this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
233 points (96.8% liked)
Greentext
4415 readers
1358 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's the other way around. Mass transit greatly benefits from walkable cities because that means distances are shorter which in turn makes the whole system cheaper to build and operate.
Walkable cities are created by not emphasizing car infrastructure which necessitates good mass transit because people still need to get around which creates a more walkable city, etc. It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, they're both the cause and effect of each other in an endless cycle.
No disagreements there, I was just thinking more in the sense that their cities are very dense and have zoning laws which allow residences, industries and commercial spaces to coexist side-by-side, often in the same lot. That can make for pretty walkable places even without good mass transport.
Exactly and the process of switching sucks for everyone. It’s something we still need to do, but people need to be prepared for a system where the trains are running at a loss, there’s not enough parking, and there’s traffic jams. Incidentally that’s basically what it’s like as a city outgrows car infrastructure.