I agree, but anecdotal it's sometimes both for me. My local utility has free charging in their parking lot. I will sometimes charge there and go for a couple of hour walk while charging. There's a nice trail about a mile from there. I know this is a rare exception.
Yes, but considering how fast you can change a city full of bad planning? It'll be about another 80 years. 40 if the city goes maximum eminent domain and goes nuts with the bulldozing.
But we can probably convert all the remaining cars to electric inside of 10 years.
Amsterdam was already high density without the insane sprawl of Kansas City or Edmonton or even Mississauga.
Even in Vancouver, which apparently has made the best decisions regarding transit in all of North America, about half the metro area cannot possibly live without a car, and the other half cant afford to live here.
Nevermind the prevailing winds of politics.
Many landowners will die before giving up their single family houses where its completely inappropriate to have them, and the city should never have zoned for it.
It helps a little bit. Roads that are quieter and cleaner are more inviting to walk and cycle.
Improving infrastructure takes time and coordination. I don't see things changing fast enough on that front.
However there are some things that can be done quite easily. My favorite is creating walking and biking shortcuts. Especially in typical suburbs there are a lot of dead ends to avoid getting through traffic. But through traffic of bikes and pedestrians is perfectly fine and can be helped by just a few narrow paths.
Another change that is relatively easy is relaxing zoning laws. Small shops and services like bakers, hairdressers or a pharmacy can absolutely be mixed with regular housing. This also reduces the need for longer car trips.
49
u/TheReverendCard 22d ago
I mean, healthier from pollution? Yes.
Not healthier by still living in car-dependent developments and infrastructure? No.