A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
It is a positive.
"You don't have the infrastructure for driving very quickly."
Good! My city is cut into islands by huge roads that are very difficult to cross. London is very walkable, as it should be. And its public transport is so good*, most people don't need a car anyway.
*because London gets so much more investment than the wasteland that is the rest of the UK. We only exist to give the illusion that we're a country and not a tax haven based on a massive casino.
The biggest problem of London is the massive sprawl of low-density housing that is Zone 3 and outwards to the M25, which is why the city has so much polution that it used to keep on breaking the EU polution limits way more times per year than allowed back when the UK was still in the EU.
However, that structural problem (which dates back to the post-War period and is hard to solve) aside, it's very well served in terms of public transportation and has become cycling friendly over the years (not as much in terms of having a great infrastructure for it but more because as more and more people did it drivers became more and more used to it and infrastructure started taking it into consideration, so it became safer and more convenient).
It's not quite Berlin or pretty much any Dutch city, but for a city with 10 million people (if you count the whole Greater London Area) it's pretty decent.
London gets extra like New York gets extra. Both are huge, both are wealthy, both are stupidly expensive to live in, both are walkable
It points at a less positive effect though. London has had a pretty well functioning subway for more than a hundred years. They've had double decker busses, taxis and a walkable layout, since always. And yet, people choose to drive in individual cars.
I could sort of understand it if everyone else were on the public transport or on foot, so the roads were vacant and easy to drive, but no, these some of the most congested roads in the world and everyone who drives there fucking hate it. But they still do it.
Yes sure, London is big and has a large population, but it's not even close to having the most citizens or highest population density.
This leaves very little hope for fixing car dependency only by offering better alternatives. They already have better alternatives. It's the culture/dream of car ownership that needs to be addressed, because apparently people will attempt to cram their cars into every little space there is.
The only fix I can think of is to literally remove the roads.
You can keep that car centric culture stiffled by continuing to slow cars down, reduce parking, and study what could make the alternatives more effective. If london is already built at a human scale, the worst option is bulldozing it to car scale.
Pedestrian zones/streets is a good option. It makes no sense to have a road where only very few cars can pass every hour due to congestion anyway. Everyone is better off without those roads. Even in a non-particular-fuckcars way, it would make sense to turn entire roads into pedestrian zones with just the ends functioning as short time parking or cargo load zones, so nobody is fooled into believing that they can actually drive a car through.
The thing about London is we don't actually like other people. I use tube, bus, bike or walk, but I hate using the bus, we get a lot of antisocial people, whether it's the random ranter, the drunk, the person who practically sits on you, the one who feels the need to shout on their phone, the one playing music out loud, the one trying to pick a fight with everyone. That's not to mention the molesters. Even though I'll never get a car (through choice), I totally understand why people would choose to drive, especially women.
I only have to make one return trip by public transport a week for my food shop, as I cycle to work, but I used to take the tube in my last job, and when finishing at rush hour, it was awful. I'd have to wait for about 5 trains to go by before I could get on one, and then I'd have my face in someone else's pit and once had a guy use the crowd as an excuse to grab my bum. Also had a man fall asleep on me, just gross. Public transport can be a horrible experience in London.
Is this study just using the posted speed limits and a journey planner, as a way to complain about 20mph limits in one part of London? Speed limits aren't really a good measure of travel time by car in a city (not that that's a good thing to optimise for, as already mentioned)
I don't understand why they switch between units. Why would a sign there be in MPH when they've historically used KPH?
Our road signs display speed limits in mph, and distance in miles. Always have done.
KPH in Europe.
Thank you for the clarification. I guess I assumed because we are KPH in Canada you guys were too. TV probably didn't help.
It might help if England didn't have roundabouts inside roundabouts.
Also their traffic throughput would be greater if they invested in giant stack interchanges.