What would your reaction be to the proposal for all cars to be banned? In their place, a nationwide train service would be created, with stops at regular intervals in towns and cities, as well as longer trips across the country. This would allow for faster travel (trains would travel more quickly for nationwide journeys while trains in cities would avoid traffic jams) and create less air pollution.For small journeys, roads would now be open for bicycle travel (train tracks in cities would be placed above or below street level), allowing the nation to switch to a more sustainable and healthier form of transport.So, thoughts on this?
>>975237I'd kill myself because my Corvette and lifted F150 are the only things that make my life fun and worthwhile.
Can i smoke weed in these trains and play loud young thug ? Can i hoon these trains on the togue?
I frequently say stuff like "all cages should be banned" but that's just blowing off steam, I don't really believe it.What should be done is that cage ownership should not be subsidized the way it is now. Treating motor vehicle homicides as homicides instead of "accident lol sorry lmao" followed by tweeting "I think I just killed someone lol I need another drink" would also stop cagers from treating human life with such contempt.More rail service, ban private single-occupant vehicles from urban areas, give streets back to pedestrians and cyclists.Large sprawling suburban subdivisions could be evacuated and napalmed, their ex-residents being welded shut inside their cages before being tossed into the ocean to be converted into environmentally friendly coral reefs.
>>975238Ban cars from public roads then? Vehicles could be driven in purpose built tracks and kept there.Besides, is the health of a nation or the planet's environment less important than having fun while driving a car?
>>975243I don't care about other people.
>>975242>Large sprawling suburban subdivisions could be evacuated and napalmed, their ex-residents being welded shut inside their cages before being tossed into the ocean to be converted into environmentally friendly coral reefsCalm down Linkola.
>>975245You're still having to breathe in the fumes your car, and the cars of others, makes.
>>975249Yeah but it doesn't bother me. I don;t want to live to be an old sickly shriveled person anyways. I'd like to die at 45.
>>975252I'm getting pretty close to 45 and I'm stronger and fitter than most 20 year oldsI look forward to your following through on your offer to commit suicide at middle age
>>975252Riiiiight. Breathing in fumes won't suddenly kill you when you reach 45, you know, instead it'll ruin your quality of life from however young you are until you're 70. Enough toxins in the air and you won't be an old sickly shrivelled person but instead a young sickly shrivelled person.If you're that selfish then you might as well put a bullet in your head now but I'm guessing that you're a little bit immature and I'm sure you'll grow out of it.
I'd be completely fine with banning all cars as long as motorcycles aren't banned.
>>975260Why have a motorcycle when there are wide roads dedicated to bicycles?
>>975237I hate driving so I wouldn't really miss it but I assume the trains would be packed at India-tier levels.
>>975261I heard in the /bbg/ that riding a motorcycle is good exerciseAlso how are you gonna go uphill using only your leg muscles? Have you actually given this any serious thought?
>>975262Singapore has a dedicated and smooth level of public transport that could be implemented into a first world country.>>975263From what I've seen in the past, there are essentially no large hills in urban areas, and if there were, a simple "ski lift" or escalator design could be implemented for those with sticks for legs.Or just take the train.
>>975261Motorcycles could be used for longer journeys but they still fit fine into the same roads with bicycles. If city traffic is concern you could also limit the motorcycles in cities to something like 700cc so that the largest ones wouldn't shit everything up again.
>>975237I take it none of you have ever stepped foot out of an urban area
>>975263>Also how are you gonna go uphill using only your leg muscles?https://youtu.be/7j1PgmMbug8
>>975271Pretty good idea to limit the power on motorbikes but allowing any kind of motorised vehicle is just going to create a market for it and would defeat the original idea of public health.>>975272Pardon? I'll take it that you're implying that train services wouldn't include rural areas. As the OP, I myself live in a rural town however there is a train station which could be traveled to by bicycle or by foot if necessary, more could be built as well, using money that would have been used on taxes for cars and road upkeep.Also, special privileges could be given to farmers who obviously need a pickup truck or some other vehicle to carry out their job.
>>975237Pretty cool idea, I'd love to see it happen but I doubt it but it's still a cool idea to think about. Only problem I can see is the sick or elderly.
>>975237Well the economy.would instantly collapse. So good plan, dipshit.
>>975300How so?
>>975301He probably thinks it's conceptually impossible to restrict private single-occupancy cars without restricting delivery vehicles and so on, because he's an idiot who doesn't understand that commercial road traffic is already treated differently
>>975237I'd love it. Cars are horrible. I mostly hate highways and massive roads destorying the planet though.>>975238Good riddance.
>>975296I think it would be simple to improve disabled access in public transport and wheel chairs or mobility scooters would obviously be an acceptable form of transport for those who need it.
>>975237Posting this on /o/ for ultimate butthurt.
