▲ 576 ▼ City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser (www.telegraph.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Naich@kbin.social 74 points 2 years ago (2 children) That there are cities that have actually done this doesn't seem to stop them insisting it's impossible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] makyo@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (1 child) Something I think is sort of ironic is that in my neighborhood most of the last mile delivery happens on bike. This isn't because of a lack of automobile infrastructure but because there are too many automobiles. Nowhere to park or even idle the van for a short time. I do also suspect it's more convenient for the delivery person to hop off a bike at each stop than it would be to park a car and get out etc. If I were a city planner I'd integrate that system into my strategy. Ripping out every road is of course hyperbole and clickbait, but ripping out every other road seems like a no brainer. But I seriously doubt converting 3/4 or more of the roads for autos into pedestrian/bike/tram/greenspace would shake things up too bad. Just make sure to keep main arteries open for automobiles and ensure there's centralized parking garages (street parking is a blight) within a decent walking distance and I think people who need to have a car in the city will get used to it fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hey so I come from a european city from 778, with most of the streets having been the same for over 500 years now. Heineken truck drivers manage to supply bars and restaurants throughout the city with little to no problems and most of that is pedestrian zoning with exceptions for deliveries and it works quite well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is an excellent point too - removing streets for general use doesn't necessarily also exclude commercial delivery use and so forth permalink fedilink source parent [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -22 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Name five, with populations higher than 50,000. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You know there are dozens of major cities that have converted major roads, and entire precincts, to foot traffic only... right? Turns out it's pretty easy to transport inventory in hand trolleys a few blocks as most major cities, especially business districts, are flat as fuck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) "converted major roads" is very different from "ripped out completely" entire precincts, to foot traffic only I actually live next to a few places that have done this... with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area... and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup... so again, not "ripped out completely". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around. How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (1 child) Something I think is sort of ironic is that in my neighborhood most of the last mile delivery happens on bike. This isn't because of a lack of automobile infrastructure but because there are too many automobiles. Nowhere to park or even idle the van for a short time. I do also suspect it's more convenient for the delivery person to hop off a bike at each stop than it would be to park a car and get out etc. If I were a city planner I'd integrate that system into my strategy. Ripping out every road is of course hyperbole and clickbait, but ripping out every other road seems like a no brainer. But I seriously doubt converting 3/4 or more of the roads for autos into pedestrian/bike/tram/greenspace would shake things up too bad. Just make sure to keep main arteries open for automobiles and ensure there's centralized parking garages (street parking is a blight) within a decent walking distance and I think people who need to have a car in the city will get used to it fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hey so I come from a european city from 778, with most of the streets having been the same for over 500 years now. Heineken truck drivers manage to supply bars and restaurants throughout the city with little to no problems and most of that is pedestrian zoning with exceptions for deliveries and it works quite well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is an excellent point too - removing streets for general use doesn't necessarily also exclude commercial delivery use and so forth permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hey so I come from a european city from 778, with most of the streets having been the same for over 500 years now. Heineken truck drivers manage to supply bars and restaurants throughout the city with little to no problems and most of that is pedestrian zoning with exceptions for deliveries and it works quite well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is an excellent point too - removing streets for general use doesn't necessarily also exclude commercial delivery use and so forth permalink fedilink source parent
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is an excellent point too - removing streets for general use doesn't necessarily also exclude commercial delivery use and so forth permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -22 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Name five, with populations higher than 50,000. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You know there are dozens of major cities that have converted major roads, and entire precincts, to foot traffic only... right? Turns out it's pretty easy to transport inventory in hand trolleys a few blocks as most major cities, especially business districts, are flat as fuck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) "converted major roads" is very different from "ripped out completely" entire precincts, to foot traffic only I actually live next to a few places that have done this... with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area... and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup... so again, not "ripped out completely". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around. How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (1 child) You know there are dozens of major cities that have converted major roads, and entire precincts, to foot traffic only... right? Turns out it's pretty easy to transport inventory in hand trolleys a few blocks as most major cities, especially business districts, are flat as fuck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) "converted major roads" is very different from "ripped out completely" entire precincts, to foot traffic only I actually live next to a few places that have done this... with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area... and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup... so again, not "ripped out completely". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around. How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) "converted major roads" is very different from "ripped out completely" entire precincts, to foot traffic only I actually live next to a few places that have done this... with one or two streets for about 3 blocks in a downtown area... and they all have streets on the backsides to handle cargo delivery and trash pickup... so again, not "ripped out completely". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around. How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) The great thing about FOOT traffic, is you don't need roads. You only need paths (e.g. the sidewalk) to bike or trolley inventory around. How about YOU provide evidence of ANYWHERE converting blocks of a suburb or city to parkland, and suddenly facing the supply chain crisis you hypothesise? If you can't, then your argument is imaginary and based on nothing but your own biases... and maybe you should support change until there's reasonable evidence that it doesn't work... and no, a sample size of one is not evidence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) There isn't any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can't prove a negative. Do you have an example of a location that has done so? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Point me to where someone is suggesting this? Sounds like a strawman permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's what the article is talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) You've bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it. Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution. This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article. What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea. permalink fedilink source parent