mondoman712 @ mondoman712 @lemmy.ml

Posts

133

Comments

349

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't see anything extremist in this community. It's mostly complaining about problems with cars and a few memes like this post. Talking about alternatives is fine here, as per the rules. There isn't much as far as other communities to discuss alternatives, at least not that I've found. Here's what I can point to:

• !transit@kbin.social
• !urbanism@slrpnk.net
• !citylife@beehaw.org

And anyone that isn't a "smug liberal elite" and also can't drive for whatever reason, is either sat on the floor next to the toilet on a packed cross country service, or just staying at home because it's too expensive to travel.

We'll put, but I disagree with you on this point

The US wasn’t built by public transit though, it was built by car and truck.

Many US towns and cities started as railroad towns, and they grew due to rail connections. They had local streetcars around which new suburbs were built. Downtowns were originally walkable and mixed use. Only later were they destroyed to make way for urban freeways and parking, and the post war housing boom's racist policies brought about single family zoning and car dependant suburbs.

The US was built on mass transit. Pre WWII the US was covered in electrified interurban lines, it wasn't until the 50s when the car started to become really popular that these were dismantled and your cities demolished to make way for more highways. Many people could easily benefit from new transit options if they were installed, while for others changes to land use (such as ending single family zoning) would also be need to be made.

I wouldn’t live in any of them. 1. They’re cities

Maybe a list of most livable cities isn't for you then.

Just to note, the 130 billion figure for HS2 isn't just for the London to Birmingham leg.

Also there's a lot of things that went into making it expensive: a lack of high speed expertise, extra tunnels to satisfy nimbys, the government insisting on low risk contracts and changing plans constantly, etc

Just fyi, you can link to a community like this: /c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

The "reallocation" is bullshit. If they're spending money in Manchester in the next few years it isn't the same money that would've been used for HS2 because that wasn't due to be delivered until later. And the majority of the projects are just things they've already promised to do before and have already been neglecting. The tory manifesto of 2015 promised electrification of the midland main line to Sheffield, and notably the new list of promises won't bring the massive increase in capacity that HS2 would have, and that we need. On top of that a quarter of this money is going to fixing potholes...

There's many reasons why HS2's costs have risen, but notably it was the tories who've been in power the whole time and have had the opportunity to look into it, but have decided it isn't worth the effort apparently.

There's a lot you could criticise about the Chinese government, and yet you choose more conspiracy theories. The social credit score in the way that you speak of it comes from a misunderstanding of a vaguely worded Chinese policy document, which lead to various pilot projects by some companies, cities and ministries which have all been conflated into one thing. Here's a good video which goes over the whole thing which I'm sure you won't watch but will still have many opinions about.

The issue you describe in Canada is part of the problem that I describe. Here's a zoning map of Vancouver for example:

In all of the yellow areas, only single family homes and duplexes can be built, which have very low densities. This means anytime there is space where something more dense can be built, the most dense thing possible is built. If there was less restrictive zoning which allowed more mixed uses across the area, what's known as missing middle housing, that is all of the other housing types in between single family homes and large condo towers, could be built.

The current status quo in most of the US and Canada is that in large areas nothing but large single family houses are allowed to be built, which forces people into spending thousands a year on their cars to get anywhere. The alternative being proposed is building areas that can have a mix of housing types and uses, so people can live without needing a car to get anywhere, not to stop being from having cars and going places.

I assume your mention of Shanghai is referring to their COVID lockdowns, which I also think were too severe, but as far as I am aware have completely ended. This was also in response to a virus, and has nothing to do with urban design.

You're concerned about having a supermarket too close to your apartment?

What are your thoughts?

The biggest benefit is capacity, with the fast intercity trains running on a new line you have much more space to run more local and freight services on existing lines. Due to the current difference in speeds on the same lines, the capacity is limited even more because trains have to be spaced out more to stop them catching up with each other, so you get more than one extra trains capacity on the existing lines for each intercity train moved off.

With regards to WFH, it's not as big of an impact as you might think, and even those working from home still travel. Rail usage is mostly back to how it was pre pandemic, but with some changes. There's now more leisure traffic than there was before, and fewer commuters.

It's really not a good idea to stop at this point. We've committed to the most expensive part which will be under-used without the rest. The tories have had more than a decade being in charge and they've done nothing to try to control the costs, while also trying to reduce risk which then increases costs. There's also the myth that has become pervasive recently that government debt works like household debt, which isn't true. Most government debt is owned by the Bank of England, which is controlled by the government. In harder economic times the government should be spending more to stimulate the economy, not continually imposing austerity.

The 15 minute cities conspiracy theory came from covid deniers who, when it became clear that governments weren't trying to instate perpetual lockdowns, needed a new thing to latch on to and came up with the idea of "climate lockdowns".

The actual 15 minutes cities idea is literally just to have the things you need daily within a 15 minute walk of your home. It's pretty sensible and not harmful to your mobility at all. But now the guy that came up with the idea gets death threats because of people spreading this bullshit.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this with you, but please keep your fossil fuel funded conspiracy nonsense out of it.

lmao nice conspiracy theory

The solution is in the video... It's walkable, cycle-able cities with good public transport.

Again, the point is more about car dependence. Why be forced into driving everywhere when you could have other options available?

None of the places outside North America mentioned in the video have completely banned cars. The video is mostly talking about reducing car dependence and increasing options for transport rather than banning them completely.

Also every situation you mentioned can be solved with a taxi or rental car. We can still do those things without having to drive everywhere for everything.

Most people live in cities, and the video mentions that it is about cities in the first 10 seconds.

HS2 is the investment in making the existing network better. From the article:

That is because the current 125mph expresses devour capacity on the network the Victorians bequeathed us. Local, regional and freight services are all constricted so that passengers can travel between Sheffield and London in two hours. Get them off the tracks, and connectivity is transformed.