614
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 6 points 11 months ago

"converted major roads" is very different from "ripped out completely"

entire precincts, to foot traffic only

I actually live next to a few places that have done this... with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area... and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup... so again, not "ripped out completely".

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around.

How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 11 months ago

There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative.

Do you have an example of a location that has done so?

[-] themusicman@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 11 months ago

That's what the article is talking about.

[-] themusicman@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.

[...]

We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors.

[-] themusicman@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 11 months ago

sure it could technically be interpreted that way

How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?

More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity

Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?

the outrage you exhibit.

projection, or else hyperbolae

[-] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 11 months ago

Ripped out completely as in actually remove them

Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.

[-] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.

Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 11 months ago

You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city.

So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it.

Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.

This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article.

What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea.

this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
614 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9580 readers
257 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS