• Platypus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    OK so… demonstrate it? Explain how, with absolutely 0 maintenance for 20 years (or whatever you consider a reasonable time to bring every single road up to bicycle and pedestrian usability standards), the roads would be able to support the flow of commuters, emergency vehicles, and deliveries. You can appeal to your own authority all you want, but it’s worth just about jack if you don’t back it up.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The answer is, you simply upgrade the bike and pedestrian infrastructure at the same time as you do any other road work, and make it against the rules to do otherwise. So the roads that need repaving most urgently still get it, but they just get bike lanes and sidewalks urgently, too.

      As for your previous pearl-clutching, which I have now found the patience to respond to:

      1. Emergency vehicles have to be able to deal with shitty roads (including unpaved roads) already, so your first bullet point isn’t a thing.
      2. Traffic would not “increase exponentially” by having fewer usable roads. In fact, it’s the opposite: that’s what happens when you expand roads. What actually would happen is that people would be driven to alternatives, such as reducing trips, biking, walking, etc.
      3. This is almost too nonsensical to address. Making roads worse is essentially traffic calming, and would increase safety.
      4. This is too nonsensical to address. Pure hysterical bullshit.
      • Platypus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s most definitely not “ceasing all road construction,” and actually sounds like a feasible (ignoring realities of modern politics) plan that I would get behind.