The post says "Design vehicles to fit cities. Don’t design cities to fit vehicles." It says nothing about cities being designed for people. I get it, that in our mostly car-centric urban world, the idea that a city doesn't need to revolve around cars is strange.
I didn't even say cars. I said vehicles, which includes, but not limited to, cars. The unstated point, which I have written plenty, is cities should be built for people. There isn't a world where cities do not have vehicles, though.
What part of designing cities for people means cities have no vehicles whatsoever? I simply state that cities should be designed for people, not cars. By cars I mean the vehicles that guzzle gas or electricity and for which we have stroads and multi-lane highways but it never seems to be enough.
Don't underestimate the government's power to shape markets with legislation. Defining a class of vehicles that includes something like this and defining where they can go (perhaps places larger ICE vehicles can't in a dense urban area) can kick start a lot of innovation.
Ideally we would tighten the parking supply to the point where only the disabled and aged are allowed these. If there's still parking issues we would need to restrict it those lacking equally convenient transit options. But for now, these should be encouraged.
Comments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolekobie/2025/01/21/yo-gos-mini-electric-carts-take-to-london-streets/
"I don't need a car! I need Mobility!"
- Tim
🙂🤷♂️
"My truck is my penis!"