Gregory's Server@alexgranford This does not seem a bad thing, and you forget the idea of public transport, he might even get a special license to drive a truck or something safely to deliver the goods. The reduction of cars, not the abolition of transportation, mate.
|
8 comments
@alexgranford No, when there is a tram and a truck, you can still walk in the street. When there is 500 cars lined up and ready to hit you a 60mph, you can't. There is a big difference between a pedestrian city with services and a car hellscape where if you step out of a 1m area you die (only a slight exaggeration is some cities.) @leet @alexgranford This is the point of the drawing and the argument imo. Street infrastructure for thousands of cars is very different than for dozens of busses and daily deliveries to businesses. Trams & pedestrians sharing the same space in Leidsestraat in Amsterdam @hermatenseldam @leet I go to Netherlands a lot on business, and while I never stop admiring their outstanding cycling infrastructure and culture, I am somewhat a bit afraid of cyclists when crossing busy streets in Amsterdam or Den Haag, where they can jump on you from anywhere, at any moment. @alexgranford @leet @alexgranford @leet @hermatenseldam @alexgranford Yeah, infrastructure really needs to be built up in places. |
@leet No problem to use a car less if public transport allows us getting around. in fact we do already a lot, train to work, bus to school. But buses in rural England is a flipping disaster costing a fortune and almost never on time with an hour interval in between - between 7am to 10pm.
Also, same public transport and trucks will use the same road infrastructure and will keep pedestrians on pavements still. So that picture is very misleading and misguided, hence the challenge.