• dumnezero@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Because space is limited, more so in 2D. As much as promoters want to promote incrementalism and fluffy upgrades that sound great, road (and parking) are limited, which means that they have to be rationed, or else you just allow the most privileged and powerful users to dominate.

    • einkorn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I agree we need drastic changes in personal transportation but I think given the size of our current infrastructure dedicated to cars, there is room for significantly increased space for bicycles and pedestrians while maintaining a reduced network of roads for cars. Access to these roads could i.e. be limited to residents. It’s already commonplace that parking permits are only sold to residents. So why not car access in general? It would greatly reduce the need for car space.

      • dumnezero@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I’m just saying that every bit of bandwidth will be fought over. It is a zero sum game at this level. There’s this marketing idea that car traffic will be less congested when people are using buses and bicycles, which is true, but it’s a perverse incentive. Promoting the idea still prioritizes cars and feed into the carbrain paradigm. For example, it’s a bad idea to “improve traffic” like that and allow drivers to speed more. Low speeds in cities are a good thing, and heavy traffic lowers speeds.

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Especially considering that, in cities, it doesn’t really make sense to have multiple lanes in between traffic lights - it doesn’t actually speed up anyone’s trip. That’s a lot of free space ripe for the picking.