• Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hmm, a 40-80ft wide road that needs to support thousands of pounds of cars, or 8ft of bike path that only needs to support a few hundred pounds of pedestrians/bikers.

    I wonder which needs more of a budget.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      If everyone is on a bike, 8ft isn’t enough…also now you’re going to have even bigger cities since most people will need to return to the city from living further out.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If everyone is on a bike, 8ft isn’t enough

        This is silly for multiple reasons

        • Bike paths have significantly higher throughput than roads

        • This is not a mutually elusive choice, we can have multiple modes of transport

        • Rail transport & busses are more than capable of helping to reduce the load

        • I never once said “everyone should be on a bike”

        also now you’re going to have even bigger cities since most people will need to return to the city from living further out.

        This just makes no sense. The ratio of transportation types has little effect on city density, zoning is way more of a factor. And in addition to that, car centric infrastructure takes up significantly more space than other modes. Reducing car dependence would actually free up space.