• TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “… regardless of whether they drive or not.”

    Even if they don’t drive, they benefit from roads and highways. Trucks bring food to stores, along with all the other products. Unless they are living off the grid, growing their own food, and weaving their own cloth, they’re dependent on the roads. Also, emergency services and maintenance crews need the roads.

    Many people long for a simple life, until they break a leg, or their appendix bursts, or they have an infected tooth. Then they’re more than happy to take the road to the hospital.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There’s no dichotomy of “roads or no roads”. Individuals driving necessitates wider and more extensive roads. People who choose to drive when they otherwise don’t have to have the effect of making everything farther away and making road maintenance considerably more expensive.

      • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 minutes ago

        And your point?

        Historically, roads were built for transporting goods, and this started long before cars existed as a concept, see Rome, the Silk Road, etc.

        Even in the US the road infrastructure push was driven by the need to transport goods with trucks. Early days of the conversation were around this. It wasn’t until cars started becoming affordable for the average person (rather than the wealthy elites) that cars were even a consideration.

        Even today the infrastructure is designed around trucks - bridge heights, durability, etc, cars are secondary.

        You can stop driving cars all you want (which simply isn’t going to happen) but you’d still have trucks, because trucks on roads are flexible and trains are not.