Comment by sksksk
9 days ago
What I've observed, is that 90% of journeys people make can be done without a car.
Designing a city that helps people make those journeys car free, makes it better for the 10% of journeys that do need to be made with a car.
Can and want to or being efficient are different things. I "can" travel around in a city using public transport with 3 kids and all their sporting equipment, do I want to, no. Would any sane person want to? No.
Maybe consider a sports club that's in walking -- or cycling -- distance. But I guess that's also insane.
Unless you're going surfing, 3 kids and their sporting equipment fit in a small hatchback, with room to spare.
see, this is the narrow minded view of so many europeans. Well just go to a closer sports club....is not an answer to the problem that thousands of people experience with small cars, and small roads.
2 replies →
That’s a bit of a strawman argument. Most journeys don’t consist of three children and all their sporting equipment.
As a practical example, in the UK, on average a young g child lives 1.7miles away from their school.
That is an easily walkable distance for most children, yet lots of parents choose to drive it because they feel the streets aren’t safe to walk on in rush hour.
If by redesigning streets to make active travel more appealing, you could reduce the number of cars on the school run by 10%; it would improve the traffic situation for the ones who still need to drive. Win-win