• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    There isn’t any township of any appreciable size (>50k pop) that has completely ripped out road infrastructure that I know of. I can’t prove a negative.

    Do you have an example of a location that has done so?

        • themusicman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Where does it say all roads? I think it’s pretty clear in context that they’re not suggesting that

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

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

            […]

            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.

            • themusicman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, “all roads” is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.

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

                sure it could technically be interpreted that way

                How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?

                More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity

                Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?

                the outrage you exhibit.

                projection, or else hyperbolae

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.

                  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Ripped out completely as in actually remove them

                    Yes, that’s how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city. No city on earth would ever do that.

      Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’ve bought into a strawman if you believe the intention is to remove all road infrastructure from an entire city.

        So did every person who upvoted this article, apparently. And the person who uploaded it.

        Imagine if every second parallel street were a grass strip, instead of a road. Fire trucks, ambulances, vans, etc could still drive down them as needed, and nowhere would be more than a couple of blocks from a road, but regular traffic capacity would be cut by 50%, and so would pollution.

        This idea is a lot more sensible. It is NOT what is proposed in the article.

        What the article proposes is the idea that I am arguing against, not your idea.