| Comment | It doesn’t need to involve a perfect world, it can be this world.
See Nantes, Copenhagen, Utrecht, Berlin, London, Stockholm, Madrid, as just the tiniest sample size of examples of cities that have diversified. It’s not like this is an untested idea - in fact it’s massively successful when properly implemented (which doesn’t have to mean expensive)
I meant why single out cycling as being particularly not inclusive? Inclusion has so many metrics to determine it. I would suggest not ignoring the fact that, as I said, increasing options would make the travel experience more inclusive for everyone. Just because you might not want to, or might not be able to cycle, it would be odd to have that as a reason not to allow others to do so and forcing people who feel unsafe to cycle to more expensive options is not inclusive. Having all three options is. It works in other countries. I have seen no argument for why it shouldn’t work here. We’re not that special climate, hill wise or city shape wise. |
|---|