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:
Sounds like they need to degrow their car infrastructure.
Copenhagen was in the same boat (couldn't support the cost of car-dependency), and they made a complete turnaround once they moved away from cars as the default.
You can do it, Pasadena!
edit: fixed a Freudian slip! LOL
I'd be interested to know whether the majority of those cost increases came from labor or materials. Or, possibly, just additional graft off the top by the contractors if Pasadena doesn't use in-house crews for their paving.
But cities like Pasadena have some of the easiest conditions possible for maintaining roads since they never (or only very rarely) get below freezing.
Pasadena diverted paving/maintenance funds to vision zero's agenda 7 years ago. No duh they are running into budget issues now.
The elected officials could, IDK, pass a new budget and stop complaining?