• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months 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
      3
      ·
      2 months 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
        2
        ·
        2 months 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
          2
          ·
          2 months 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?

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            it shouldn’t, should it? Switch an ICE for electric, as long as they travel the same daily distance and meet the same use cases, the only lifestyle change would be the expense.