport until we have higher density". But you can build good transport infrastructure first to make the place attractive for densifying development. A while ago there were some photos that got shared around of a Chinese subway station built out in the middle of nowhere (Chongqing I think?). It was held up as some self-evident absurdity produced by a crazy top-down system. But a few years later the place was thriving with new buildings and businesses, precisely because of the station. It's not absurd. This how things used to be done and people have just forgotten it! In the American west, railroads came first, towns later. London grew the "Metroland" suburbs out of the northwest railway expansion in the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development Build it and they will come!
- ubermonkey 3y agoYou're not wrong exactly, but this mentality misunderstands how cities work and grow, particularly in the US, and induces a kind of willful blindness to the needs of people today.