>>975237Netherlands did not go this far. But I'd say it's a step in this direction. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/18/netherlands-parliament-electric-car-petrol-diesel-ban-by-2025
Celebrate no longer having to fear for my life every time I cross the street. Sure, the light says I can go, but does the cager want to wait 5 seconds to let me? Is the deathcager even paying attention or is it on the phone texting? No more fear of being sideswiped as a cager drifts into my cycle lane, or when I'm forced to walk on the narrow 12 inch shoulder because the sidewalk suddenly ended and there are hedges out and past the curb. No more wading past surface lots. No more constant noise, no more breathing in piles of exhaust. Maybe get a decent public transport network at last. Economic surge as everyone suddenly finds they have hundreds of extra dollars a month freed up to buy good shit and support local economies. No more hearing about people being murdered in car crashes from, "oops, but that text was just so important, and I just had to go 80 mph, yolo hahahahah." >>975242>arge sprawling suburban subdivisions could be evacuated and napalmed, their ex-residents being welded shut inside their cages before being tossed into the ocean to be converted into environmentally friendly coral reefs.I'll have an orgasm if you talk so dirty, anon. >>975260Motorbikes can stay. Good way to go /out/ without needing to rent a cage. >>975262Japan wants a word with you. >>975272I grew up rural/demi-suburban actually. There is no cunting reason most of these faggots need to live out that far. They all work in the city anyway, and just fart out a bunch of exhaust driving an hour+ each way daily. Unless you're a farmer or support for farmers, you don't fucking need to live that far. If you hate cities, live in a small town that's still walkable, yet each resident can have a backyard. For those oh so important 2x a year BBQs that you can't seem to use a city park for for some reason. This isn't 1650 anymore. 99.9% of our population are not farmers, so why do they need to have the government pave a bunch of roads so they can live 50 miles from the city?
>>975342>>>>>/o/15370847You glorious bastard, you actually did it. >b-but public transport as it currently exists is inefficient>bbbu-tttbut people in rural areas>bubutuubutut it will be expensive to install, ignoring the billions we spend on road infrastructure being now largely unnecessary and the transit passes/tickets income and now the lack of public rescue/police correspondence to cage crashes and the boost to the economy and the newfound affluence when people stop needing to maintain personal automotives at several hundred a monthI forget we have an /o/ most of the time and I wish they would all die. What a retarded hobby, paying money to an evil fat-causing money-sucking death machine to compensate for their two inch pecker. >>975329Fuck disabled people. Having to cater to them ruins public transport for the rest of us and bogs it down. Wheelchair vans could still be legal to haul gimps around so they can sit at the mall and look miserable all day.
I love driving. But it does have it's faults>parking can be a bitch>expense>arguably the most dangerous form of transport because tiredness, idiots and lack of professionalismI'd much rather see a better public transport system introduced. Here in the UK, outside London, public transport has became over expensive and dire. For example, the train from my town into the nearest city is only once and hour and has a lack of carriages. A train to Manchester takes about 1 hour 45 minutes to 2 and a half hours depending on the time of day and costs over £20. The car takes about 45 minutes (+20-40 for inner city traffic).We's also need better etiquette. Here in the UK people are selfish as fuck on public transport. It's always loud and horrible. We'd benefit from a lesson or two from the Japanese.
>>975377>We'd benefit from a lesson or two from the JapaneseSo when do we cut immigration to less than 1%?
>>975378desu it's mostly white middle aged white people who are cunts on public transport.
>>975379I was only 'avin a giggle m8But seriously, I'd rather have a fat guy in a suit be rude with me than a gang of Muhammads trying to molest my daughter on the bus.
>>975383MateImagine an entire train crammed with 30-45 year olds completely off their heads attempting to relive their teenage years on a weekend. All screaming and fighting.That's my journey home if I take train on a weekend. Fucking horrendous it is.
>>975358I agree with you on people who have long commute.But I live in northwest colorado and it would be a fucking shitshow to "ban" automobiles. The ranching/gas industry is entirely dependent on automobiles and a fucking well maintained transportation network. More broadly as long as people or industries are in rural areas you will need a well maintained road network for medical/emergency reasons. And it would be autistic to have a train network that substitutes for that.But really its just that I fully intend on ripping my jeep up in the mountains without any nerds telling me otherwise.
>>975388What are you waiting for? Join in!
>>975390Yeah, emergency vehicles will need roads but won't it be even faster given that there won't be any traffic?Under this utopia, I'd believe that jeeps would be perfectly acceptable in a rural location.
>>975391Good point actually. I should bring a knife in future
On some islands like Heligoland cars are banned.Exceptions are ambulance and firetruck.The best part, bikes are banned as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland#Road_restrictions
>>975395I don't think emergency vehicles alone are enough of an incentive for governments to spend on the upkeep of roads.
