• drkt@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That’s based of Hamburg as far as explicit costs go, but there’s also implicit costs. I don’t know Hamburg, I’ve never been there, but I’ll make an assumption that it’s like every other big city with urban parking and ICE cars stuck in traffic every morning, bellowing fumes out for everyone to breathe.

    It is my argument that for every dollar you don’t explicitly spend on car infrastructure, you’ll get it back tenfold in implicit costs being alleviated elsewhere, especially in the physical- and mental healthcare sectors.

    • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I don’t know Hamburg, I’ve never been there, but I’ll make an assumption that it’s like every other big city with urban parking and ICE cars stuck in traffic every morning, bellowing fumes out for everyone to breathe.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      In the olden days Hamburgs city planners really thought cyclists were awesome. Like awesome enough to jump over a fully grown tree on the cycling path. Also it is the largest city in the EU without a tram system…

    • optional@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Spending twice as much money on walking and cycling infrastructure as on car infrastructure isn’t too bad, especially when you consider that roads for cars cost 20x more per km than roads for bikes. Hamburg for sure isn’t a paradise for cyclists, and they still build a fair share of stupid infrastructure, but it’s already gotten a lot better than 10 or 20 years ago.