• fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Car free zones make every city and town better. There are really very few good reasons for a car to ever be in a city centre, that should be reserved for emergency services and accessibility for people with disabilities

  • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    I went to Texas to visit a friend and without a car I couldn’t go anywhere. Usually I love to explore the neighborhood by foot, but roads were completely missing a place to walk

    • puppy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you didn’t have “freedom” in the most free state of the most free country?

  • JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    After a lot of research I’ve come to the conclusion the only viable solution is bike lanes with a curb separating them and roads. As a mode of transport, bikes are as different from cars as they are from pedestrians. All three need their own lanes. Bikes make city traversal much more viable without a car.

    Of course there are some caveats here. Not every city is well planned for cycling. Cities in the Netherlands have much higher density than places like Austin. If it takes 10km to get from your home to the grocery store, bicycle lanes are just less useful. Geography also matters. Holland is flat as a pancake. Many other places are not, and like it or not, hills suck for cycling unless you have an e-bike. Most people do not. Finally, weather matters. People in cold climates can dress warmer. People in hot climates cannot dress any cooler than shorts and t-shirt. If the temperature is hot for much of the year, or months at a time, people cannot rely on it for their commutes or errands. This makes cycling unviable for some hot cities.

    Car free zones are great, but only when the public transport infrastructure can support it. If most people who come to the city live far away because of low density, public transport becomes very expensive to implement and maintain. People don’t want to jack up their taxes 10-20% to pay for that. Longer term planning should permit and encourage higher density, but there is a cultural component here. Some people really like having a house with a backyard. Apartments don’t offer this.

    • Lysol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel so many of these arguments have been addressed already by NJB, CityNerd and the like, and they don’t hold up.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.

        That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem with Austin is that they keep building car-dependent suburban sprawl. If they focused on only building infill development, then they would be able to have more density. Also public transportation and bicycles can travel longer distances than you think. Just because Austin isn’t as dense doesn’t mean that you need to change the city radically to get rid of cars.

      There are plenty of hilly cities with lots of bikes.

      There are plenty of hot and cold cities with lots of bikes.

      The ranking of transportation options, from cheapest to most expensive, and from most prioritized to least prioritized is

      • walking
      • bicycles
      • public transportation
      • cars

      The most affordable transportation is walking and bicycling, but even public transportation is cheaper than cars if done right. Car-dependent society costs every single person tens of thousands of dollars a year, both from the expenses of owning a car, and the government expenses of building and maintaining expensive roads. A bus doesn’t cost that much.

      Dutch suburban houses have backyards and bikes.