Cars: making life expensive, even for those without

[fskimospy]

Because Buses and Cars were better than all the infrastructure tied to trolleys. a road provides more options and less capital.
Its also why a lot of freight moved to just in time inventory, no rail maintenance and flexible trucking options
the taxpayer pays for the road and maintenace

You could argue that we should just have buses instead of streetcars but personal cars are clearly inferior in urban environments. They cause enormous pollution, take up tons of space, and transport very few people as compared to the other options.

Cars are really bad to have in dense cities!

 

[desy]

Not arguing that point Just that the demise of some transit options like so many things isn't conspiracy just normal human laziness
If I lived closer than 18 miles from work and it didn't get to -40 like it does around here I think I'd love an electric scooter or bike. I had a motorcycle better on gas insurance maintenance however driving in traffic drove me to quit. Much safer in the metal box

 

[Zorba]

The US also actively destroyed its public transit infrastructure in the mid-20th century in order to make room for more cars. I'm not kidding. They just let cars use the public transit infrastructure and they basically ruined it through traffic and damage to the lines.

To be fair, the original spraw was started by the street car companies, at least in OKC. The street cars were replaced with cars, but the shitty development stayed.

 

[Zorba]

There was a good story about some city trying a limited route of light rail and then businesses built up alongside it. I think they said businesses were asking them to extend it further as it was looking like an economic success for everyone. I think they built apartments alongside it as well. That's what the suburbs should be. Also have a line of park/trail so that people can bike and play.

I know in Atlanta they are turning an old rail RoW into a very nice trail system and there has been a ton of high-end development along it. It is amazing what good trails can do.

Meanwhile, my city OKC, is putting in a lot of bike trails, but I'm pretty sure the people laying them out have never biked before. Most of the commuting trails are right next to busy roads, with tons of side street crossings, I'd rather ride on the road. I've had the debate a lot locally that poor infrastructure is worse than none, because with none you might get something good in the future, but bad infrastructure stick around and blocks future investment there.

 

[pmv]

I know in Atlanta they are turning an old rail RoW into a very nice trail system and there has been a ton of high-end development along it. It is amazing what good trails can do.

Meanwhile, my city OKC, is putting in a lot of bike trails, but I'm pretty sure the people laying them out have never biked before. Most of the commuting trails are right next to busy roads, with tons of side street crossings, I'd rather ride on the road. I've had the debate a lot locally that poor infrastructure is worse than none, because with none you might get something good in the future, but bad infrastructure stick around and blocks future investment there.

Bad infrastructure is a scourge - so many road planners have no clue what they are doing when it comes to cycling. They don't listen to cycle-users, build unusable rubbish, then say "we spend all this money on building cycle paths [even if it's a tiny fraction on what is spent on roads for cars] and you cyclists don't even use it!".