Roads in the 21st century incarnation of English almost always refer specifically to car infrastructure.
Streets are not the same as roads, it describes the space between two rows of properties. Modern streets typically contain a road for cars, but also sidewalks, trees, gardens, lounge spaces, etc. There’s a reason it’s called street food and not road food, because they’re selling on the streets and not in the middle of the roads where they’ll get run over.
Every time something like this gets brought up, you always get Nimbys screeching how this will evict everyone from their homes or whatever, and I think it’s because they think removing roads means also removing the streets themselves, when in reality it means the streets get restored and become much more welcoming and people friendly.
I wonder how he thinks how supermarket shelves or the storage of his favorite restaurants are filled. He might be in for a surprise when no trucks will be delivering anything in the city. Or does he believe his local Tesco is getting it’s wares by tube?
Nice fantasy. Nobody will pay for the first, the second will be a complete illusion with the current state of public transport (and how you want to get people with 30+ km commute one way to bike, even electric, will remain an unsolved riddle). The only thing with the third is, you are right, it will change, I.e. it will kill off in-city retail completely.
It’s not clear from the way the article quotes him exactly what he said should be “ripped out completely”. You seem to be interpreting it as “all city roads should be ripped out completely”.
I suspect he’s saying we could rip out many city roads, completely turning them into green spaces and with forms of more active transport. I don’t think this is saying remove all roads to the extent goods vehicles can’t enter.
To take this to its logical conclusion, once the streets are gone, there is no need for buildings anymore, so they can tear those all down and plant a forest. But then you wonder where you are going to put all the people who used to live and work there.
At this point, I’d settle for taking the 2-lane road segments in my town that turn into 4-lane nightmares and then merge back into 2-lane streets a dozen blocks later with bike lanes and parking, and getting rid of the 4-lane parts that often don’t have sidewalks or bike infra.
Sure, these road segments funnel traffic away from the more-residential city grid streets, but they’re also rife with speeding and they make it hard to navigate on a bike unless you happen to know which streets have any sort of infra
Gentle reminder: This site is basically a tabloid at this point and should not be used as a serious source. If you have to, at least use an archived version.
I think the ideal is an alternating block structure
Pedestrian Street,
Road,
Pedestrian Street,
Transit only Lane,
Pedestrian Street,
Road,
Pedestrian Street,
Transit Only Lane,
…
Where Pedestrian streets cross roads, have car traffic enter a roundabout sunk below the pedestrian path, when they cross transit lanes, have a gate bridge that closes off the lane whenever a tram or bus isn’t near the crossing, same deal when car traffic crosses a tram or bus lane
Voila, maximum restriction of cross interaction between three separate modes of transport, a full 75% of which is dedicated to pedestrian and transit use, and the last quarter there mostly just for the benefit of last mile package delivery and emergency services, as well as the odd profession that legit has to use automobile transport for whatever reason.
I don’t know about “La” what is it ?
I do know parts of Africa are like that.
I don’t know about all continents but I do know there are mostly good roads in many other continents (Europe, parts of Asia …)
Ok, then why was an article from this source even posted to this community in the first place, and why is it popular enough to be at the top of the community right now?
If it’s such a bad article and source and does not represent the values of this community, shouldn’t it have a lot more down votes? And also fewer community members defending the content of the article?
I upvote it because I see a headline like this and go “damn, based” and then I move on with my life without reading the article or the comments. I think that’s what most people do, man. It’s a coincidence that I noticed the votes to comments ratio and decided to check it out because when its this even it’s usually a shitstorm worth reading.
If it’s such a bad article and source and does not represent the values of this community, shouldn’t it have a lot more down votes? And also fewer community members defending the content of the article?
I get the impression that the Lemmy “fuck cars” communities have a much larger percentage of concern trolls (case in point: you, frankly, who inspired the comment at the top of this chain in the first place!) than the R*ddit one did. It might be a function of smaller community size + relative ease of reaching “All” [what’s a good way of notating that for Lemmy, BTW?]. It could also be a difference in moderation zealousness and/or priorities, although I feel like I’ve noticed the same phenomenon across both !fuckcars and !fuck_cars, so maybe not (I haven’t been paying close enough attention to be sure, though).
