3 ms·
This is kind of on the right track, but not really. The right part is that people really do respond to incentives. In fact, this is what they are doing with car
by npteljes 2y ago
This is kind of on the right track, but not really. The right part is that people really do respond to incentives. In fact, this is what they are doing with cars too. Cars often seem like an obvious choice, but that's because the environment is set up in a way that cars make the most sense. In South-East Asia, for example, the incentives are such that small motorbikes make a lot of sense. They are a cheap and versatile option, and navigate the chaotic traffic well.
So yes, if we want a shift, we need to reorganize the environment. And the traffic options will follow. Returning to the article, this would mean to bring back walking, biking and mass transit as priority options. Because it's clear from the infrastructure design that everything else besides cars are an afterthought.
- kazinator 2y agoThe environment is set up the way it is because not only of the culture, not because of the politics but also mega corporations. People will agree to reorganizing the environment only if they are not the ones you have to do anything or are negatively impacted in any way. Also, massive reorganization of the living environment is really only an option for a totalitarian communist government, which decides where people going to live and everything else and they just have to take it. Ghost communities in China showed that even that doesn't always work.
- npteljes 2y agoYes, I see how this all reinforces itself. Maybe this is why initiatives like Strong Towns begin the change with people's hearts. "If there's a will, there's a way", so they say, so if they manage to create enough "will", there ought to be ways as well.