It’s the suburban sprawl that is driving the car based transport. Suburbs are established further away with no proper infrastructure, shops and facilities. Cars are the only way to get about as everything is so hard to get to. Extending freeways to them doesn’t help as the commute time is lowest in a car.
But 1) apartments don’t tend to be built in suburban sprawl, and 2) even the worst suburban sprawl in europe is still generally bikeable, there’ll be a lidl or something within a reasonable distance.
Got this thread mixed up with another, similar one. Ignore this reply lol.
but are poor people really living in the suburban sprawl? I’m not debating whether the sprawl forces you to drive, my point is that suburbs are for rich people.
i just realized this is not the thread i thought it was, whoops
It’s the suburban sprawl that is driving the car based transport. Suburbs are established further away with no proper infrastructure, shops and facilities. Cars are the only way to get about as everything is so hard to get to. Extending freeways to them doesn’t help as the commute time is lowest in a car.
But 1) apartments don’t tend to be built in suburban sprawl, and 2) even the worst suburban sprawl in europe is still generally bikeable, there’ll be a lidl or something within a reasonable distance.Got this thread mixed up with another, similar one. Ignore this reply lol.
I was passing through the back blocks of Sydney, new suburbs that are a long way from anywhere. If you want to go anywhere it’s by car.
Infill of the inner areas especially around railways is happening which is great but the sprawl continues.
but are poor people really living in the suburban sprawl? I’m not debating whether the sprawl forces you to drive, my point is that suburbs are for rich people.i just realized this is not the thread i thought it was, whoops