• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because the cities are being actively altered in a way that transfers space and other resources from cars, to bikes.

    Zero sum game, resources being reallocated, obviously the people whose resources are being taken away are going to view that as a war.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Won’t anybody think of the poor cars? But seriously, resources are better utilised by bicycles to the benefit of all. There are no losers here other than the oil companies and car manufacturers.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        ironically, they win.

        whenever the road diet where i live, traffic improves. because it slows down to one lane and it prevents accidents.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oops sorry I just noticed your last sentence. Yes there are losers. They include all the people whose lifestyles involve driving.

        Pretending otherwise is childish and lame.

        • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          And what exactly are those people going to lose if they get on a bike sometimes? Their diabetes?

          • stufkes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m going to lose my lifetime, literally, by biking a total of 80+ km to work and back. And public transportation takes 2+ hrs one way.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 month ago

              Then when you get into the city, you’ll benefit immensely from 80% of the people being on separated bike paths rather than cars on the road.

              There’s no realistic plan where cities become carless, but can they not be the default?

              • stufkes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                I don’t disagree with the plans to make the city careless. I answered the question what would be so bad about cycling. I think the time factor is often forgotten when talking about cycling and public transport

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The time factor is always forgotten when discussing ways to make society more efficient. As if the primary thing that the working poor are poor in isn’t time itself.

                  Time, as a resource to be paid for these various solutions, is treated like a throwaway resource. IMO it’s positively dehumanizing to wantonly allocate other people’s time like that.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                How is a driving person going to benefit from there being more people biking exactly?

                Think that through. Why are there more people biking? Because the cost of driving went up.

                If those who drive benefit from this system, it will mean more people choosing to drive as a result of driving being more valuable.

                Don’t think you’re making the utility of cars better by this. If it made cars more useful it would result in more car trips. If it makes cars more useful and doesn’t result in more car trips, it must have forced some subset of people to stop using cars for the other drivers’ benefit.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The costs don’t have to go up at all. Merely uncover the costs that are already there but hidden. Everything from noise, space usage, wars in far off countries, lack of exercise, or just the surprise $1200 repair expense.

            • zecg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              No, lose it making money to maintain and feed the car ( how many working hours a year that is?) and sitting in a car for an hour in one direction. Correct time of commuting is time spent in traffic + time spent to earn the money for fuel. If you bikemute, you can actually consider a part of that time as free gym.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            They’re losing the ability to use their car with the same level of utility as before.

            You’re squirming to not recognize this basic fact. It takes a lot of energy expenditure to not acknowledge this fact.

            Just be okay with what you’re doing. Own it.

            • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I think that the problem here is that your definition of “losing” equates to “slight reduction in the massive subsidy that society provides to drivers, and forcing them to drive slower in cities because the lanes are narrower so that other people don’t have to die.” Yeah, technically “losing,” but it still sounds pretty childish to complain about.

          • Drusas@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 month ago

            You have no idea how ableist you’re being right now.

            Even ignoring the jab at diabetics, what about other disabled people? Not everyone can just get on a bike.

            • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s always so funny when car brains suddenly discover their heart for disabled people when they desperately reach for arguments against non car centric traffic planning. If you’re genuinely concerned about disabled people and those who can’t drive for other reasons (poverty springs to mind) you should advocate for transport options besides cars.

              • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                1 month ago

                A variety of transport options for a variety of preferences and disabilities. Some people have a disability that prevents them from cycling, others from walking, others from driving. Only building car centric is still unfair to those who cannot drive due to disability, age, or skill. Only building bike lanes and no transit or car lanes can also be unfair. Multiple options is the most fair in most scenarios.

                • Drusas@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Exactly. We need multiple options and realistic options for people with limitations. It’s way too common on this community for people to call everybody a car brain just because they have trouble riding a bike.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s always so funny when car brains suddenly discover their heart for disabled people

                This is viciously insulting. What the hell are you talking about “suddenly discover their heart”. What do you know about my heart?

                You really think the only people to disagree with you are ice cold monsters? That’s a crazy way to see this scenario: you versus the cold blooded shade demons who don’t like being forced to change their lives.

              • Drusas@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 month ago

                I am a disabled person and I vote for transportation levies and taxes every time they come up, but nice trying to pretend that I’m a car brain just because I happen to need one.