So basically, this community is an echo chamber that will upvote any drivel which supports the prevailing narrative no matter how poorly written or thought out, and shout down any dissenting opinions or critical voices and dismiss them as “trolling” (which I am obviously not doing, as I am directly addressing the content of the article that was posted).
Yeah, I’m sure the quote is completely out of context and the guy who’s also
called for people to limit the use of “personal care products”, “computers” and “printers” in their homes which he said were contributing to pollution.
isn’t just one of those “back-to-monkee, comfort is unnecessary” types.
Not sure what his beef is with computers, but to be fair, laser printers and aerosol products like hair spray and deodorant really are pretty bad for indoor air quality.
It's literally two idiots contorting into ludicrous shapes just to stay mad about this. It's wild.
WHAT ABOUT THE TRUCKS???? I am going to quote one clause of the article over and over to prove I didn't read it and get mad at people who suggest that anything could change in any way, ever! Trucks are part of human DNA and the moment an 18 wheeler can't smog up your back yard is when we have all lost our freedumb!!!
This is dependent on the economic output that you consider expendable.
For instance, there will be no modern medicine without microchip fabrication, and really the entire global electronics industry from top to bottom. Without that extraordinarily complex production system woven through our economy, you’re basically back to 1940s medicine.
Yes, it’s impossible to do things differently. If there were no roads, all chip fabs would be demolished along with their custom local power plants they usually create on site.
But maybe they could keep some production going so that the chips for security tags could still be produced. With no roads, how would the police chase all the shop lifters.
They do rip up roads, just not quite literally all of them. You'll always have at least one lane, depending on the location. But the rest, including parking spaces, can be replaced with something else like greenspaces instead.
What is your proposed alternative solution for logistics in any moderately dense urban area? Like never mind New York, you couldn’t make this work in Little Rock.
This is a fantasy. It can’t be implemented in large scale in any practical sense.
Centralization of distribution and centralization of production is always more efficient. You aren’t going to put dairy farms next to apartment buildings next to orchards next to paper manufacturing plants next to microchip fabricators next to restaurants next to family homes next to waste water treatment next to hospitals next to bookstores next to power generators next to garbage incinerators next to grocery stores…
These things get separated from each other for good reason, and running rail lines to all of them will never be practical. There will always be a need to fill the gap with small, independently powered vehicles for cargo transport.
…and then you actually read the article past the misleading click bait, right? The Telegraph is a conservative paper, they have an interest in smearing anyone who challenges the status quo.
Up to 80 per cent of people living on arterial routes in urban areas did not own cars, with most of the pollution being caused by motorists driving into and through their communities.
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”
That is not something a reasonable person would interpret as ripping out 100% of roads. Especially since he references real projects like Seoul.
No part of the article discusses replacing the logistics function of cargo vehicles, but it does propose ripping out the road infrastructure they run on.
Um, yes they are? 18 wheelers deliver goods to stores all the time. How are you even trying to make this argument? What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?
They deliver goods to big box stores, not to the kinds of stores one finds in a dense, walkable downtown core area. I have worked in the delivery industry, and we served the downtown core entirely with 5-ton and 3-ton trucks and cargo vans. It’s simply not practical to get a full-sized trailer in there.
Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of car journeys were under two miles and 60 per cent under five miles. “You could really walk two miles. By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.
Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off.
By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.
This lie?
Speaking solely for myself here: I used to have a mental block that prevented me from calculating travel time by different modes equitably. If it was a 10 minute drive, or a 20 minute walk, my calculation was anchored to the 10-minute drive as the “real” amount of time, and so the 20 minute walk always felt like a waste of 10 minutes. I think it’s easy to fall into this trap, especially when our lives are busy and we’re trying to save time anywhere we can. But a 20 minute walk is 20 minutes less I have to go to the gym, and 10 minutes less that I have to be hyper alert and driving a 2T vehicle around other people.
Additionally, this mental block existed for me around time spent parking and walking from my car to my destination. Obviously I had to walk from my car, so my brain saw that as +0 minutes. But when I calculated it, I found that I was often spending meaningful amounts of time on this leg:
My urban office is 6 miles from my suburban home (metro area approx 2.5MM people). Even with a highway for half the trip (which gets clogged with commuter and freight traffic during rush hours) the drive is approximately 20-25 minutes during light traffic, or as long as 40 minutes if traffic is particularly heavy. I have to park in a garage, which involves circling for a spot, and then have a 15 min walk to my office. On a good day, 35 minutes. On a bad day, almost an hour.
But taking my ebike (which I only bought because of the many steep hills between me and work) through back roads and sidestreets, it’s 35-40 minutes door to door. Now I get 35-40 minutes of exercise without having to go to the gym, and my vehicle is parked right at thr exit to my building. Plus, I can charge the ebike with company electricity instead of having to pay for gas for my car.
Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off
It pisses a lot of people off when they can’t park right next to their destination. But that already happens. There is a limited amount of space at places people want to be, so someone will always have to park farther away. Circling the nearby streets for parking is also annoying as fuck, and a huge waste of time.
Something I think is sort of ironic is that in my neighborhood most of the last mile delivery happens on bike. This isn’t because of a lack of automobile infrastructure but because there are too many automobiles. Nowhere to park or even idle the van for a short time.
I do also suspect it’s more convenient for the delivery person to hop off a bike at each stop than it would be to park a car and get out etc.
If I were a city planner I’d integrate that system into my strategy. Ripping out every road is of course hyperbole and clickbait, but ripping out every other road seems like a no brainer. But I seriously doubt converting 3/4 or more of the roads for autos into pedestrian/bike/tram/greenspace would shake things up too bad. Just make sure to keep main arteries open for automobiles and ensure there’s centralized parking garages (street parking is a blight) within a decent walking distance and I think people who need to have a car in the city will get used to it fast.
Hey so I come from a european city from 778, with most of the streets having been the same for over 500 years now.
Heineken truck drivers manage to supply bars and restaurants throughout the city with little to no problems and most of that is pedestrian zoning with exceptions for deliveries and it works quite well.
“converted major roads” is very different from “ripped out completely”
entire precincts, to foot traffic only
I actually live next to a few places that have done this… with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area… and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup… so again, not “ripped out completely”.
The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don’t need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around.
How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can’t, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases… and maybe you should support change until there’s reasonable evidence that it doesn’t work… and no, a sample size of one is not evidence.
There isn’t any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.
Do you have an example of a location that has done so?
A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.
[…]
We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors.
And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, “all roads” is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.
How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?
More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity
Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?
Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.
Yes, that’s how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city.
So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it.
Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.
This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article.
What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea.
Sure, but if they don’t have any roads to travel on what then?
But I’ve seen another comment mentioning the distinction between roads and streets so I guess that might explain why I can’t imagine how that would be realistic.
I can’t read the article (paywall), but it seems to me that there might be a distinction between road and street that some people in this thread don’t know about.
I’ll quote the main bit, standard problems and he’s not wrong about the solutions. Why should London residents put up with rich out of London drivers polluting where they live? There is a tube and train already. Cutting down the number of routes for through traffic and turning the old roads into parks would be great. And exactly what is already happening in places with ltns
“He cited a north London councillor who described traffic as an “invasive species” that “swamps all other types of transport”. Up to 80 per cent of people living on arterial routes in urban areas did not own cars, with most of the pollution being caused by motorists driving into and through their communities.
Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”
This needed to be combined with a drive to get people out of their cars and into walking, cycling and using public transport, which would not only help tackle climate change but also improve health and so reduce pressures on the NHS.”
Add comment