• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    The idea of needing specialized transport as an individual beyond just walking is a failure of society. Replacing cars with “not-cars” isn’t really helping that aspect. You should be structuring society so that cars or “not-cars” have no need to exist for almost everyone.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      The transition needs to be easy for adoption to happen though. I think first replacing cars with not-cars, and only then scaling cities to be more walkable makes sense.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        I don’t see how going from car to proper city planning is any harder than going from not-car to proper city planning. This just feels like an extra unnecessary step that could be taking resources away from the city planning part.

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          If you make a city hostile to cars first, people will still have their cars and their commutes, it will just double the time it takes for them to get anywhere. You will lose support for any further changes.

          If you replace the cars first, such that no one’s daily schedules are significantly altered, and then condense the cities, then the change might be less jarring for those who can’t weather dramatic changes in their lifestyle.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            If you replace the cars first, such that no one’s daily schedules are significantly altered,

            Is that going to happen if you replace cars with another vehicle that still requires car infrastructure?