I’ve long been saying that a handicapped disabled person placard[1] should be your permission to drive within city limits, and other than that, you stay out of downtown areas of any city in your car.
There are various degrees at which we can service private cars. Massive parking structures ain’t it, taking over all public spaces with roads ain’t it. But a path for disabled people to reach their destination directly in a car or van seems reasonable and doable, and will still allow us to reclaim most of the public space and money we spend servicing cars now.
[1] This is the correct name for it. Honestly, my bad.
I’m a disabled person living in a city in the UK. We have a scheme that allows me to swap my disability benefits for a car or mobility scooter. The cars deemed suitable for disabled people using a collapsible wheelchair are “compact/small family cars” and that size is perfectly adequate.
My most recent car is a seat Leon - a self charging hybrid. The mobility scheme I mentioned is really pushing fully electric cars and I’d absolutely love one. But being disabled often means being poor and like many other disabled people I live in a rented flat. There’s no EV charging at my block of flats. There’s no EV charging in my local town. I cannot afford to move, I can barely afford to survive. There are just SO many obstacles that aren’t being addressed in the UK it’s beyond frustrating.
It depends on the city. Many american cities have so much suburban sprawl that you’re just not going to plan your way out of car dependency in our lifetime. The progress that can be made in these areas right now is zoning to break up the massive single use neighborhoods.
Edit: “full size” could mean a couple of things. Mall crawlers and pickups are ridiculous here. Sedans, hatchbacks, and even crossovers make sense here, depending on your individual lifestyle and needs.
If you start building out transit before you can use it effectively, it can help guide the buildout. You can not only zone for many concentrations of buildings but commit to an incentive to encourage people to live there. “I want to move into this apartment building because it is a nice walkable area of shops, parks, restaurants plus they’re building a train station”
I don’t disagree, but building transit for hypothetical use decades down the line is expensive and very unlikely to happen.
To be clear, I’m talking about places like where I live, i.e. no businesses at all for several miles in any direction. We need corner stores, neighborhood bars and restaurants, and retail space so people want to get somewhere that isn’t miles and miles away.
Yeah I’m probably spoiled by some recent projects in Boston where I live.
for many years there was an industrial wasteland in the fan pier area that was underdeveloped and the industry had long since moved away. It was great cheap parking if you didn’t value your car. However the city spent years developing a master plan to connect the area with transit, funded a convention center, a courthouse, and brought in developers. In only a couple years, it went from a disconnected abandoned wasteland to an easy transit ride to convention center, hotels, entertainment, courthouse, many businesses, and is arguably one of the city’s hot spots. Good riddance to all the cheap parking.
new development are around was it Harvard or BU hinged on a new train station and agreement with the college for immediate development
a couple decades adding a new subway line. Granted the areas served already had lots of people, but building the stops was eventually followed by transit oriented development
That level of change is rebuilding the entire surburb to be more dense. There isn’t the building capacity to do this to all of them , even if by some miracle you found the money.
You can’t make a bus route work when the area it’s travelling through is so spread out, it has to stop too much and drive for too long and costs more than it can make in fares.
If you want to change America then good luck, but it’ll be your grandchildren that get the benefit should you succeed.
I agree with your point as a disabled person - and here in the UK we kinda have this system. My car is registered disabled and therefore I can drive into LEZ, ULEZ and CC areas for free automatically. It’s a literal life saver when I survive off benefits, physically cannot use public transport, but I’m treated at hospitals in the very centre of London.
But the term “handicapped” is outdated and is considered offensive by some. Perhaps stick to “disabled people” instead.
I don’t see how it could ever go away completely unless we develop some kind of teleportation device. People will always need a way to haul cargo around. It could certainly be reduced though with better city planning for those commuting to work and appointments and such that only need what they can hold on their person.
A standard bakfiets puts the cargo lower and the rider higher, but they’re rarely this wide. There are some mail bikes like you’re describing, with cargo in the back. There are also bike trailers. I think this is primarily for moving plants. There are some micro trucks that can haul a pallet in the space of a bike lane.
I mean, the thing here is that the vast majority of use cases are already solved for with bikes, motorcycles, and occasionally microcars or micro trucks and the remaining cases make more sense to be centralized. Like, you go to IKEA here and you have them deliver things to your house because why wouldn’t you? One truck making a bunch of deliveries is more efficient than a bunch of cars driving empty to a warehouse and picking things up. If you need to move things, it makes more sense to pay movers when you need them then to pay €10-15k (or way more, it’s like $10k in the US) every year to have a car. It’s just cheaper to pay movers than to own a car for moving things. There isn’t really a use case for owning a car that makes sense if you have functional infrastructure.
Oh yeah, for sure. To clarify, I’m not saying, “this is a bad design, therefore let’s just keep using cars”. I’m saying, “this solution has some flaws that should be addressed before it’s presented as a replacement for some car use cases”.
Potholes could be dangerous for this vehicle because you might not have a great view of the road itself, but you might still be less likely to hit a child because you can see them easier than an empty truck or SUV.
