#or even not ex novo! i have a neighbourhood i live in and quite like!

[mademoisellesarcasme]

I have seen one too many very bad urbanism takes on my dash from people who seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing zero-sum game, so I am about to get OPINIONATED here. This is probably going to be long. I might include diagrams.

America's car-dependency is harmful to the development and growth of communities and localism. If we can all agree that Being In A Community is a good thing (we might not be able to agree that, I don't know), we should address this issue somehow. Building walkable communities is a good step in this direction. Transit ideally connects walkable communities together with ease.

As someone on the anti-car-dependency side of this discussion, what I want to say very loudly is the option for good transit, especially in metropolitan areas both major and minor, should be available. This is NOT saying "everyone should live in cities" or "rural folks must all take buses or transit everywhere." This is saying "people who live in a dense area should have the option to take reliable public transit." Fewer people in cars will mean less traffic for buses and less traffic for people coming into the urban area from outside it. The goal is car reduction, especially in everyday errands or commutes. Think about the routes you drive every single day -- usually to work, right? Maybe dropping your kids off at school? What if you didn't have to drive it but could instead take a bus or a train?

To be clear: I'm not dunking on people who live in rural areas. I reiterate that people in rural areas should not be forced to only take buses or transit and suddenly give up their cars. (That is outrageous.) I am not even saying that city-dwellers shouldn't have cars -- I'm saying that cityfolk should have the realistic option to not have a car and be able to do all their necessary life things on foot, bike, or transit. Safely. Which means moving those big highways out of city centres and forcing more walkable communities in places which can absolutely handle a slight increase in density (looking at you, Syracuse and Milwaukee, among others).

Also, density does not and should not only look like New York City or Chicago. It is eminently possible to create an environment where pleasant single-family or small multi-family homes exist on small plots of land and there is an easily-accessible area containing commerce (including a grocery store, among other things) and local parks and so forth. But this sort of development doesn't lend itself to speculation and therefore doesn't make big money fast, so people don't want to plan it.

#uber and lyft and doordash are actively harmful to the reduction of cars upon the road #i also don't really want to get into accessibility right now but i could totally ex novo do some neighbourhood development *right now* #or even not ex novo! i have a neighbourhood i live in and quite like! #and i think it needs a couple things! #one is a real grocery store in walking distance #bc right now our local 'grocery store' is Dollar General #and a catholic church but they all just got clustered and restructured #so i'm thinking that one's a stretch #but i can easily walk to the train and take the train downtown to one! #and that's AWESOME #(but ofc my specific neighbourhood is super not great for accessibility) #(my street is at like a 35 degree angle) #(mountains. it's the mountains.)