!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I live in a rural area over 30 miles from the nearest city in a town with a population in the low thousands. The nearest place I can get any goods is over 4 miles away. I’d be completely fucked without a car.
I know that’s not everyone’s situation, but just pointing out there are people living in remote places with no other transportation options.
That's how it is out here too.
Especially in the winter when we can easily have a foot of snow on the ground.
My property doesn’t even have paving, and trying to get the drive graveled was such a pain I just ended up slapping on all-terrain tires, both to deal with getting on and off the property slope in mud, and also because there’s country roads (dirt/sand) here and street tires suck on that in general and especially when it snows.
Especially since public transit is usually locally funded (at least in the US), in areas like this the tax base doesn't exist to be able to functionally fund public transit. We would need to completely rethink and re-organize how public transit is funded and rolled out for this to functionally work in remote areas.
Or, you know, we could continue lettings cars be a thing for remote populations kind of like how in some far northern territories people use snowmobiles to get around part of the year because there's simply too much snow to try to use another type of vehicle at all.
I think the latter, having specific types of transportation still be a thing in places where they're needed, makes a lot more sense, honestly.
I kind of agree, but I’ll admit, I wouldn’t give up my car. I moved out here because I wanted out of city life and into more nature and quiet life. I only drive into town every 6 weeks for groceries and necessities in bulk and there’s no way I could haul all that on public transit. I want to be in the city as little as possible.
Well, like I said, I honestly think public transit doesn't make very much sense for remote areas. I think it makes far more sense to give people the types of transportation that work best for their use case, and in remote areas: that's cars.
I live in a city. I live 15 miles from where I work and I can drive it in about 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the bus, it'd take 3 hours and just as many changeovers because there's no direct run. Not even close. I already work long hours so there's no way in hell I'd spend 6 hours commuting, even if I could. For the record, I couldn't even if I wanted since my office is nice enough to leave me with only an hour to get home, eat and get to bed before starting all over again. Sadly, it's one of the failings of public transport even when it does exist.
It's like that here. I drove 15 minutes to school . My alternator died and I had to ride the bus for a week. It took over an hour, not counting the lovely walk across a 6 lane expressway and through a WalMart parking lot to reach the bus stop! I think we need a gradient. In rural areas, we have individual vehicles, cars, bikes, motorcycles, etc. In suburban areas, we offer coupled trains where cars link together into trains and drive in sync on a guideway until they break apart for last mile connectivity. In urban areas, we ban all cars, build out public transit, bike lanes, etc. Small electric cars could be permitted for special needs and for tradesmen who carry tools. This future can't happen in the US because they would just forget about us stuck poor's and we'd lose all mobility.
The late 19th century USAmerican colonization of Native American land shows that you don't need cars to make an industrial rural society. Trains will work just fine. This means you build towns to be walkable and centered around a train station, with agriculture surrounding each town. Modern heavily mechanized agriculture might make population densities so low that even this is not viable, but the products still need to be transported, so you can have trains that stop at each megafarm which can also carry passengers if necessary. When I was in Queensland a few years ago, I saw mechanized agriculture use a bespoke railway network to supply a factory, so clearly even now despite all the fossil fuel and car subsidies it's economically viable.
Though as you may know, industrial agriculture is dumb and unsustainable. Desertification due to requiring too much water, climate change due to fertilizer consumption, industrial pollution that kills millions of people per year and destroys ecosystems, lack of genetic diversity causing crop blights that risk famines or global shortages, insecticides that cause cancer and destroy ecosystems, most of it being wasted on the meat industry and on maintaining massive surpluses and exports to ensure western global domination, etc.
If we want to do agriculture right, we want to do food forests. It's more labor per calorie, but it's resilient, local, and it doesn't make the planet uninhabitable by the next century. Food forests are more compact too, which means that a rural population tending food forests can have a much higher population density, or can consist of large villages separated by rewilded natural landscape (and/or low density food forests for migratory communties). This makes trains even more convenient to get around because they can run more frequently.
