you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

Anything except public transportation

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Never been a fan of the "we shouldn't make the smaller, easier improvements because we need to do the bigger, harder things instead" argument...

    Yes, we need more and better public transit, but that is going to take a whole lot of time, money, and effort to work towards. Yes, it's worthwhile, and we shouldn't STOP working towards it because of this, but I don't think that's a reason to balk at a smaller, easier incremental change that encourages safer driving while also simply being more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    More efficient is more cars per hour. When cars move faster, you can get more cars per hour through those intersections when the lights are green.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Nothing that involves the phrase "more cars" is more efficient. Cars are massively inefficient monuments to toxic individualism and ecocidal narcissism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    More cars per hour is less cars stuck in traffic on the roads... the number of cars is a given, getting them off the road ASAP is the goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    the number of cars is a given,

    No the number of cars is a policy choice.

    Nobody is forcing cities and counties to only build for the carbrained, they do that on their own. If they'd make driving less convenient and transit more convenient, the number of cars would decrease significantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago

    If they’d make driving less convenient and transit more convenient, the number of cars would decrease significantly.

    Of course you're talking about billions of dollars in construction projects, is it you in the construction industry, or a family member? It took 100 years of infrastructure build to get here, it's going to take quite a few to change course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    For public transportation in the US you need medium density living. So you're talking about getting everyone on board and uprooting everyone as you upgrade cities or build new cities for that.

    "Anything except making incremental improvements that are practical instead of doing nothing because the preferred goal is impossible, at least practically impossible" - not as catchy, I admit :P

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Big box grocery is a big part of the problem. We've got a relative abundance of grocery stores here - in US terms, but that means a 2-5 mile interval between then, and who is going to walk several miles carrying groceries? It doesn't help when competing groceries open directly across the street from each other, but even fixing that and making distribution of the current stores more even, there would still be a lot of the population 2+ miles to the nearest store, in our relatively high density suburban "core". Get that down to a maximum of 1km from every home to the nearest grocery and you're starting to have a walkable / bikeable solution for food.

    As for bikes, we also have near-zero practical support for biking to get your groceries - starting to get something calling itself bike lanes, but they're not terribly safe looking, and then you get to the store and you're extremely lucky if there's even a rack provided to lock the bike to - the racks that do exist seem to be in direct conflict with pedestrian use of the sidewalks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    I had a friend who had an apartment in Hamburg, roughly 600m from an S-Bahn station. within 50m of that station was the neighborhood grocery. You walk up to take the train to wherever, and on your way home you stop off in the Biergarten first, have a few, then stop in the grocery before walking home - downhill no less for the arms full of packages side of the trip. Not a bad layout, but about half the residents still had cars parked all over the streets which they used more or less daily. So, in some ways, the US arrangement just doesn't bother with the under-utilized trains, but it also eliminates them as an option which really sucks when you want to go to the airport, or take an inter-city train somewhere...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I agree - I should have said medium mixed zoning as that's what I was intending to convery :)

    Also, for wheelchair users like me, higher density would probably lead to cheaper delivery services of all kinds - Walmart has that market cornered at the moment, and I hate that it's Walmart that figured it out. :|

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Isn't everyone complaining about not having enough housing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Oligarchs aren't, which I only lead with because they are a huge fuckin' part of the problem.

    We actually have huge amounts of unused housing being held to drive up prices for the rest.

    But it's largely the wrong type of housing. Consider if you have 10,000 unhoused people, and you have 15,000 unoccupied trailers on land - but these trailers are in a remote county, miles outside the county's main city of 6000 people. If those 10,000 unhoused families can't find work out there and don't have a car, it doesn't help. An extremely stupid example to say that the current housing we have is largely not the housing we need.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    Do you want traffic lights to only turn every 5-10 minutes? Lights were always going to be changing more than transit was arriving, if altering how it changes slows speeding drivers why wouldn’t you want that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    I don't want traffic lights. If you design your cities properly (with no personal cars) traffic lights are not needed at all. Outside cities traffic lights don't make sense anyways, intersections there are better off as roundabouts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Sounds great, but I don’t live there and do have to deal with drivers and traffic lights, and I would like to implement whatever measures will slow them down. If the first and easiest is altering traffic light patterns, cool, do it. I’m supposed to not want this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It depends on whether this is about retiming existing lights (which is relatively cheap) or building new ones. Retiming existing lights is fine, building new ones just shows that engineers don't care about the problem and would rather waste millions of $ on a non-solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment