this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
-81 points (22.8% liked)

Funny

11744 readers
1597 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] platypode@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Infrastructure isn’t the entirety of the problem. My city is a dense populated core surrounded by a sprawl of suburbs and office parks—tons of people live in the city and commute out to the suburbs for office work. The office areas are too spread out for a transit system to service (we have a decent commuter network, but you’re lucky if your office is close enough to it), so it’s pretty much drive or bust.

[–] ExFed@programming.dev 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's literally all an infrastructure (and infrastructure planning) problem. Designers planned for car-centric infrastructure, so that's what we got. Sprawl begets sprawl; spreading out destinations means you need more pipes/sewage/electrical/roadway to reach each destination, and roadways are space-inefficient, so the problem compounds.

Exactly! When I say "infrastructure," I mean how they design how people get from A to B. Removing a road and putting buildings in its place to get more density is infrastructure the same way as putting in a bike path or rail line is. It's all about urban planning and deciding how people will get to their destinations.