this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1182 points (97.4% liked)

Greentext

5237 readers
2071 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1182
Murica (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) by LifeLemons@lemmy.ml to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
 

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I appreciate that it's complex, but in the US we prioritize cars instead of people.

A properly designed system will account for lots of transportation options. This means:

  • force cars to go around city centers - prevents gridlock in downtown, and improves transit and walkability/cyclability downtown; enforce with car-free zones
  • buses and bike paths to connect the different parts of the city
  • trains to connect cities
  • highways and roads connecting smaller towns

If you go to smaller towns, a car is your best bet. If you're going downtown, a train should be more efficient, and a car should be workable. If you live in or near a city, a bike should be sufficient.

We used to have one car because I could bike to work, but now we need too, and only because of the 2 days I commute to the office. And the worst part is that there's a train line near my house that I could totally take to work if they actually built the line they've been talking about for decades. But instead of building that line (connects to a larger system, including a stop at a major sports stadium), we expanded a highway (didn't fix traffic) and we're building a new highway (might help somewhat). Most of those cars are traveling along the proposed train route (it runs parallel to the highway), yet the highway gets priority.

I propose we rethink transit in terms of moving people instead of cars.

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah agreed it's an interesting problem bc it has so many components... unfortunately when we try to get one part of it implemented, people say: it's not going to solve the whole problem so why bother. I'm still learning about it and so are most people. But I think even the most truck-loving person has an older relative who can't drive any more, or maybe they themselves can't drive bc of a DUI or something, so there's always an opening for learning more.

Yup. Fortunately there are professions for solving these types of problems, so we need to stop demanding specific solutions and let them do their job.

It turns out adding more lanes often makes things worse, and the better solution is to replace cars with higher density transit, so your truck loving friend will likely be better off if we invest in transit instead of highways. I want to take transit to work instead of adding to traffic, but that currently takes 4x as long as driving (2-ish hours each way). You should absolutely be able to drive if you want, and the more practical other modes of transportation are, the less cars will be on the road since a lot of people would rather ride than drive.