• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is your proposed alternative solution for logistics in any moderately dense urban area? Like never mind New York, you couldn’t make this work in Little Rock.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? No it isn’t.

        No part of the article discusses replacing the logistics function of cargo vehicles, but it does propose ripping out the road infrastructure they run on.

      • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, this lie?

        Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of car journeys were under two miles and 60 per cent under five miles. “You could really walk two miles. By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.

        Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off.

        • simpleTailor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          By the time you get in the car, parked it, you have arrived there in the same time,” said Dr Fuller.

          This lie?

          Speaking solely for myself here: I used to have a mental block that prevented me from calculating travel time by different modes equitably. If it was a 10 minute drive, or a 20 minute walk, my calculation was anchored to the 10-minute drive as the “real” amount of time, and so the 20 minute walk always felt like a waste of 10 minutes. I think it’s easy to fall into this trap, especially when our lives are busy and we’re trying to save time anywhere we can. But a 20 minute walk is 20 minutes less I have to go to the gym, and 10 minutes less that I have to be hyper alert and driving a 2T vehicle around other people.

          Additionally, this mental block existed for me around time spent parking and walking from my car to my destination. Obviously I had to walk from my car, so my brain saw that as +0 minutes. But when I calculated it, I found that I was often spending meaningful amounts of time on this leg:

          My urban office is 6 miles from my suburban home (metro area approx 2.5MM people). Even with a highway for half the trip (which gets clogged with commuter and freight traffic during rush hours) the drive is approximately 20-25 minutes during light traffic, or as long as 40 minutes if traffic is particularly heavy. I have to park in a garage, which involves circling for a spot, and then have a 15 min walk to my office. On a good day, 35 minutes. On a bad day, almost an hour.

          But taking my ebike (which I only bought because of the many steep hills between me and work) through back roads and sidestreets, it’s 35-40 minutes door to door. Now I get 35-40 minutes of exercise without having to go to the gym, and my vehicle is parked right at thr exit to my building. Plus, I can charge the ebike with company electricity instead of having to pay for gas for my car.

          Yeah that’s totally going to get people to charge their behavior and not piss them off

          It pisses a lot of people off when they can’t park right next to their destination. But that already happens. There is a limited amount of space at places people want to be, so someone will always have to park farther away. Circling the nearby streets for parking is also annoying as fuck, and a huge waste of time.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Currently, no. But with mixed zoning, it would become more amenable to change over time.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a fantasy. It can’t be implemented in large scale in any practical sense.

        Centralization of distribution and centralization of production is always more efficient. You aren’t going to put dairy farms next to apartment buildings next to orchards next to paper manufacturing plants next to microchip fabricators next to restaurants next to family homes next to waste water treatment next to hospitals next to bookstores next to power generators next to garbage incinerators next to grocery stores…

        These things get separated from each other for good reason, and running rail lines to all of them will never be practical. There will always be a need to fill the gap with small, independently powered vehicles for cargo transport.

        • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know, for someone who complains about other people making strawman of them, you sure do seem fond of it yourself.

          Someone: “We should reduce our dependency on cars and shift our infrastructure planning toward other modes of transport wherever possible.”

          You: “SO YOU WANT TO TEAR OUT ALL ROADS EVERYWHERE AND EXECUTE PEOPLE FOR OWNING CARS?!?1!?!1?”

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “We should reduce our dependency on cars and shift our infrastructure planning toward other modes of transport wherever possible.”

            This is not what the article says.

            SO YOU WANT TO TEAR OUT ALL ROADS EVERYWHERE

            This is closer to what the article says.

            A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.

            This is the first paragraph of the article.

            • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              …and then you actually read the article past the misleading click bait, right? The Telegraph is a conservative paper, they have an interest in smearing anyone who challenges the status quo.

              Up to 80 per cent of people living on arterial routes in urban areas did not own cars, with most of the pollution being caused by motorists driving into and through their communities.

              Pointing to the “greening” of city centres such as Seoul and Utrecht, he said: “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. We have to look beyond traffic.”

              That is not something a reasonable person would interpret as ripping out 100% of roads. Especially since he references real projects like Seoul.