• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Wow, that’s some terminal right-wing privatization going on there. Government not only completely shirking its responsibility to build a public street, but even abdicating its authority to ensure that the developers it delegated the job to did it properly.

    “However, council cannot force landowners to develop their property.”

    Asked if council could force developers to build two sides of a street, the spokesman said it could not.

    Motherfucker, what part of “eminent domain” do you not understand?! Building a public street is exactly what that power is for!


    That said, everyone involved also deserves a bitch-slap for their failure to comprehend the concept of one-way traffic circulation.

  • rcbrk@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    I was all ready to rant about the problem of new developments being built before public transport infrastructure, but I checked the map and there are two railway lines in the vicinity!

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12079848#map=14/-33.6923/150.8920

    …that said, there is a distinct lack of cycle/pedestrian infrastructure and the style of vehicle traffic makes it hostile.

    Of course, the best solution to that is limiting car traffic to a single lane, no on-street parking, and a 20km/h speed limit.

    • brisk@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I’m Australian, and the photo clearly showing that you can park a car and get two cars past one another tells me that these “narrow streets” are substantially wider than all the normal streets in my vicinity.

      I suspect this is more of a stroad (and planning) problem than an actual narrow street problem.