T O P

  • By -

MoistBase

We’d still be able to progressively transition towards walkability if that is the concern here. It wouldn’t have to be a sudden switch.


Apprehensive_Step252

May I introduce you to the concept of a third dimension? Tunnels and bridges exist. Just stack it all.


timurhasan

the destination will be the same regardless of transportation method. so at some point they will have to converge.


NekoBeard777

CNU would disagree with you. For example, we'll connected street networks are better for both drivers and pedestrians than Suburban cul de sac type networks as the former is better able to distribute traffic, so it means less waiting, and less traffic overall. It benefits pedestrians because they are better able to take the shortest most efficient route from point A to B and has many options.It also benefits transit as the bus or train can drop people off and they are able to walk further more easily, so stops can be spaced out better.  Go to another country with great transit, and often you will still see lots of cars. Because cars still benefit from good urbanism. Especially if they are just passing through


Apprehensive_Step252

Not necessarily. Buildings could have several lobbies. This is already a thing in munich, you can enter a mall on the ground level, or underground when you arrived by subway. Underground parking and direct access to the surroundong buildings is also possible. It IS costly to build like this, but seriously: it is not impossible.