                Once again, ableism. Don’t assume everybody is not disabled just because you don’t see them in a wheelchair.

                • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You’re a car brain because you jump from “we should build more bike lanes” to “they want to ban cars”. Nobody is saying that.

              • Drusas@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                That will dramatically depend on the disability in question. For some, yes.

        • zecg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes there are losers. They include all the people whose lifestyles involve driving.

          However, they’d on average be healthier and happier, that’s not losing.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t really know that taking a person’s chosen lifestyle away is gonna make them happier, or that we have the right to force people for the sake of happiness.

            Health wise, maybe. Maybe they have more stress because they spend more time in their car due to reallocation of road space from cars to bikes.

            You’re dancing around the fact that you are taking from and giving to. It’s a reallocation of wealth from one group to a different group.

            The group with wealth taken away loses.

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago
          1. There are more car-only roads than bike-only roads
          2. Virtually no roads are ever completely closed off from car traffic and allocated strictly towards bicycles
          3. More lanes = more traffic jams (induced demand)
          4. More bike lanes = more people on bikes = fewer people in cars = fewer jams for “your lifestyle”
          5. Narrower roads = Fewer cars = fewer pedestrian deaths = fewer car-crashes
          6. More people biking/walking, healthier lifestyle, less stress on the healthcare system.

          I don’t see how this isn’t a win for car-people and bike-people.

    • stufkes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t get why people are just one or the other. I use a car, a bicycle and I walk. I experience shitty cyclists when in my car, shitty car drivers when I’m riding the bike, and as a pedestrian, usually both groups can be shitty lol

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Whenever I tell people I like to walk places they always say something along the lines of “aren’t you wasting your investment in your car and insurance?”

        No, I’m not. I have to pay for my insurance to get to work most days. I can still save money on gas/wear and tear by walking. This also saves carbon from the atmosphere, in theory lets me keep my car for a longer period of time, and walking is better for my physical and mental health.

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      By giving more space to bicycles, that space can be used by many more people at the same time. Wherever this was done, congestion reduced and traffic improved for all participants.

    • regul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s only a zero sum game if they view driving as an essential and immutable part of themselves, and even then, not really.

      Charging adequate prices for street parking, for example, guarantees that you’ll always be able to park easily if you need to, a luxury not provided by free parking.

      And then, of course, they could always just get out of their cars and immediately start benefitting from the changes.

      • cor@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        zero sum in that there is limited amount of space… so space from something but be subtracted in order to add it to the space of something else….
        it’s not a metaphor, it’s about the total being the same. it’s mathematical and squarely fits the definition of zero sum.

        • regul@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          That accepts the framing that we’re designing for cars/bikes/peds. We’re not. We’re designing for people, whether they’re in a car, on a bike, etc.

          In that sense it’s very much not zero-sum.

          • cor@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            what? no it doesn’t, and yeah people need some sort of transportation and the city will have limited space to accommodate all of those.
            so in that sense: zero sum.

    • verdigris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yep. Lots of times road traffic is worsened in order to improve bike infrastructure with no simultaneous improvement of non-bike alternatives like public transit. Not everyone can replace their cars with bikes, especially not in America.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      In my city the transportation infrastructure decisions are made by a car hate group. We have 400 miles of bike lanes and polling shows 3% of the population use. Bike infrastructure isn’t installed for bikers, rather bikers are the excuse to obstruct and restrict vehicle traffic. As long as they use the word “safety”, they get away with really dumb stuff.

      I wouldn’t have nearly the problem I do if bikes USED the lanes, but I guarantee I can go out right now and not see a single bike. They are entirely vacant.

      To add insult, the bike I’ve seen at a newly converted intersection with dedicated lanes, bike turn box, and no right on red sign didn’t give a rats ass about anyone or any rules, drove on the wrong side, ran a red and drive into active traffic; all the cars stopping for this moron. There is no shared responsibility and no enforcement of rules. That is my liability the biking idiot was messing with. Yes, he’d be at fault if he was hit, but the city stistics would mark that as dangerous intersection and crack down on cars harder.

