• Deepus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If its a mega city how can it be walkable? I wouldnt want to walk an hour to get to my job that would have been a 15 minute walk. Or am i misunderstanding what you mean by walkable?

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Walkable doesn’t necessarily mean the entire city is within walking distance just that where you live doesn’t require you to have a vehicle and you can walk to everything you need. Being able to walk to work and the grocery store and to any entertainment is so nice.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem then is transport inside the city. Couple this idea with the (currently) top comment to make cities walkable and this is pure fire.

      • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trains you can park cars on. Would be great for camping weekends where I need all of my gear but don’t want to drive for hours.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah light rail, bike lanes, and walking roads. We can build a constructed environment designed around human beings. A world that’s good for our health, both physical and mental, and for our planet. All we need to do is accept a reality that cars aren’t a good use of resources and that walking and biking are really good for us.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not that there isn’t a lot of room for improvement, but while I can’t say I’ve been to every major city in the US, I’ve never had a major issue getting around once I’m inside the city. Even if things are spread out a bit, there’s sidewalks and crosswalks, which is all I personally need to consider an area walkable. And public transportation will usually get you to different areas of the city even if you may still have to walk a bit when you get off.

        Admittedly I’m probably more willing to walk around than the average person, and not everyone is capable of walking that much, so like I said, still lots of room for improvement.

        My biggest issue tends to be getting into the city in the first place, or getting from one city to another. From my home in the suburbs I can drive to pretty much anywhere in my nearest city in about an hour or less as long as I can avoid any major traffic jams. If I try to take public transportation though, im looking at an hour walk before I get to somewhere I can catch a bus (which only comes a handful of times a day,) and then a couple more hours before I get where I’m going, probably having to transfer to a different bus or train at least once along the way. If I drive a half hour or so to a train station then I can get right to downtown pretty easily, but the train only comes about every hour so if I don’t time it right and miss the train it’s significantly faster for me to just drive the rest of the way than wait for another train. Then they mostly stop coming at about 11pm, which means if I’m going into the city for a concert or something, I’m cutting it close and may not be able to get back home on public transit.

        And if I’m trying to get to another city, I’m pretty much SOL. I’m basically at the halfway point between that major city and 2 smaller cities, and there is no transit options to get to those 2 other cities from where I am.

    • DJDarren@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, I’m afraid that’s not possible. The UK government scrapping HS2 has shown this.

      E: For the avoidance of doubt, /s

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A massive high speed railway network across North America, coast to coast. Russia did it, China did it, most of Europe did it. Canada and the USA have no excuse.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Canada’s excuse is “we’re roughly as big as the US but have a way smaller population and GDP. I really don’t think it’d be financially justifiable for them to build a rail equivalent to the trans-Canadian highway. It’d be a non-starter in a political sense.

      The US, on the other hand… yeah. We genuinely have no excuse.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        A majority of Canada’s population lives in a straight line from Toronto to Québec, but they can’t even manage that.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Property acquisition costs and legal fees are immensely more expensive in the US. Have to obtain those thousands of miles of land for rail development from somebody.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are ways. Maybe bring our number of aircraft carriers down to only 3x the rest of the world combined instead of 5x, just as an example.

  • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Housing for everyone, food for everyone, clean energy (nuclear power, though we would do well to advance the tech a little is immanently practical).

    Those are all easy mode stuff that would dramatically improve the world for a lot of people, but we could do more.

    Hard mode: Orbital rings.

    We would have to develop some tech, but not nearly as much as you might think.

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t even need nuclear, renewable energy at its current pace will get us to 100% renewable by 2050, which is about as far away as any nuclear plants you started constructing today for way, way less money and zero waste storage issues.

      There’s basically no point building any other kind of energy at this stage. Giant, expensive power plants that require huge amounts of expensive fuel and large expensive workforces simply can’t compete with panels pumped out by factories you can install anywhere that generate free energy for decades with little to no maintenance.

  • uis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Universal healthcare, public transit, communism. Or at lease food for everyone, housing for everyone and communication for everyone.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Economic communism won’t be achievable until we fully automate the economy and institute some kind of technocracy or lottery style political system.

      A truly “stateless” society is a joke, but separating the economy from the state is only possible if we are all out of jobs.

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

    We’ve recently figured out beaming power to another location. We might be able to start a Dyson swarm, which is just a collection of solar panel satellites that beam their energy back to earth.

    I’d like to also see the start of space resource extraction/refinement. The more of that Dyson swarm we can build without having to lift it off earth, the better.