• adriaan@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or you could design cities to have green in the first place by designing for better modes of transport than cars. Cars take up a huge amount of space both while traveling and while not in use, instead of spending all that money and space on cars you can have public transit, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure, and greener cities.

    • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Easier is just to have covered parking lots, with a green roof. No massive societal changes requires, just an expensive parking garage.

    • UserDoesNotExist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or you could design cities to have green in the first place by designing for better modes of transport than cars.

      But there are no better modes of transport than cars. They are literally the most used vehicles on earth. This means they have topped every other form so far. The natural next step in the cars evolution is self driving electric vehicles. So cars will be used by multiple people, so there are less cars overall and those cars could be stored in large strategically well placed big parking lot buildings.

      Cars take up a huge amount of space both while traveling and while not in use, instead of spending all that money and space on cars you can have public transit, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure, and greener cities.

      I agree on cycling infrastructure and other forms of public transport. The more options people get, the better. But cars are irreplaceable. Car infrastructure is the most flexible we have. Ambulances, police, craftsmen, busses, taxis, you can easily transform them into pedestrian territory, or turn them into bike lanes. And as I claimed before, if the next 100 years bring us new technologies and self driving cars revolutionise public transport, then this infrastructure offers the option to increase green surfaces in cities.

      • __dev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But there are no better modes of transport than cars. They are literally the most used vehicles on earth. This means they have topped every other form so far.

        This is an appeal to popularity. Something being popular does not make it the best or good. Bikes are also insanely popular - with around ⅔ as many bikes as cars world wide. Car usage also varies highly from city to city. Unsurprisingly those that have good viable alternatives have much less car usage. Build lots of roads you get lots of cars.

        Self driving is not a solution to the massive inefficiency of cars; it’s likely to make it worse. Improving the quality of a mode of transit generally results in increased usage - this is known as induced demand. Not needing a license nor having to pay attention means more people will opt for the car instead of alternatives, resulting in more congestion.

        They’re also unlikely to reduce the number of cars per person. Assuming self driving cars are cheaper than the current situation why would people voluntarily sit next to a stranger in a locked metal box when - for less than they were paying before - they could not do that. They’d also be trading off journey time - the number one thing people care about in regards to transit.

        So more people would use cars, but cars are parked unused 95% of the time, isn’t there efficiency to be gained there? Yes, most likely. But the thing to remember is the majority of cars are on the road at the same time during peak hours. Even if you double the efficiency here you’d at best be reducing the parking needed by 5%.

        You are right though in regards to cars not going anywhere. They are a valuable mode of transportation, especially in rural areas. Hopefully self driving won’t make car dependence even worse.