Meanwhile if you want to live in the wilderness away from these towns, then an absence of car roads means you can live far away while only being a couple kilometers away. So you still don't need a car because you can just hike along a trail to get to town in under an hour. Need to carry a lot of stuff? Use a Chinese wheelbarrow. Maybe a battery-powered one with stability and steering assistance if you don't feel like getting exercise. They carry more than a modern American SUV and they don't murder children either.
You'll probably manage just fine in a city.
Living in rural areas mass transit quickly becomes madness. Schedules are infrequent and routes are weird, and if you make them frequent and direct you suddenly drive around an empty bus while still building the exact same road you would for the few cars.
I'm less likely to get assaulted when my parents drive me somewhere vs having to take public transport.
I'm Asian American and I still have anxiety about the post-covid racism.
Car safety is a big thing. I'm damn glad I'm in my metal and glass cage when i drive through big cities. I sure as hell wouldn't be walking through one. I've had people jump out in the road to try to get me to stop so they can rob me. Swerve and floor it. Walking is not a solution in dangerous cities.
Big reason I'd never do public transport myself. Clean up the streets and maybe I'll try it. But being among a bunch of tweakers who may stab me with a needle for my 5 dollar bill, no thanks.
Is that sort of thing relevant? I take the bus all the time and have never felt in danger (except for one time when the driver went off on another bus driver, but I just noped off the bus before it could escalate). Yes there are interesting characters, but if public transit were more common perhaps the crazies would become less predominant.
Around here there is a whole police department dedicated to monitoring public transit.
Where the hell do you live? I've visited a lot of cities but have never been in a situation even remotely like that
Stupid take. Cars are still a problem. And so is poverty and relegation of poor people to expensive and underserved transit. The problem is not cities.
Maybe, but its a problem now, and one likely to not be solved.
Schedules matter less when you have more frequent transportation. Renting a truck, or ordering a taxi/uber xl would be lower in cost than paying for and maintaining a truck. Obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle when it makes sense to own and unfortunately it's pushed further because our Costcos are 50 miles away instead of having smaller corner shops.
Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I'm pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.
My penultimate child was at university about 10 miles from the house. There was a bus that got within a couple blocks of the sprawling campus, so I told her take the bus, but a year in said she could use my car and I'd walk to work since my commute was so short. That gained her about 3 hours per school day and lost me about one hour. Car is a time machine.
Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I’m pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.
If your city were designed properly, that wouldn't be true. Not that it was the most scientific thing in the world, but Top Gear famously demonstrated biking being faster than driving across London, for example.
Oh we have the worst, most starved public transportation, half the buses run only every hour, and on the bike to work - only to work - I do occasionally get there faster if there is traffic but there is no bike lane, I either use the sidewalk if no pedestrians, or the road if people are using the sidewalk. Traffic has to be pretty damn bad before I can move faster than the cars, I still have to stop at the same lights.
We have the most generous annual E bike voucher raffle in the nation, I believe, and the city is working on bike lanes, but really, the road between my house & work has no bike infrastructure at all. The public transportation problems are because that's funded by the county not the city, the suburbs don't want to pay for it. But inside the city we need it.
Quite frankly the grand majority of things lost by a lack of car ownership could just as easily be made up by just building better infrastructure
Lots of people in this thread seem to be missing this. With no cars it makes sense to build a lot more public transport, cycling is suddenly nice and safe, and car oriented places don't make any sense to build anymore.
You are missing that a lot of people do not live in cities. In a city, access to public transport is basically anytime, anywhere. Outside of city centers, public transport is very, very limited, even in Europe. Without a car, you are basically lost.
Without cars there would be A LOT more people on the sidewalk. In the past, before cars, there were so many more people on the street it's not even funny. The roads were full of people.
Family Road Trips.
What about all the family on the train, watching the scenery?
Saab 900 Turbo never exists and I'm sorry Mother Gaia but that's not a world I want to live in
I think I'd be a good person to answer this. I've lived in Houston (needless to say, extremely car-friendly) without a car for almost 2 years; currently I'm living in a city that banned cars within its city center in 2015 which resulted in very visible changes, but the rest of the country is still very pro-car and quite car-friendly
A couple of things that cars benefit everyday life that would be difficult to do without a car. There's probably more but these are the ones I can think of:
Also I think some positive points associated with cars are doable without cars:
As an autistic person that can barely cope with public transport (which is good in europe, obviously) and the associated density of humans without having a complete meltdown on a good day, a car greatly increases my mobility and quality of life. Not having one would also mean an increased frequency of grocery shopping (which, again, is quite a challenge most of the time, hence I try to go as rarely as possible) because neither an e-bike nor public transport offer the same carrying capacity. I could likely make do with a cargo bike, but I'd still have to relocate into a more densely populated area to have all the different shops I need (yes, I'm "picky" about what food is safe, what clothes I can bear, etc.) in bike-able distance, which would cost more money for housing and mental energy ("spoons") to handle the increased population around me. Plus it'd cost a lot of extra time. As much as I'd prefer a car-less world in theory, it's simply a fact that it's an assistive technology for me, just like noise-canceling headphones are. I do hope we can move over to decent electrical cars though, no reason to run on fossil fuels (other than cost of the vehicles, and that is rapidly coming down).
I just want to say, I absolutely love this kind of question because it forces you to imagine realistically what a car-lite world would look like, and it completely changes the line of thinking from problem identification to problem solving, and in a way that truly will change the world for the better
For me personally, the loss of a car means potentially the loss of certain hobbies. I like to go camping and backpacking, and that means taking a certain amount of gear out into remote areas. While I might be able to minimize the amount of gear needed, there's no getting around the remoteness of the hobby, and that necessitates a car for transportation.
The other hobby is dog related. I enjoy doing things, including sports, with my dog. Transporting the dog, at least as it currently stands in America, requires a car. Large dogs are not allowed on public transit pretty much anywhere here. When you also consider that I may be taking jumps or poles or other larger equipment with me to train in new places, losing access to a car makes that a near impossibility.
I'd go so far as to say many outdoor recreation hobbies either require or are made easier by having a car or larger personal transport. Kayaks, boats, skis and snowboards, fishing poles and the list goes on and on. Sure you could setup rental places, but if you do a hobby a lot you ultimately want to own your gear so you can get something that suits your preferences and needs.
I'm not opposed to a less car-centric society, but eliminating personal vehicles would make many hobbies problematic or impossible.
Inb4 lemmy's famous misreadings, I think we need a shitton more public transportation. But I know it's not going to be a 100% replacement.
What we need is transportation, and cars are a very sucessful form of transportation. There are a lot of factors: 1) Location, where you can go, 2) Timing, when you can go. 3) Distance, how far you can go, 4) Speed, how qulckly you can get there. 5) Door to door, or not.
Let's compare them all:
Cars: 1) Location, you can go anywhere. 2) Timing, you can go any time. 3) Distance. This is a big one why cars are very successful, they are good for any distance whether it's a short trip, medium trip, long trip, or even multiple days long trip. 4) It's fast for any length trip. Excluding certain times into say downtown they are incredibly fast. 5) It's door to door transportation. Add it all up and you have a very succesful mode of transportation.
Public transportation 1) doesn't go everywhere, you have last mile problem on both ends. So add in walking. 2) limited timing especially at night. Schedule has to fit. Involves waiting. 3) Distance means time goes up dramatically. Add in transfers and time goes up even more. I regularly had to wait 25 minutes at transfer because they missed each other by 5 minutes. 4) Slow. It just is. 5) Not door to door. Usually a good bit of walking. Inb4 lemmy's famous misreading, yes I know there are exceptions. Yes more service means more passengers which means more service and more gaps are filled, etc.
