[ericd]

Society doesn't have that car taking up space on the side of a public road all day, for one thing. Less parking, narrower roads, smaller parking lots, things are closer together, things are more walkable, we burn less fossil fuel, people get more exercise, people are healthier, people are happier/more productive.

[oatmeal1]

I think the main benefit is that someone who doesn't own a car isn't particularly inclined to fight for more spending on car-dependent infrastructure. They'll probably be more likely to support more public transit, because using a car feels expensive.

[ericd]

Yeah, definitely. Right now most are still in the "can't imagine not having a car, and want to make sure that that car can take them everywhere" state of mind. If more people walked/could walk, maybe we'd prioritize making places actually nice to walk, instead of super uncomfortable, right next to loud speeding cars.

I was looking at our local zoning laws, and it doesn't look like you're allowed to make a non-car-dependent mixed-use development, thanks to density restrictions and parking requirements. Hopefully as sentiment changes, we can change more of those zoning laws.

[HWR_14]

That's how a society set up for mostly taxis could be better. But if we get to include the benefits of walkable societies and redoing all existing infrastructure in our arguments, surely going to mass transit is better still? And, unlike repaving all the roads to be narrower, it's something that can be added on top of existing infrastructure.

[ericd]

Yeah, no argument, I'd love more light rail/streetcars. If people are less dependent on personal cars, they'll be more willing to develop toward that pattern with mass transit/small bike/pedestrian roads/etc.

[bobthepanda]

At the same time, what do you think the taxi is doing in between fares? They drive around and add to congestion, requiring wider roads.