You claimed that building better infrastructure won’t solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren’t. None of that is true.
But I’m not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I’ve already corrected the points you made above. If you’re still confused, read again and ask specific questions.
Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don’t like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.
But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I’m willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.
Well, then, again, I disagree and that’s why we’re arguing. How you describe the arguments you’re making is not relevant. The point is that they’re not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers. It’s only different because we haven’t changed it yet.
“Just saying the ability to have it be useful requires a lot of stuff the US doesn’t have”
If that’s not arguing it isn’t useful then I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Or in the entire thread because every single thing you’ve said is about how pedestrian infrastructure isn’t useful in the US!
I have literally biked many of the routes you’re discussing here. I live in Sacramento and regularly visit the Bay Area without driving. Actually, that’s already the most convenient way to do so. But that’s a fun outing, not practical urban transit. Practical urban transit takes place within or to adjacent neighborhoods. That’s the whole point. Once you reach a certain density of amenities, car infrastructure and travel becomes totally impractical. This density is well below American suburbs, which is why our cities are all clogged with traffic and people are being flattened left and right.
For occasional longer distance trips you can rent a car or take a train. We’re not talking about inter-city travel here. The point is, like the above video, people, especially children should have the ability to safely navigate their neighborhoods. And this is totally achievable in the US.
Regarding the history… all of those cities predate automobiles and most of them still have dense, walkable neighborhoods. A few demolished them. It’s the surrounding suburbs that were built for cars. But they can and should be rebuilt in a better way. It will be a process but the alternatives are far worse.
And on your final point. Yes. There is a severe housing shortage in urban centers and that does make things more difficult. But the same solutions I’m discussing above, densification of inner suburbs along with improvements to non-car transportation are the solution. Infrastructure and development style are active choices we are making, and if we keep making the same choices, housing costs will continue to rise, people will have to commute farther and farther, and traffic will get worse and worse. Frankly, I don’t believe we even have the funds to maintain the system of roads we have now. Some of it, likely outer suburbs, will need to be abandoned. See Detroit for an early look at that process.
What lol. Arguing pedestrian infrastructure is not useful is arguing against it.
Suburban sprawl is an issue. But it is solvable by building more density and improving pedestrian infrastructure. It’s not insurmountable.
Regarding able bodied people, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is generally superior for people with disabilities. Many can’t drive a car, and the same infrastructure that serves bikes can serve e-bikes, mopeds, mobility scooters, etc.
So yeah, the solution here is pretty clear. Stop wasting millions on a failed car-centric transportation system and start building a better one. It’s actually much cheaper than maintaining the terrible system we have now.
Do you need to visit every single location in your city state or county? Or do you need to reach certain amenities and would happily use a closer one of similar quality?
Density matters more than size. People aren’t shopping on the other side of the country. They go to the most convenient option.
You second claim is also incorrect. Most major US cities were built for walking. Unfortunately, they were later demolished because wealthy white people wanted to drive everywhere so they could avoid racial minorities. But they could be rebuilt. Other countries have done this.
No they’re not lol
https://extension.umd.edu/resource/kissing-bugs/
The boxelder bug (Boisea trivittata) is often mistaken for a kissing bug due to its red and black coloration. However, while the kissing bug has six red-orange stripes along the side of its abdomen, the boxelder bug has red along the edges of the front wings.
I have no idea where you got this idea but it’s wrong.
https://npic.orst.edu/pest/boxelder.html
Are you perhaps thinking of kissing bugs???
So what are they? My best guesses clockwise from the top:
When’s my handjob?
I have absolutely zero faith that the US government will side with people’s safety over a new toy for the oligarchs. And these companies are openly saying their whole business model is urban transportation. So they will be lobbying to change those laws as soon as they can, and, as we’ve seen with self-driving cars, it will be difficult to stop them.
This is exactly what terrifies me though. Cars are already incredibly dangerous. Now make them 5x as fast and more difficult to control, and allow them to go anywhere and imagine the carnage.
It’s mostly marketing honestly. They’re both total ass.
I usually only smell it after they are agitated. I assume that’s what they meant? But usually when I’m smelling ants they are agitated.
It smells so weird and strong. I’m surprised not everyone can smell this. I wonder how common this is?
The idea that these vehicles will ever be adequately safe, quiet, or efficient is very dubious. Any regulatory agency that isn’t outright rejecting them at this point should be viewed with suspicion.
If I’m ever proven wrong then great but I don’t see that happening for decades at minimum.
Oh that’s good news. However their stated business model is in cities so I expect heavy lobbying to lift that ban to start. It could be worthwhile to have layered bans at different levels of government to provide protection in case one layer gets paid off.
But that’s the crux of the disagreement. They can work anywhere.