      So yes, I see this as a war. In my city, we coexisted before, but it wasn’t a problem until this turned this into a mine vs yours situation. The passion driving fuckcars communities to take over is matched with my passion to retain functionality. You are the invading force in this war, we are playing defence. I see paths of scorched earth like scars; barren and void of purpose for which it was designated.

      There is compromise, yes and I agree some can be made, in return, I want to see utilization, coexistence, and shared respect for the rules.

      I see $150 million a year wasted for a incredibly small but disproportionately vocal group of radicalized individuals to actively make things suck and in their wake, after the construction, abandoned by those for whom it was built.

      • bassad@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Do you see vacant car lanes too? Cause there are plenty of it!

        • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Maybe at 3am, but no, my routes during the day take me on roads with other cars doing grownup stuff. Bike utilization is a drop in the bucket.

          Get out there and show us you use the infrastructure built for your peace of mind.

          • bassad@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Now it is a drop in the bucket, but with a good bike road (which is secure from cars and actually go somewhere, like workplaces, schools, groceries) people can finally take a bike or a scooter instead of their car.

            If you want personnal example, I go out and make grown up stuff everyday on my bike, like going to work, groceries and taking kids to the school, cause I know how to mix in traffic (and most of people in cars here are respectful).

            With a secured bike road my kids could go by themselves, and my wife could go by herself to groceries, now she is too afraid of cars, fortunately city is spending millions to build that so in few years it will be allright.

            And I see plenty of roads empty during the day which is used only twice a day during workdays by a couple of resident (if they work), and you still pay for it without thinking about it.

            • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Had to hit the hardware store again due to a defect in product and I passed a bike. Wow! More news at 11!

            • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Sorry I couldn’t reply right away, I hit a grocery store and hardware store for work tomorrow.

              It was 6.5 miles, took 20 minutes, had bike lanes continuously with half being protected to a grocery store like you want. And no, the supplies I need don’t fit on a bike.

              Not a single bike on this warm night perfect for a ride. Anywhere.

              All I hear is bikers want want want. Well my city has it, and has for almost a decade.

              Complaining is easy, it’s time to use the infrastructure bikers confiscated (yes, bike lanes here are at the expense of what were vehicle lanes) and get out there. Show us there is utilization that follows all this vocal demand.

  • splonglo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I honestly think conservative media just tries to start as much shit as possible so they have something to talk about.

    At this point they probably start out by picking some slightly complex idea that’s objectively correct and then work backwards to find a way to disagree with it.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      The issue is that these changes are beneficial to society but detrimental to them personally. So they try to rationalize their stance without sounding like selfish assholes.

      • splonglo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think it’s more that the right wing media tries to identify grievances and then provides rationalizations for them. I don’t think this is an organic, ground-up process.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        It isn’t even detrimental, it is just different from what they prefer. How does a bike line on a road they probably don’t even live on really effect them? It doesn’t.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 month ago

    The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, argues that the costs of such green initiatives outweigh their benefits, suggesting that they impose unnecessary economic burdens (Heartland Institute, 2017).

    Guess some people see everything in a cost-profit margin only.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 month ago

      Guess some people see everything in a cost-profit margin only.

      Especially when it’s convenient. I’m sure they would happily look the other way if you showed them the economic burdens of having a car-centric society.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Auto industry manipulation of government is a big part of the reason the US has such awful, car-centered infrastructure.

      • Delusional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        And thinking that way about everything is obviously the wrong way to go about life and will end up failing.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 month ago

      Being European, there are plenty of profits to be made by switching to bikes. Well, unless you’re a petrol station, fuck you then.

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Anything the Heartland Institute publishes should never be treated as anything but toilet paper.

      • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Same goes for any and all think tanks

        They’re all horseshit perversions that exist to push out mountains of academic-seeming material to legitimize whatever positions their funders want to legitimize to advance their interests

  • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Man I am so tired of the endless parade of articles with the premise “How could conservatives possibly think this?? Surely if we just take the time to carefully understand their reasoning we can blah blah blah…”

    Here I’ll answer the the “why” right now:
    A) Most US conservatives live in suburbs and rural areas and generally hate and fear inner cities and the people who live there. They also generally hate and fear environmentalism. They also greatly resent the idea that the USA isn’t the best country on earth at literally everything. They’re also violently homophobic and have such deeply toxic ideas of masculinity that they consider it to be weak and “gay” to drive a smaller vehicle.

