Health gains of low-traffic schemes up to 100 times greater than costs, study finds
Submitted 9 months ago by mondoman712@lemmy.ml to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Submitted 9 months ago by mondoman712@lemmy.ml to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
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.
tillimarleen@feddit.de 9 months ago
You don‘t seem to understand that the concept you are thinking of was the status quo and has failed.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
I’ll be frank. I don’t seem to understand the justification for policies whose primary purpose appears to be a malicious desire to make life harder for those people still lucky enough to be able to drive. Smug, paternalistic articles about how preventing people from doing what they want to is actually for their own good don’t help.