A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/20/opinion-broadway-upzoning-parking-chicago/
"If the city becomes more dense, where will people put their car?!!" he asks.
The key thing to understand is that just because NIMBYs bitch about something, doesn't mean it's true. By repeating their nonsense as if it were fact, all you're doing is spreading misinformation.
This argument doesn't follow because transit infrastructure is not like water: it's an optional enhancement, not a necessity. Specifically, people can still walk or bike if they don't have it.
People can't own cars if they have nowhere to put them. If you make no provision for parking you won't get "300 car-dependent commuters;" out of necessity, you'll get 300 non-car-dependent ones instead.
The bottom line is that transit never gets built unless the density justifies it first. That's just how it works, in terms of winning Federal funding and such. If you refuse to build density on the grounds that there isn't already transit, you will never get density or transit. NIMBYs understand this, and that's exactly why they make that bad-faith argument.
Uh transit is not optional unless you want to revert to company towns. And you're just moving people from private transit dependence to public transit dependence. Think about that for a second. Your asking people to give up their private and personal nearly unrestricted transit access and become wholly dependant on public infrastructure and governing bodies. How many people here trust and support their local governments right now. Especially enough to become trapped to "how far can you walk in 100+ weather"
What are you even talking about? If you don't have public transit in a densely-built area, you can just fucking walk! Or bike, for that matter. Well-designed cities are compact enough that you can get anywhere you need to go even without transit. Transit is just an extra layer on top, so that you can more easily choose to be picky about going to store B across town instead of walking to store A in your neighborhood, but you don't need to choose store B over store A. (And even then, in a well-designed city even store B is reasonable to get to at least by bike, if not on foot.)
I have absolutely no idea what point you think you're making about "company towns" and "private transit."
Streets are public infrastructure. You're already dependent on it, even if you're driving a car.
The answer to that question is "plenty far enough, in a well-designed city." And the "in 100+ weather" part is just strawmanning, BTW -- even with global warming, it's the exception, not the rule.