|
|
|
|
|
by tamcap
1313 days ago
|
|
I think the US needs an honest assessment about the cost of such high degree of car centricity. There are layers of laws and regulations establishing car as a dominant method of transport, and actively discriminating against everything else. In this current case, large surface parking lots are a terrible use of space. They generate very little taxes, contribute towards the heat island effect, and make the general area surrounding them less walkable. The example you provided is definitely believable. I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". And I don't necessarily have an answer what's a good solution. Having regulation like the French do at least helps nudge the outcomes somewhat. |
|
The Netherlands did that (eg, [1]). It started in the 70s and is still ongoing. There were a modest few "quick wins", but most of the benefit is in the aggregate. It literally takes decades to get to a really different outlook/feel/vibe on traffic throughout a city/region, as opposed to only fixing accident hot spots. It's possible, with patience and tenacity.
[1] https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang