3 ms·
That's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination
by Moldoteck 3y ago
That's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination usually is much slower compared to a bike. Cars are still allowed for the people that either really need them or don't need them but are willing to pay extra
But I agree that Utrecht is a better city bc of less tourists and even more bike infra
- lionkor 3y agoOf course, and I admire that, but its therefore not a good example of a city where cars, pedestrians and bikes coexist (because its not meant to be one)
- Moldoteck 3y agoWhy? All of them coexist and most efficient ones get preferential treatment, for example priority on intersections/semaphores, more direct/shorter paths for mass transit and bikes What's not that good is the train quality/frequency/price, for this Switzerland is much better (pricey but good quality and frequent), but NL is still ahead of many countries even in this regard