• tomatobeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    184
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My guess is OP is being sarcastic because progress to many people means more highways & cars. More construction and development.

    I wish we had more of this kind of progress near me (Colorado USA).

    • SSX@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Been in Colorado for the past week or so. You guys are a lot further ahead than Illinois is. Lots more bike paths and lanes, better traffic control that doesn’t result in stop and go movement, overall a lot more green space in your shopping centers and in human spaces, also lots more walking areas.

      Don’t beat up your state too much, it’s fantastic compared to mine. :'c

      • jbend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m from So. IL originally and been to CO 4 times. Colorado is so much better in my opinion. People biking and jogging everywhere, everyone I met was really nice, like went out of their way to help my friends and I nice. Obviously that’s not everyone there, but it was the experience I had. Overall, it’s probably my favorite of the states I’ve been to and hope to go back, maybe permanently, someday.

        • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d love to be a gatekeeper saying “we’re already full, turn back around”, but I’m a CA transplant myself. Personally, I’m looking to leave myself: too cold most of the year, and it’s getting really $$$. YMMV

    • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, it certainly beats how it was before, but there isn’t less traffic now – they just put it in a tunnel.

          • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Compared to other countries, yes. And that’s not even comparing it to the US, which would be like kicking someone lying on the ground.

            Try riding a train in rural France, outside the 5 TGV lines, for instance, and you’ll pray for Deutsche Bahn. Ever been to the UK?

            But we could have much better PT if Germany weren’t the world’s greatest car exporter by far and the ministry of traffic deep in the pockets of automobile makers, that’s true as well.

      • VitaminDrink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is exactly what happened. They just needed the roads AND the view. The amount of cars is still the same, if not more.

      • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, as a not very smart man. Wouldn’t underground roads be better? I feel with it being underground it’d be easier to manage pollution and install some things to fight it.

        • Piemanding@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Underground roads are crazy expensive. You need something to hold up the earth and anything else above it. There’s issues with water leaking in. Piping will have to go around it. If it breaks down somehow it will take longer to repair. It’s only really an option if the detour would be a lot longer or within urban areas for the extra space it frees up.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or if you know, having greener spaces and roads underground are actually better for climate change. I’m not sure if this would help in that matter or not, but I think it’s a possibility. Not everything is about our made up concept of money.

            • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s better for climate change is less cars on the road, not underground roads. If we are going to be digging these expensive tunnels in every city they should be for subway systems. That would be a substantially better use of the funds and would be a good step towards reducing the emissions of a city. This is all assuming that we stop subsidizing car ownership so heavily of course.

              The entire process of building and repairing roads is pretty carbon intensive due to the amount of concrete involved.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, replacing surface roads with greenery is good for climate change, or more locally for reducing the heat island effect.

              They likely also redesigned the roads to reduce stop and go traffic, with all the extra pollution that creates.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I doubt it would affect pollution significantly. It’s not like both ends of the tunnel aren’t open to the air. It would definitely locally displace it so it’s not distributed across the above ground length of the road, but the same amount more or less (minus whatever adheres to walls) is still coming out of either end.

          Underground tunnels also have the danger of fires rapidly spiraling out of control and in the past have killed dozens of people, and that was before electric cars became common. I would not want to be in a tunnel when a Tesla’s battery explodes.

          I’m not saying this has no advantages, but for the trouble and cost it seems like a train would be better.

          • pascal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think it’s better from a polluting point.

            Nothing underground generates oxygen, but moving the roads from above to underground gives more “it’s free real estate” to grow grass and trees, like in the second photo, which generates oxygen and stores carbon. It’s not the best thing like suppressing the cars all together, but it’s better than the first picture.

          • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I completely forgot about the whole fire thing.

            When yku say it like that. It makes more sense. It’s a shame we don’t have super efficient ways to convert exhaust gasses into healthier gasses. But yeah, if it’s just a short tunnel, the entrance and exits would just not funnel it right. I wonder if really long tunnels would be better. Maybe being able to use the entrances with a system to input clean air and force the exhaust through vents.

            And I wonder if those fire suppression systems that starve the fires of oxygen could be something that could be useful? But that’d require automated doors to seal the tunnel, and then if someone is trapped on there, the fire is the last of their issue. Unless there were refugee points that also seal, but then you’ve gotta make sure everyone’s in them. I wonder if some form of scanner could be used to allow humans in. But then there’s that thing where a fire has been starved, but then gets a sudden burst of oxygen and it becomes explosive. I forgot what it’s called. I’m sure someone actually smart could brainstorm it better.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel it’s more likely they don’t understand proper usage of quotation marks like that. They probably think they give emphasis; I see it all the time.

    • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s so backwards. Making this stretch of coastline walkable means more people show up, and if businesses realize this potential then they can capitalize. Makes sooo much sense

      • DanteFlame@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fun fact this is actually the Rhine river that runs sort of ⅔ of the way through Düsseldorf, similar to the Thames in London or the Seine in Paris.

        The other bank is much more residential and a little high end so it’s not really a gathering place for the population, whereas the bank shown in the picture is 2 blocks from a tram line that runs parallel to the river and runs into the heart of the CBD making it an extremely approachable body of water and pedestrian strip.

        On the weekends, the city holds public events to draw people to gather on this bank like food fares, carnivals, concerts. It’s always packed on the weekends and generates a shit ton of foot traffic for all the pubs and restaurants in adjacent streets.

        I had no idea all this was covered in highways just a few decades ago, making the city more walkable was an amazing choice. If you’ve never been to Düsseldorf before or don’t know anything about it, it is definitely one of the highlights of Germany once you’ve had your fill of all the war sites. Extremely liveable city without feeling overcrowded, and just a stones throw from the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France.

    • Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish Colorado would seriously put forth a passenger train between Pueblo to Denver or even Fort Collins.

      Utah has one from Provo to Ogden and it’s amazing. Beats driving in the psycho traffic.