Anons argue in comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1207 points (97.5% liked)
Greentext
5231 readers
1855 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:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very few advocate for the total elimination of cars, just that they are very, very overrepresented in terms of amount of infrastructure built and city design. The argument isn't to take cars off the table, but that they shouldn't be be the default option, and therefore that cities shouldn't be built assuming that most will have and use one. Because when you build assuming their use, you tend to create a place that requires them, and makes life very difficult for anyone that cannot or will not use one.
I'm also saying that cars are the only option in a vast majority of the land in the US. Park and ride spots (especially with EV charging) would be a great improvement for many of the cities for those of us coming from an area without a reasonable means to get there other than by car if buses and metros were available. The closest major city to me doesn't have a metro, nor a great bus schedule. I'm trying to no be a part of the problem, but cities have got to get it together.
Also you can't totally eliminate roads for cities mainly for deliveries via vans and trucks. The need for locksmiths, plumbers, electricians, and the like also need to be mobile to go to the problems as well.