• decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about

    • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are talking with a European. A German in fact.

      And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.

      • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apologies for misidentifying you then.

        On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.

        Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.

        • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Apologies for misidentifying you then.

          No offence was taken.

          On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.

          I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme. Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles). But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles. Rail comes secondary.

          Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.

          Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.