“converted major roads” is very different from “ripped out completely”
entire precincts, to foot traffic only
I actually live next to a few places that have done this… with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area… and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup… so again, not “ripped out completely”.
The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don’t need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around.
How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can’t, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases… and maybe you should support change until there’s reasonable evidence that it doesn’t work… and no, a sample size of one is not evidence.
There isn’t any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.
Do you have an example of a location that has done so?
A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.
[…]
We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors.
And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, “all roads” is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city.
So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article.
What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea.
You know there are dozens of major cities that have converted major roads, and entire precincts, to foot traffic only… right?
Turns out it’s pretty easy to transport inventory in hand trolleys a few blocks as most major cities, especially business districts, are flat as fuck.
“converted major roads” is very different from “ripped out completely”
I actually live next to a few places that have done this… with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area… and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup… so again, not “ripped out completely”.
The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don’t need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around.
How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can’t, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases… and maybe you should support change until there’s reasonable evidence that it doesn’t work… and no, a sample size of one is not evidence.
There isn’t any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.
Do you have an example of a location that has done so?
Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman
That’s what the article is talking about.
Where does it say all roads? I think it’s pretty clear in context that they’re not suggesting that
And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, “all roads” is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it.
This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article.
What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea.