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:
The problem with the US is that they have too much land, they waste it building insane suburban hellscapes.
A normal European suburb is usually built around public transport first, you have local bus stops connecting to suburban centers where larger busses on express routes or local commuter trains provide a fast and convenient access to cities and jobs.
I find it amusing that you assume the available land has to do with it, but then in your explaination you dont even mention the lesser availability of land in Europe.
Eh, in the US land is cheap, companies buy it, build cheap houses a and sell for profit, built with limited thought on how it actually integrates with other communities, thus creating isolated islands of communities where the only logical transport is a car.
Here we have less land available and communities are planned with more focus on integration with other parts of the community.
"traditional"
I feel like "common" would be a better choice there, given just how recent and modern those suburbs actually are, compared to older streetcar suburbs.
I worked at a place that involved housing and maps for a while. I remember seeing one map that was a layout for a suburban housing situation. A giant cluster of single family houses along windy little paths. It looked like the bad place.
The houses at the back would have required an extensive and winding trip just to get to a main road, and then who knows how far it is from there to anything commercial. If you live there, you're not walking anywhere.
cul-de-sacs are so frustrating because just 2 fucking minor tweaks would make them basically okay: Add pedestrian and bike shortcuts every here and there, and slim down the roads so you can't comfortably drive fast.
You don't even need to remove on-street parking, just use the saved width to make proper parking pockets.
Winding streets and cul-de-sacs can be great at reducing speed and therefore collisions. They have to be build right though, with modal filters and cut thoughts for walking/cycling. You still then need the clusters of commercial space close by, but you can make it so it’s quicker to walk or cycle than driving.