• tomatobeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        114
        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
          18
          ·
          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
            3
            ·
            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
          8
          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
                7
                ·
                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.

          • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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
              3
              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
                4
                ·
                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
                  6
                  ·
                  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
                2
                ·
                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.

          • VitaminDrink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            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.

        • Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          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.

        • 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.

        • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

      • snarf@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously just being grammatically correct by putting the title in quotes!

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t found anyone adding the detail that the photo is a bit deceptive.

      The road is still there, it was just moved underground. It surfaces at the bridge in the background.

      It’s definitely better, but the car traffic is still there, just hidden.

      Source: I live a couple minutes from where the photo was taken

  • t0fr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    237
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you suggesting this is not progress? Because this is honestly amazing.

    What’s the point of water if you can’t chill by the

    • ultimate_question@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      This title is under a few layers of irony, there are similar pictures floating around of green spaces converted to highways in the US with the same title, OP is suggesting the European version actually is progress

      • bouncing@partizle.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a worldwide phenomena. The “Big Dig” is a great example of urban space reclaimed from above-grade highways.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I remember as a kid hearing this vague ideological warfare around it. The Boston Science Museum had a big exhibit on it, as a kid I learned nothing about it. Then it was lamented for being wasteful spending - and only now do I hear about how it was meant to give us back urban areas.

          • jasondj@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure did. I’ve lived in RI my whole life save for when I lived just barely into MA about 5 years ago.

            Pardon the Reddit link, but as soon as I saw a before and after a few months ago, I was awestruck.

          • bouncing@partizle.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s surprising to me. I remember at the time, NBC Nightly News and PBS Newshour (my family’s news diet in the 90s) did stories about it, and they both definitely mentioned reclaiming city space as one of the benefits.

            I think the Big Dig, while it ended up costing several times what it was supposed to, will go down in history as one of the best highway projects of its era. It also proved infrastructure naysayers wrong. A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.

            • abessman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.

              Induced traffic does not mean that traffic on a specific place inevitably goes back to what it was before a new highway. It means that total traffic, including old and new infrastructure, always goes up if the total road capacity goes up.

              Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.

              Of course, this means new highways can be locally beneficial, for example when they are used to divert car traffic from a city center. But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.

              • bouncing@partizle.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.

                It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.

                Keep in mind, the Big Dig actually reduced the total number of highway ramps, which is part of why it increased traffic flow. And by reclaiming neighborhoods from elevated highways, it reconnected areas. You can easily walk places that were not possible before.

                But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.

                Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.

                • abessman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.

                  The comparison is between today and ‘today but without the highway’, not between today and before the highway was built. If the population increase is greater with the highway there, that’s still part of the induced demand.

                  Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.

                  A city being “bad for drivers” is not a great indicator of it not being car dependant. Cities in the Netherlands are probably the most walkable and bikable on the planet, and also great to drive in because there are hardly any cars.

        • vaultdweler13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Har har, what I meant was having a shaded overhead thing every couple of yards right along the actual walkway next to the water.

          Assuming its mostly concrete having shading could help break up heat absorption and help reduce heat radiation.

      • Marlem@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The main walkways and the bike lane are actually located in the shade provided by the line of trees.

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why the “”? Getting cars out of cities to improve quality of life is a major progress.

            • Ryctre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              26
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sure the people of Duesseldorf are so thankful to have you as their road white knight.

            • Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Define logical city planning? Is a walkable, green area more desirable than an overgrown road or not?

              Is traffic the end-all-be-all to city planning?

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

                  By your own definition “logical city planning” is best done with a good and well integrated public transportation network and the spaces thus freed by having fewer cars being repurposed for uses with proven health benefits compared to roads … which just happen to be green spaces as there are actual proven benefits for human mental and physical health, both from the greenery and the reduction in noise an particulate polution when bog roads with heavy traffic are removed.

                  Favoring individual cars in a urban environment is actually worse in pretty much every metric: not just mental and physical health but even timewise as better public transportation means way less time wasted in traffic jams - because paradoxically more roads incentivise more cars, so new/bigger roads solve traffic jam problem for a while and then eventualyl it get as bad or worse than before only now there are even more cars, hence more people, stuck in traffic - so commuting times often ultimatelly go up with more roads.

