Reminding leftists once again that their car free walkable utopian ideals are ableist and exclusionary, and that they need to:
a) prioritize accessibility, not walkability;
b) listen to disabled people;
c) think inclusively rather than starting from a premise that removes some people from their vision;
d) listen to disabled people;
e) listen to disabled people.
I really hope that cities start get better at infrastructure supporting bicycles and personal electric vehicles (PEVs) since those dovetail so well with support for a wide range of mobility devices.
Reducing or removing motor traffic should be used to open up a corridor that can be used by a _wider_ range of people and not a narrower one.
@jeffalyanak except when you remove motor traffic, you create a corridor that cannot be used by people who rely upon cars as mobility and accessibility devices. That’s the entire point. We exist, we matter, our basic human right of free movement matters.
Would people with mobility needs be unable to drive smaller, lower-speed personal electric vehicles? I know that I've seen a lot of PEVs aimed at people with mobility needs, but I don't know if there are some limitations that I'm not aware of.
In any case, reducing the usage of cars amongst those who do _not_ need them is a good thing, as the remaining roads would be dedicated to those who truly need them.
Public transport also can and should be built to accommodate people with mobility needs, though I know in practice that's rarely done well.
@jeffalyanak there are five people in my family. What is a small, low speed electric one person thing going to do for me? What do I do with that when I want to go on a road trip or across the city? This “solution” assumes disabled people as single individuals who never go further than the corner shop. It’s silly, frankly.
@amaditalks I don't think it would make sense to remove highways or cross-city links, that's not what people are looking to achieve.
@jeffalyanak no but they are looking to achieve entire zones, largely commercial zones and places with easy access to public amenities like parks, where cars are completely disallowed, without reflecting on the exclusion that creates. And that’s the problem.
@amaditalks @jeffalyanak It is true that a badly designed version of that plan would be exclusionary. There are existing, well designed versions of that plan that improve accessibility for all. In Vienna, subways, trams, buses and many trains are wheelchair accessible. They are clean, fast, frequent and cost 1€/day with a year pass. They take you everywhere in the city, including the car-free zones. Car-based solutions will always disadvantage children, the blind, and many other people.
There has to be a compromise on all sides. Areas with limited car access need additional concessions for people who need them, but they provide safe accessible spaces for people who can't drive.
Listening to people with accessibility needs means listening to _all_ people with accessibility needs. There are many people who cannot drive and their safety and accessibility needs to be considered, too.
Building accessible spaces requires a lot of thought and there are definitely problems to be addressed, but there _are_ solutions outside of car-centric cities that can work for people of a wide variety of needs.
@amaditalks @jeffalyanak I agree that when living in a city built for cars, it will be hard to get around without one, no matter one's abilities and disabilities. There are many cities around the world with the car is not the focus, and looking at those cases, it is pretty clear that a good, car-free design disadvantages the fewest people. This kind of design does disadvantage cars, but cars are not people. Cities built around cars have a much steeper slope to reach effective car-free areas.
@jeffalyanak I can compare Vienna, New York, and the Bay Area, since that's where I've lived. Accessibility in mass transit in CA and NY is terrible, that's clear. In Vienna, it works well and is also still being improved (the last of the unaccessible trams and buses will be replaced by 2026) : https://www.visitingvienna.com/transport/accessibility/
Like @amaditalks recommended, accessibility is built into the process, it is not punted to external "advocacy" organizations.
@eighthave @jeffalyanak and the existence of car-free zones will always disadvantage people for whom cars are essential for their accessibility and mobility, which is exactly why they cannot be a solution if the idea is equity and universal access.