    So when an urbanism advocate says they want people to give up their lifted truck to live in a city and ride a bicycle so the US can be more like Europe and East Asia to help the environment how in the world do you expect them to react in any other way?

    B) This is a population that’s addicted to hate, fear and opposition like a drug, and conservative politicians and news orgs are the dealers. They need to periodically find something new to tantrum about. If there is no reason to hate something then a reason will be created. This was the case with LED lightbulbs, with COVID, with Romneycare, and so on and on and on. The 15 minute city conspiracy theories are not some sort of new unprecedented pattern of behavior.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t have or want a lifted truck but I also don’t want to live in a city. If that means biking a hundred miles to get anywhere I’ll do it.

      • vividspecter@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Historically, rural towns had walkable centres and access to rail. Throw in a comprehensive bike network and you can live without a car easily. And I agree, I’d personally be willing to bike pretty long distances when I visit rural towns if it’s safe and pleasant.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    There should be zero delivery trucks clogging city streets. Zero.

    Good luck with that. And the bike-riding population will do all their shopping far outside the city, where shops still survive? A cargo bike is nice for personal shopping, for deliviering letters or small packets, but you won’t be able to fill the shelves of a supermarket this way. And whoever thinks about using freight trams for this, sit down and actually think this idea through for a change.

    • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Delivery trucks are fine. They don’t contribute to sprawl, are driven by professional drivers, and don’t need parking lots.

      It’s personal automobiles that are the problem.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was bout to write the exact same.

        Cargo trucks cna also be limited to specific times, like 6am when most people arent in the street yet

        • coffinwood
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Shall we take a guess at who the poor fella will be that has to work night shifts only because some bourgeois shoppers can’t be bothered with the fact that full shelves don’t appear through magic?

    • RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      If I had a dime for every time somebody made this reply, I’d have a lot of dimes.

      Nobody has ever said that. What people are saying is that the private automobile is the worst way to move masses of people in cities. They command ungodly amounts of space, make everything more expensive thereby, and aren’t even good at moving masses of people.

      You want to increase the capacity of your road? You can:

      • spend millions adding lanes and possibly destroying houses
      • turn a lane into a dedicated bus lane
      • turn a lane into a bike lane
      • hell, pedestrian areas have higher people capacities than car lanes
      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Adding another lane never helped, it usually does the opposite. People will see there is “more” capacity and more people will use the road, causing even more congestion

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, you are right. You are talking of moving people inside cities. I am talking about a) getting in and out of the city and b) moving goods into and out of cities. None of the usual demands in this group ever even starts to address this.

        • ebc@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          What usually works better for moving people in and out of cities is park-n-ride setups where you setup a giant parking lot in the suburbs next to a metro station. People can just ditch their car outside the city and proceed using public transit. I often do this in Montreal, for example.

          For goods, it’s a similar setup but with big trucks transferring cargo to smaller trucks; this is already pretty common.

          • Treczoks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            In theory, P&R is fine.

            But my experience with P&R is that they are generally so far out of the city and the bus/tram/tube/whatever connection is a normal “outside the city” link which goes every 30-60 minutes if one is lucky (during the weekdayday, evenings and weekends are way worse), and then stops at every lantern on the way to the city center. And still costs a fortune.

            Additionally, the tram stop at our next P&R is not exactly handicapped-friendly. So I have to get my wife somehow into the tram, which involves a number of high steps at the trams’ doors.

          • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Just use busses and trams

            And once people use bikes all over and you can get rid of the 10.000 parking spots, you can build much more local small shops. Nobody loves going to Walmart and nobody will if there are small local shops around the corner where you can simply walk to

            • ebc@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Bikes ain’t gonna work for people coming from far outside the city. I’m not talking about commuting distance, I’m talking about people who live in rural areas 2+ hours away from a city that need to come in occasionally. Having them make the whole trip by car necessitates maintaining car infrastructure in the city center, which will soon be co-opted by suburbanites. This use-case needs a bi-modal strategy.