                  I get the impression that your logic in thinking of more roads for cars as “logical city planning” comes from never having experienced living in an urban setting with a proper well integrated public transport network or widespread use of cycling for short commutes, which is a critical blindspot in knowledge when claiming to understand urban planning.

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

              After WW2 cities in NRW have been rebuilt with cars and cars only in mind. You’ve got major roads with 6 lanes crossing right through city centres and residential areas. Traffic is killing people. Roads in favor of public transport makes people buy cars if they want to go anywhere. More cars need more roads. It’s an endless cycle and results in hostile living environments. We need less cars. A lot less.

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

              “Logical city planning” for you does not include planning a city that people enjoy living and breathing in. Just one that cars dominate more every year.

              Yep, you’re American alright.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because when the word “progress” is used, it is usually a loaded term with some specific connotations. The quotes indicate this is a reference to the word “progress”, not a use of the word “progress”, and it’s intended to draw your attention to the fact that this change, while clearly a positive and desirable one, contrasts strongly with what is usually meant when a person says it.

  • Yondu_the_Ravager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yeah they should’ve just done the American thing instead and bulldozed the whole strip of town to put in a 20 lane wide interstate with a Bucees and Walmart/s

      • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They basically did that.

        What people call „Rhine“ is a heavily straightened and channelized artificial water road.

        Especially in the 19th century they cut off many loops and bends to make it more accessible for ships, to make the land useable and to get rid of flooding (narrator: „it didn’t work“):

        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinbegradigung

        (don’t have an english article, just look at the pictures)

    • Polydextrous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is my first time seeing the “/s” on lemmy. And I really hope it doesn’t follow users here. We fully understood the sarcasm without it. It was honestly so much more a statement with ironic wording than it was even sarcasm.

      I feel like we’re better than this. We can’t complain about Hollywood and advertising dumbing everything down to the level they think we need and then turn around and spoon feed each other the most basic forms of speech.

      • Gerryflap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You might be able to easily spot sarcasm, but not everyone is blessed with that ability. Many autistic people, for instance, struggle to detect sarcasm. And comments being text only makes it harder. “/s” is an accessibility tool and implying that using these tools is “dumbing down” communication is honestly a very shitty move.

        • Tetra@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Beyond autism, that /s has become all the more necessary these days in the wake of this huge wave of anti-intellectualism. Outside of private circles, it’s so hard now to tell the difference between absurd sarcasm and the genuinely ignorant takes some people proudly share, there’s too much of an overlap between the two lol

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

          Autistic person here, yeah I can’t read tone for shit through text sometimes, and especially online you never can tell if and when someone’s being serious.

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

          Don’t worry, he didn’t mean it, he was obviously being sarcastic because no reasonable person actually dislikes the /s.

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

          Idk. That was very obviously sarcastic. I wouldn’t care about the opinions of those who took it seriously.

      • anthemwalrus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s sometimes impossible to detect sarcasm from just text, that’s why Poe’s law exists. You may be good at understanding sarcasm and satire, but some people aren’t and putting /s is making sure that everyone understands instead of just you.

        I feel you on the dumbing down part though, but I think sarcastic comments are not a form of media that must be left only to be enjoyed by the people who are “better than this”.

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

          I think it’d be cool if Lemmy had an option to select tone the same way you can select language, and an option to hide tone by default

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean… They don’t have to be left to anyone. Is it really that hard to ask for or wait for more context before popping off? If I misunderstand sarcasm I just say oh oops I misunderstood my bad and move on with my day. It’s such a non-issue.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you but its sorta funny given peoples reaction to the quotes which im like pretty sure was not intended to invert the words meaning.

  • adhd michelle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why scare quotes? I lived in Düsseldorf back in '90 (go alts - that was the name of my school team, and yes it was sponsored by Alt bier 🍺… different times), it’s always been one of Germany’s more clean cut, upmarket cities, but this picture makes me want to go back and check it out again.

    Then again, I’m a queer transfem and I’m in BERLIN, THE QUEER CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. Düsseldorf is in the last instance just meh.

  • Jeanschyso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes progress! Using the quotes there make it seem like you disagree that this is progress, which I will choose to believe you didn’t mean it like that.

    I have seen a few pictures like this from around the world. It’s pretty encouraging