[flagged]
For instance, bike paths. If a city is not doing enough maintenance on the paths, then it proves that bike transportation is unsustainable.
Or does it mean that the city should spend more money on bike paths and roads?
Let's just take any other form of transport, there's no reason that couldn't be underfunded too.
Imagine if the city identified this as an issue today. It would take minimum of months to potentially years to start implement a solution.
We had an issue of too much rapid development in our town and dump trucks were littering the streets with gravel debris, making the roads unsafe (it's difficult to stop on a dime if you slide on gravel, as I unfortunately found out recently). We had a local Lions den club decide to take action and start sweeping up the gravel.
I encourage people to do what they feel is right to clean up the environment around them. But to EXPECT people to go out of their way to cleanup the streets and make them “safe” is not sustainable. Probably poses a significant road hazard as well. I wouldn’t trust 3/4 drivers on these streets to obey posted signs/yield at crosswalks , let alone react appropriately to objects or people in street.
A solution that is sustainable is not relying on cars as a primary mode of transportation. Heavy vehicles (almost everyone has a SUV or truck) cause significant road wear and contribute a significant amount to local environment pollution via tire wear particles and brake dust.
Cities need to be redesigned to support multiple modes of transportation. Get rid of the parking lots. Get rid of the massive highways running straight through cores of cities. Get rid of mandatory parking requirements.
Stop subsidizing suburban living where few people live. This benefits a very small amount of people while straining the local resources (expansion of fire, police, EMS, water, electrical services at heavy expense and decrease in quality of service)