Ebikes (pedal assist electric bikes). 1) Go everywhere. 2) Go anytime. 3) Good for short and medium trips. And occasional long trip 4) Can actually be fast, especially if the route avoids lights. But not as fast as a freeway for long distances. 5) Door to door transportation. This is why I'm a big fan of ebikes, they hit almost everything. They really are the game changer. But we need a lot more infrastructure. It might not be the best on long trips and in bad weather. Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable.
Walking. I'm just gonna wrap this one up as most people are not gonna walk that far every day. We should have walkable cities for short walks and health and neighborhoods, but walking to downtown ain't an option for the vast vast amount of the city, either physically or time wise.
This is where I love autonomous taxis. If you can do your daily commute on public transportation and then use autonommous taxis to fill in the gaps (which there will be), that can dramatically lower car ownership levels. Normal taxis are expensive when you have to pay for the driver. Uber is basically slave labor.
You said own cars, as in personal use. But I will add there is a ton more. You have business, commercial, and industrial. Getting large amounts of commercial and industrial goods around to stores quickly and efficiently adds a ton to societal efficiency.
So what does that transportation add? Maybe this was the crux of your question and I spent too much time on the others. It's basically a lubricant for society, business, and industry. Society depends in large part on transportation (yes I'm choosing that word intentionally). If you don't have easy transportation everything is like molasses on every level.
Jobs: You wouldn't be able to get workers because they wouldn't be able to commute. I remember a documentary that London (way back when) basically maxed out on population because transporation via horses and walking had maxed out. Then trains were invented and the city was able to grow.
Industry: Getting goods around is critical to grow industry. Trains are great for moving a large amount of cargo from A to B, think coal, fertilizer, etc. Trucks are much better for getting a small amount of cargo from A to B, C, D, etc and vice versa.
Commercial goods: Stores keep getting bigger for good reason, it's cheaper to ship and operate that way.
Each mode has its place. I agree we are too reliant on cars and haven't accounted for the externalities.
Hope that helps.
Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable
I started biking again 2 years ago, honestly partly pushed by various city planning/car rejection media when I realized I could start being the change I want to see in the world. I'd done some strength training during the pandemic but holy crap was I not in shape enough to be biking. It took me a full year of biking nearly every day to be able to bike my kids to school in a trailer (about 2 miles round trip)
Even now where I finished last summer biking over 22 very hilly miles, I struggled to bike to a haircut just a mile away after just 3 months of winter hibernation, and now that it's early spring I got up to 5 miles so far within a few bike rides.
Point is, for the average adult, biking is an option but it takes a ton of time and work to build up your strength. Ebikes completely change the game because anyone can ride 10-20 miles on those, and if you have balance issues or other health issues you can get an etrike! They're such incredible life changing machines!
Well in Australia's context where I live, you need a car to get anywhere (depending on where you live). The way QLD was built where i grew up, everything is spaced out. 30 mins to the cafe, 45 mins to the shops etc. Our country has public transport but really only in major areas.
Where i grew up, which wasnt anywhere remote and was 1 hour away from a major CBD, i was fucked if i didnt have a car. Going anywhere meant walking for ages under the Aussie sun or wait for a bus that comes every 30 minutes to take you a quarter of the distance.
It wasnt really a sense of freedom (which i 100% agree with) but having a car meant i could go directly to places.
Without a car, it would have taken me ages to get anywhere.
The car-centric culture of many places (especially the US, but it does apply in basically all of the industrialised world to varying degrees) is due to infrastructural factors. If a country is designed to be navigated by car, then you need a car to participate in that society. That's why people want cars.
Things like the freedom of having a car are also from social factors. A lot of people learn to drive as teenagers, and want to escape the patriarchal environment of the family, hence a car provides freedom. In a world where children are socially raised and the family is abolished, teenagers don't seek to escape from the family. And, of course, a car can be a way of providing freedom because other means of freedom of movement don't exist—a lack of accommodation for disabled people to get around, a lack of public transport and safe cycle routes, etc.
