• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well either you could move to a different location if you want to, convince your community and local politicians to build better infrastructure, or realize that you are a minority, an edge case that usually is not adressed in these talks because a few people in remote locations using a car doesn’t hurt if we could get rid of car dependency in densely populated areas where the vast majority of humans live.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Vote to allow more dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development as well as more and better public transit. In many cases there’s a chicken-and-egg problem of NIMBYs blocking new, denser development because of fears of bringing too much traffic, but the public transit that would allay those fears isn’t built because there’s not enough density.

      And so what happens is places get stuck in a trap of perpetual car-dependence, which is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and bad for social equality (cars are super expensive and thus a particular burden on lower income folks, and many people with disabilities simply can’t drive).

      The only way to break the cycle is for people to recognize what’s happening and intentionally vote their way out of it.

      • Ibex0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Vote to allow more dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development as well as more and better public transit.”

        But I don’t want that. My neighborhood is great, and I don’t want to turn it into my local small city or my local big city. Plus, what you’re describing is very expensive, and taxes are already high.