Lost Memories wrote:Moving away from pollution, an other side of the car talk is about space, how much space do cars occupy, and how much more space would open if there weren't cars.
Most roads would be very wide if there weren't cars parked on the sides, nor cars running in the middle.
What that space could be used for i dunno, but it's something to also keep in mind when talking about pros and cons of widespread car usage.
I think of the Oakland Hills fires when expensive neighborhoods went up in flames because they refused to widen their roads so when the fire raged the fire department couldn't get their trucks in the neighborhoods.
This is a product of trying to build big fancy homes on hilly areas and being dicks as rich people do, but narrowing or reducing passage ways has to come with a way to deal with access for emergency services and how those are dealt with. A cute little ambulance is certainly part of it as well as creating a fire suppressing infrastructure. sort of like how hydrants remove the need for numerous tanker trucks.
Elevated through ways is one of the possible solutions, but in cities that would benefit the most from that like San Francisco there's the tricky matter of the land occasionally trying to knock as much shit down as it can.
This is where I start to wonder if starting from the point of being vehicle free or light rather than retrofitting a city is the way to go. Though retrofitting will take so long that we'll adjust to it without even thinking about it.