576
City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser (www.telegraph.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's what the article is talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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