• deus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s the other way around. Mass transit greatly benefits from walkable cities because that means distances are shorter which in turn makes the whole system cheaper to build and operate.

    • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Walkable cities are created by not emphasizing car infrastructure which necessitates good mass transit because people still need to get around which creates a more walkable city, etc. It’s kind of a chicken and egg situation, they’re both the cause and effect of each other in an endless cycle.

      • deus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No disagreements there, I was just thinking more in the sense that their cities are very dense and have zoning laws which allow residences, industries and commercial spaces to coexist side-by-side, often in the same lot. That can make for pretty walkable places even without good mass transport.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly and the process of switching sucks for everyone. It’s something we still need to do, but people need to be prepared for a system where the trains are running at a loss, there’s not enough parking, and there’s traffic jams. Incidentally that’s basically what it’s like as a city outgrows car infrastructure.