Comment on Health gains of low-traffic schemes up to 100 times greater than costs, study finds

ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

It doesn’t seem right to count only the cost of implementing the low-traffic schemes (which is low) and not the cost of people having to spend more time and more effort in order to get to places. I’m not in London but I am in a city without accessible parking, so I walk to work every day. It takes me 25 minutes each way to walk about 1.2 miles. If I lived somewhere where driving to work was a realistic option, I could save about half an hour a day or I could have a lot more options when choosing where to live instead of living as close to work as I can afford. I used to be somewhere where I could drive 4 miles to work in less than ten minutes. There, if I spent the same amount of time commuting as I do now, the area where I could choose to live would be 75 times larger. (Since it scales with the square of the distance traveled.) And, of course, walking is unpleasant most of the time, when the weather is rainy, too hot, or too cold.

So sure, living somewhere where I walk every day is good for my health. I would still much rather be able to drive.

source
Sort:hotnewtop