Instead of just electrifying vehicles, cities should be investing in alternative methods of transportation. This article is by the Scientific Foresight Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), a EU’s own think tank.

  • revisable677@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hopefully some of the people sitting in parliament will read this. In many cities we still have to fight for bicycle infrastructure. Car centric city designs should really start going out of fashion

    • DoYouNot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      The worst is when they install bike infrastructure that will just randomly end and dump you onto a busy street, and then complain no one is using the fancy new bike lanes…

      • Anekdoteles@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Have some of these here. Absolutely wild, that the bike lane ends where it would become useful: Before a traffic light, so that you have to take part in the traffic jam of cars.

        But what am I even talking about. Traffic lights per se are an anti-pattern of city design.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Only thing is that electrifying vehicles is a little easier than rebuilding a city (or part of it). And it don’t need to be a really old part, even a 60/70 years old city zone is relatively hard to convert. Not to speak of even older zones.

      But yes, newly build zone of city should be designed with this in mind.

        • CoconutKnight@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I understand the sentiment, but that could cause more issues than it solves. Cars then would be forced to compete for space with bicycle again,only this time on all bicycle roads. Or houses could not have car access at all, if you’d narrow the streets.

          • revisable677@feddit.deOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            There are some model projects of super blocks which are already very promising. They change the nature of car use inside a neighborhood by making pass-through traffic impossible and limiting parking space to only residents as well as making roads very narrow all the while being mixed use. It makes driving faster than 10km/h pretty hard, all the while still keeping it possible for people who really need it.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Cars then would be forced to compete for space with bicycle again,only this time on all bicycle roads.

            Why? The other person said: “Take lanes away from cars”. There wouldn’t be any cars on that lane.

      • ebikefolder@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        In my (over 1,000 year old) city, blocking several streets with bollards and massively reducing street parking worked just fine so far. As did curbing traffic coming in, with longer “red” phases at traffic lights for cars entering, when sensors detect too many cars in the city.

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Actually it really isn’t easier to keep things car-oriented because building a city so there is enough room for cars is fundamentally impossible.

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Is it easier or is it just shifting the cost? We’re talking thousands of cars needing electrification in any given city, at let’s say they get it to an average of $35k each.

        Picking a random city, let’s say Cincinnati. They already have some infrastructure but it’s largely car dependent. They have 148k households, of which 44.1% have one car, 25.2% have two, 6.8% have three, and 2.4% have four. So roughly 65k + 75k + 30k + 14k = 184k cars * 35k each or minimum 6.4 billion to electrify them all.

        I don’t know how much good public transit costs, but I have to imagine $6.4b can buy a fair amount of it.

  • Damage@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Isaac Asimov decades ago imagined a future where nuclear plants provided infinite clean energy, and still people in his cities moved on foot, on large systems of conveyors.

    • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      In Paris Montparnasse just after 2000, they had a speed conveyor, like at the airport but accelerating up to (IIRC) 11km/h (and decelerating at the end ofc). Wild times!

      They lowered the speed as I guess too many people fell. It wasn’t really intuitive as the handrail didn’t accelerate at the same way so you had nothing to hold onto. I don’t know what happened with the project.

      It was called the TGV, Tapis Grand Vitesse mimicking the TGV for Train Grand Vitesse (the French speed trains acronym).

      • Damage@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean, I don’t think conveyors are a good solution, but it’s telling that someone so long ago already rejected cars as a viable transportation method.