• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Thats more a problem inherrent to how america builds its cities than it is a problem inherrent to the bicycle. I agree we still need to buld rail, but you would likely still have to increase density to get good ridership. Otherwise you start to sacrafice speed for frequent stops serving low density. A problem many buses already face.

    • bss03@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      “City” is an optimistic word for where I am compelled (by familial duty) to live. But, we need to plan for my density, too. Otherwise we’ll still have millions of cars on the roads and they will need somewhere to park when they visit the city.

      When I visit a real city, I don’t mind paying for parking. I’d prefer not to have to pay for parking to get groceries each week, but that would probably be fine. But biking is not reasonable, and mass transit is unavailable.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Some places build transit stations outside of cities or in specific locations for people to drive to there then transit into the city. This can help control where the cars are instead of havings thousands of cars all trying to find on street parking downtown.

      • sistarena@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah I see this problem too. I wonder if it might be a zoning issue. I think right now in the US in these areas we have suburban “centers” with Costco’s, Lowe’s, etc. and strip malls. All which require huge large parking areas. How would it look to provide people what they need, without the detrimental effects of car centered land use?