• sergih123@eslemmy.es
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It ain’t that hard,

      High density places:

      lower parking availability, increase public transport availability and frequency.

      Low density places:

      They need their cars, they can keep them.

      Remove zoning restrictions, and parking requirements

      so there is more mixture of commercial and residential places shortening transport distance, allowing for even avoiding public transport and just walking/biking replacing this.

      More biking infraestructure.

      Fair taxes to car owners,

      that means, othe people not having to support the huge car projects that cost more than they can get from the taxes they do on cars.

      Also regulations on environmental design of cars, basically gaining back the progress we had done on car efficiency that was taken back by everyone wanting an SUV instead of a turismo.

      :)

          • traveler01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For me what you’re describing is communism, sorry.

            Being able to own a private vehicle it’s, in my opinion, a fundamental part of freedom of movement. Sure, public transportation should also exist, but should be the option not the rule.

            All cities should have specific places for bikers, I agree with that, you should be able to move whatever you want. Being anti private vehicles it’s commie for me.

          • traveler01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry but you’re just passing the same leftist propaganda, that all would be fixed if you took the cars from people. Cars are a fundamental part of freedom of movement and taking them shouldn’t and isn’t the solution for anything at all.

            High density zones are just symptom of the city being overcrowded, and for that there’s really no solution. Public transportation, biking lanes, should existing should be the rule, not a bandaid for the fact that the city you live is overcrowded or its design is utter garbage.

      • traveler01@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So… you have no solutions?

        My guess would be for EV everything. Plant trees in the city roads to lower the average temperature, the countries themselves should create tax incentives for people to move out from overcrowded cities as well.

        But sure, easy to just end personal vehicles all together right? People like you are the reason our politicians are so shit.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you’re saying people need to keep lowering denisity.

        • m_g@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.

          • traveler01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            EVs are basically clean vehicles. All the emissions from them come either from their production or from where their energy comes from. The latter is easily solvable by going nuclear and renewable. Also old EV batteries can be recycled and repurposed as grid storage.

            There’s no silver bullet to stop CO2 emissions, there’s a shitload of solutions being studied right now that will need to be implemented.