![[meme] There is no one-size-fits-all solution to transportation](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0bfe1df9-1b6b-414f-88b3-4e7d57514682.webp){kind=link}
So what you are saying is that we’ll still need car infrastructure?
I’ve long been saying that a
handicappeddisabled person placard[1] should be your permission to drive within city limits, and other than that, you stay out of downtown areas of any city in your car.There are various degrees at which we can service private cars. Massive parking structures ain’t it, taking over all public spaces with roads ain’t it. But a path for disabled people to reach their destination directly in a car or van seems reasonable and doable, and will still allow us to reclaim most of the public space and money we spend servicing cars now.
[1] This is the correct name for it. Honestly, my bad.
You don’t need full-sized cars for in-city accommodation.
Exactly, and I strongly suspect that most in-city accommodation can be done with neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs)
I’m a disabled person living in a city in the UK. We have a scheme that allows me to swap my disability benefits for a car or mobility scooter. The cars deemed suitable for disabled people using a collapsible wheelchair are “compact/small family cars” and that size is perfectly adequate.
My most recent car is a seat Leon - a self charging hybrid. The mobility scheme I mentioned is really pushing fully electric cars and I’d absolutely love one. But being disabled often means being poor and like many other disabled people I live in a rented flat. There’s no EV charging at my block of flats. There’s no EV charging in my local town. I cannot afford to move, I can barely afford to survive. There are just SO many obstacles that aren’t being addressed in the UK it’s beyond frustrating.
It depends on the city. Many american cities have so much suburban sprawl that you’re just not going to plan your way out of car dependency in our lifetime. The progress that can be made in these areas right now is zoning to break up the massive single use neighborhoods.
Edit: “full size” could mean a couple of things. Mall crawlers and pickups are ridiculous here. Sedans, hatchbacks, and even crossovers make sense here, depending on your individual lifestyle and needs.
If you start building out transit before you can use it effectively, it can help guide the buildout. You can not only zone for many concentrations of buildings but commit to an incentive to encourage people to live there. “I want to move into this apartment building because it is a nice walkable area of shops, parks, restaurants plus they’re building a train station”
I don’t disagree, but building transit for hypothetical use decades down the line is expensive and very unlikely to happen.
To be clear, I’m talking about places like where I live, i.e. no businesses at all for several miles in any direction. We need corner stores, neighborhood bars and restaurants, and retail space so people want to get somewhere that isn’t miles and miles away.
Yeah I’m probably spoiled by some recent projects in Boston where I live.
That is simply untrue. Change can happen quite quickly if people care.
That level of change is rebuilding the entire surburb to be more dense. There isn’t the building capacity to do this to all of them , even if by some miracle you found the money.
You can’t make a bus route work when the area it’s travelling through is so spread out, it has to stop too much and drive for too long and costs more than it can make in fares.
If you want to change America then good luck, but it’ll be your grandchildren that get the benefit should you succeed.
deleted by creator
I in no way implied you did. My comment is an important note for others.
I agree with your point as a disabled person - and here in the UK we kinda have this system. My car is registered disabled and therefore I can drive into LEZ, ULEZ and CC areas for free automatically. It’s a literal life saver when I survive off benefits, physically cannot use public transport, but I’m treated at hospitals in the very centre of London.
But the term “handicapped” is outdated and is considered offensive by some. Perhaps stick to “disabled people” instead.
Honestly should have checked myself before I wrote it out like that. Feel like I already knew this. In any case, fixed.
We all make slip ups, it’s all good 👍🏼
I don’t see how it could ever go away completely unless we develop some kind of teleportation device. People will always need a way to haul cargo around. It could certainly be reduced though with better city planning for those commuting to work and appointments and such that only need what they can hold on their person.
I’d like that a lot better if the cargo isn’t going to block the view of what’s ahead.
A standard bakfiets puts the cargo lower and the rider higher, but they’re rarely this wide. There are some mail bikes like you’re describing, with cargo in the back. There are also bike trailers. I think this is primarily for moving plants. There are some micro trucks that can haul a pallet in the space of a bike lane.
I mean, the thing here is that the vast majority of use cases are already solved for with bikes, motorcycles, and occasionally microcars or micro trucks and the remaining cases make more sense to be centralized. Like, you go to IKEA here and you have them deliver things to your house because why wouldn’t you? One truck making a bunch of deliveries is more efficient than a bunch of cars driving empty to a warehouse and picking things up. If you need to move things, it makes more sense to pay movers when you need them then to pay €10-15k (or way more, it’s like $10k in the US) every year to have a car. It’s just cheaper to pay movers than to own a car for moving things. There isn’t really a use case for owning a car that makes sense if you have functional infrastructure.
Oh yeah, for sure. To clarify, I’m not saying, “this is a bad design, therefore let’s just keep using cars”. I’m saying, “this solution has some flaws that should be addressed before it’s presented as a replacement for some car use cases”.
Potholes could be dangerous for this vehicle because you might not have a great view of the road itself, but you might still be less likely to hit a child because you can see them easier than an empty truck or SUV.