Most people wouldn't want to give up their car for those reasons. If we just got rid of all cars without addressing any of these issues, I'm sure most people would be unhappy about it. So if that's what you're suggesting, plenty of people do stand to lose. But if we address the issues that make cars the only option for a lot of people, I don't think the average person would care. Car enthusiasts can still have their cars, but it becomes a hobby or lifestyle choice, like people who have a boat. And car haters would most certainly be a lot happier too.
Whole sections of the country that are zoned for suburban single family housing would not exist as they are today. Not because they'd be illegal or anything, but they'd be incredibly unpopular if most people didn't own a car, which is needed to basically get to or from a suburban neighborhood.
I understand the question to be something like: what happens if a majority of people are absolutely dead-set unwilling/unable to own a private automobile. And I think the immediate answer is that suburban neighborhoods cease to exist, at least at the current density levels. Either a neighborhood must densify so that transit options make sense, or they must aim to become rural living. This also means that things like suburban schools either turn into walkable urban schools, or into small one-room rural schools.
I don't actually think rural living will go away, because the fact is that the grand majority of people -- USA and abroad -- do not prefer rural living. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century trends are that people tend towards urban areas, where services and jobs exist. That said, there will always be people that want to live in the hills on 20 acres, and therefore need an automobile. And it's certainly sounds appealing to some, myself included. But that has never been the majority, so if a majority of people refuse owning an automobile, they will also mostly refuse rural and suburban living.
There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: 1) not own a car, and 2) live in a suburb or rural area. This is from the fact that all other modes of transport into a suburb or rural area are either: 1) nonexistent (eg metro rail), or 2) ludicrously expensive (eg Lyft, or transit with 15% fairbox recovery) if the cost was borne by the people living there (as opposed to being subsidized heavily by other taxpayers.... Ahem, America).
Edit: some more thoughts: standalone strip malls would also change character, because the smaller ones that aren't on a rail or bus corridor would be undesirable commercial real estate. If they still exist, they'll likely be integrated into housing, so as to become the #1 most convenient option for people living there. Captive audience, indeed.
But larger strip malls and shopping centers actually might florish: they usually have enough stores and services that transit already makes sense. Indeed, shopping malls are actually really good transit center locations. But instead of giant parking lots, there would be housing, because why not? People who reject cars have every reason to live next to, or on top of, a mall: fully pedestrianized, air conditioned, lots of stores and dining options. Some places even put schools and post offices in their shopping malls. I would also expect that dwelling soundproofing to get better, because the paper-thin walls of American homes and apartments are awful.
In this way, malls are no different than casinos, cruise ships, and downtowns: a small island of paradise to visit, and is distinct from home. Malls will still exist after cars, the same way that Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert: it is a big enough anchor that draws people.
Just those two things alone: freedom to hit the road & moving things are more massive than you even realize.
I have a small car, a Civic. I routinely buy beers from all over. Vast majority cannot be sold & shipped. And I don't believe for a minute the laws would change for me to shop online as easily as other stuff. And, that also includes the freedom of the road trip.
Just a heads up, The USPS will not ship liquids, but UPS and FedEx will if you pack them in plenty of bubble wrap.
This is one of those questions where you have to look to the past to really understand the possible future.
Rural America was built by railroads. You know why there's a town every 10-20 miles on a rough grid? It's because steam locomotives built during the 20th century would need to stop to refill on water every 10-20 miles. These old steam locomotives were slow usually only running up to 30-40mph. The train would need a spot to stop & refill with water so when the railroads didn't platte out towns to sell the land they just built through and increased the value of, towns would organically pop up near these stops anyways.
If we fast forward a little to the 1880s or so, electrification was going bonkers, and many electric companies would say "while we're building these power lines, what if we also ran electric trolley services too?" So the trolleys would advertise the versatility of this newfangled electricity thing while also providing a second revenue stream to electric companies. This is when electric interurban services really hit their peak. There were thousands of interurban lines across the US at this time, but many didn't survive out of the 20th century, and of those that did very few survived past the second world war, and of those, even fewer survived into being bought up by city transit agencies.
This pre-car period had most people either living in dense walkable cities or living on homesteads and walking/riding horses/carts multiple miles to go to the nearest town for the day. People didn't move around a lot during this time, and the world was much smaller and life much quieter. This is part of why circuses and fairs were so big is it was the most exciting thing happening all year.
The world has changed so much since the invention and proliferation of the automobile that it's really hard to imagine a car-lite world, but also there's aspects of modern society that simply can't exist without cars. I'm imagining a societal change pushed by something like legislation which doubles vehicle registration fees every year for a decade. Sure that $250 the first year will hurt a little, and the $500 the second will hurt a bit more, but you've got a good 3-5 years or so before it's really going to start hurting most families, and I'd imagine it would be the $4000 mark where most don't renew which is conveniently after 5 years of the registration fee doubling, and enough time for new bus services to be spun up and plenty of time for people to invest in bikes and manufacturing to adjust to the new demand patterns
The concept of road tripping becomes very different, and travel honestly gets more expensive. I was just looking at Amtrak tickets today chasing an idea of taking a couple day trip out of town during my kids spring break, and I'm immediately looking at $250 to go 200 miles, 5x the cost of just loading the family in the car and driving that distance
Without cars anyone living in rural areas is immediately stranded. Most of rural America has been rebuilt around cars because rural America was the first place cars were able to sell successfully (in fact car companies had to engage in conspiracies to force sales in cities once everyone who wanted a car had already bought one) there's many houses which are multiple miles from the nearest store of any kind, and many small towns lack any kind of grocery store. Many business and public schools in rural areas are located miles outside of any town and require people to drive or take the school bus just to get there. With about a century for rural America to rebuild into the car centric life that it is and most of the railroad tracks gone, it's pretty impossibls for rural America to de-car
Suburbs are similarly challenged to rural areas, but at least have the benefit of being close enough to their cities and hubs of commerce that biking and biking to/from public stops remains very viable. Exurbs where they aren't connected to the urban fabric but are entirely reliant on easy vehicle access to it are absolutely fucked though, and would probably spin up new Intercity bus services to compensate, but needing to transfer bus services to get to anything rapidly makes these already undesirable exurbs become far more undesirable
Small towns that never had the population growth to spawl are even better off. Many of these small towns are super walkable and bikable today with limited infrastructure changes that might be desired. Stroads built to serve big box stores or industries would be the only major challenge, but generally all that needs is a road diet and/or a dedicated parallel greenway
Shopping will definitely look different. For one thing single use plastic bags become completely nonviable since they carry so little per bag even compared to just paper bags, and it's difficult to carry more than about 3 plastic bags of groceries at once. We'd also definitely see a reversal from fewer larger stores which are further away back to many more smaller stores that are closer to people's homes. Parking lots will be quickly realized to be unneeded, likely to be torn up with new housing, stores and bus terminals built where those parking lots once stood.
The average road and street will also change dramatically. With people mostly walking, biking and taking public transit, suddenly the minimum acceptable street changes a lot, where right now it's relatively smooth pavement with relatively good drainage, in a world where people primarily walk, bike and take transit they will instead demand trees and narrower paved areas, bringing it down to human scale. A "narrow" 40 foot wide suburban street will rapidly become much too large and many will be rebuilt to be more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians (I'm imagining 10-15 foot wide medians with trees, benches, water fointains and a nice greenway in the center, maintaining a pair of 10-12 foot wide lanes on either side for deliveries, emergency services and buses, or the inverse, with the road space narrowed significantly to 16-20 feet to allow for careful passing potentially with a parrelel greenway depending on traffic, again with trees, benches and water fountains)