        • biddy@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes, of course delivery trucks need access to cities, some goods are not practical to move by cargo bike. As do emergency services and buses. Nobody disagrees with this. The problem in many cities is that streets are clogged with useless private cars. So the obvious solution is to ban private cars.

            • biddy@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              Private cars in general are not useless, but private cars in the center of cities should be useless if the city is designed well. The space-transportation trade off does not make sense.

              • Treczoks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                …if the city is designed well. You got the problem of the next city right on.

                But even if I was living in a well-designed city, I would still use a private car, as moving handicapped people (like my wife) around on public transport is quite a nightmare. Yes, we have tried.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure, if you focus on the “zero” part of the phrase you can score a cheap point. Now focus on the “trucks” and the “clogging” part. A van can stock up a small to medium store just fine, and a walkable neighborhood doesn’t need big box stores to begin with (and small business ownership is a plus for economic conservatives too). And with fewer cars carting individuals around, delivery vans can move in and out much more efficiently without clogging up anything.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Perhaps the idea is to find ways to articulate things that don’t lead to such obvious cheap points being scorable.

        “Zero trucks on our roads!” <—- stupid idea that enables the cheap point

        “But zero is a stupid number to aim for” <—- cheap point

        “Well obviously not zero

        Then don’t say zero! Use your words precisely, as if you had some responsibility for what’s going on. Be more like an engineer, and less like a kid, with your speech.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Many smaller businesses could be served just fine with cargo bikes. And once every inch of free space is no longer clogged up by parking cars, it’ll be easy to assign loading zones for bigger vehicles that supply supermarkets and the like. Now make those electric and everything becomes much quieter and less polluted. Then people will actually enjoy coming to the city centre again so business there can thrive.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah I can only think of people envisioning small downtown stores only using small trucks/vans or the weird one underground cargo tracks (there is a startup in Texas pushing for that one).

      Even then trucking tends to just make more sense from everything I’ve experienced, but what do I know

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Underground cargo tracks is a nice idea, but hardly realistic. Can you imagine ripping open the whole city to build that, and the cost of such an undertaking?

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If I remember right they were planning smaller deployments (think building scale, neighborhood scale) with boring tech being the solution to installation.

          • Treczoks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            This can only provide a local solution. To make this work on a larger scale, you need the city to be built for this. So basically, this is a very long term thing.

            • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I think last mile is probably the most problematic part of delivery anyways since it effects how the places we live are actually built the most.

              Trains, ships, planes, and semis are all the solutions for the backhaul at the moment

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s not exactly some unsolvable logic puzzle. This is a problem not everywhere has, it’s pretty simple.

      Two solutions.

      First, you create a second way in. It can be anything from dedicated streets for cargo with all the loading docks to shared warehouses at the edge of the city and underground tunnels like Disney. The main idea is to dedicate most streets to people and bikes, which can have all the storefronts

      Or the easy way we could do far more quickly… Instead of slicing space you slice time. Limit deliveries from 4am to 7am, maybe an afternoon slot if necessary. The idea being people get the prime time, and you work out the logistics with that constraint

      For better logistics, limit the size of the trucks and do shared distribution centers as a buffer for normal shipping times.

      Ideally, you do #2 while transitioning to #1. Put a slowly increasing off hour delivery tax and create an incentive. The logistics will magically come together as the tax grows

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Limit deliveries from 4am to 7am

        Oh boy I sure do love being woken up at 5am because the loud-ass delivery truck is restocking the grocery store.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but I do sometimes get woken up by the garbage truck. Not often, but it’s loud as shit and comes just before 5am… IDK if it’s bad luck, but everywhere I’ve ever lived seems to have garbage trucks that came well before sunrise, and they’re about the loudest trucks before you get up to construction vehicles

          Unloading a truck isn’t even on the same volume scale. Especially if we used small trucks from a distribution center outside the city. Other countries do it, and we do it already, just not in the same numbers I’m proposing

          This doesn’t sound like an actual issue to me

    • Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      So, why do we need a supermarket? Is there any reason a supermarket couldn’t be replaced with it’s contingent parts? A butcher, a veggie shop, a convenience food shop, a pharmacy, a bakery, and a condiments shop?

      I don’t see why they have to be stapled together when separate works just fine. All of which could fairly practically be stocked individually by small light duty trucks, or even a bike wi