Comment by dleslie 2 months ago
If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.
Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is.
If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
It is working great in New York City: traffic is down 11-60% with just a $9 fee.
Do you think people who previously drove into NYC are now walking from NJ? Or are they working remote? The photos of carless streets I've seen don't seem to be packed with pedestrians.
To the vast majority of Americans it unfortunately is.
No but living in a world without automobiles absolutely is. I’m sick and tired of this deranged notion that it’s somehow virtuous to deliberately impoverish ourselves by giving up things like cars that, empirically, human beings from every culture rich enough to afford them prefer to use.
Let's not ignore the negative externalities of cars.
Separately: In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.
That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.