>>975409But will they really need to upkeep roads if they're seldom used? The only vehicles going over them will be the occasional ambulance or fire truck, not surely enough to cause any damage.
>>975412Unused roads need almost as much upkeep as used roads, to not crumble. Especially if there is vegetation in the vicinity.
>>975409Emergency vehicles along with any vehicles involved with construction/industry.The roads here go to shit within a year due to heavy traffic from gas trucks.
>>975237>So, thoughts on this?Utterly retarded, impractical, ass-backwards, would set civilization back by at least 1000 years, entire nations would suffer financial collapse, entire other nations would ignore it, there would be war over it, humanity would be set back another thousand years trying pick up the pieces after all that, meanwhile hundreds of millions of people would die for one reason or another, all because some faggot doesn't like cars.Fuck the fuck off with retarded ideas like this. Oh and let me tell you how things are going to go for you: You'll (eventually, severe autism remission pending) meet a girl, fall in love, get married, one day she'll tell you "Honey, I'm pregnant!", you'll need to get the kid around, get things done, and you won't be able to live like a child anymore riding your little bikey everywhere, you will need A CAR, practicality will demand it, and when that day comes you'll go willingly because the sheer logic of it alone will be enough. If you somehow resist (and find a woman either submissive and ineffectual enough to go along with your delusion), the first time your kid is really sick and you can't take him on a bicycle to the doctor or emergency room, or can't get them there fast enough and maybe they DIE, you'll then, in the worst way possible, finally see that you're an idiot.Just give up and accept it: We need motorized transportation, otherwise everyone suffers. Your alternative is to be left behind, along with the horse and buggy.
>>975263there are bikes with built-in engines on their wheels that make it easier for the rider to go uphill, for instance in Lyon (France), the company in charge of the public transportation has them, and I have to say it works pretty well.And if you exercise enough and still are healthy enough, you can indeed use only your leg muscles, I’ve done it for a couple of years in my hometown before moving, and I had no issues going uphill from middle and high school to home despite some pretty serious slopes on the way with my city bike. But I understand if some people don’t want to do that.otherwise, as said >>975266(kek the captcha asked me to select pictures of cars)
>>975390People who legitimately need a vehicle can get a work permit for one. But the vast majority of people don't need a car. Like people who live right in denver, or in new jersey, or in phoenix. The VAST majority live either suburban or urban, yet most still want to drive when a rail could prevent that needless traffic and wasted roadspace.
>>975438>Utterly retarded, impractical, ass-backwards, would set civilization back by at least 1000 years, entire nations would suffer financial collapse, entire other nations would ignore it, there would be war over it, humanity would be set back another thousand years trying pick up the pieces after all that, meanwhile hundreds of millions of people would die for one reason or another, all because some faggot doesn't like cars.This is what cagers actually believe>We need motorized transportationNobody said "ban all motorized transportation everywhere", dumb cager. Put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner to think about what you've done.
>>975438A toddler weighs 30 pounds and does not need a two ton vehicle to haul it to all its important business meetings. Plenty of people have a bike trailer or kid bike seat, and bloody fuck, if they lived in walkable cities they could use a stroller or walk the kid. People managed to raise children just fine before minivans were invented. You act like vehicles for once in a while emergency use don't exist. You can grab a lyft or uber, or taxi, or maybe if you didn't live an hour into the 'burbs and instead lived in a city you could be a 10 block walk/bike from the doctor and be there in a quarter of the time it took some moron from the 'burbs to make it there. >if you don't have a car your kid will literally dieWow anon. You even believe your own bullshit, it's amazing.
I agree in principle.When I used go to college, I'd step off my bike after a hard morning commute and see the sea of metal and asphalt dedicated to everyone else's little personal two-tonne noise machines. These machines...absolutely retarded how overpriced the hunk of metal is, because the average person has NO IDEA how their car actually works. Yet they put themselves in debt to get a shiney one, and after they pay for THAT, insurance and petrol continue to bleed them dry...If there weren't as many roads, things wouldn't be so spread out and everybody wouldn't need cars in the first place. Sadly, one cannot BAN cars because it's just like alcohol. Everybody pays out the ass to have something they don't understand hurts them so much and they are so conditioned and trained to become hivemind obedient little slaves that they will die to defend it. Along with money and cellphones...when people realize that they are literally going in circles trying to support their "modern lifestyle" they will look back and be ashamed....lol, and they call *us* the cyclists....lol.....this cyclist supports not only trains and efficient infrastructure, but efficient operation and rational thinking. Down with shit car companies littering all over our world! Up with beautiful human potential!!!
>>975472Good post. Maybe not a ban but a very high incentive/financial punishment pair. Like bike commuters get a $1,000 credit on taxes. The average carcuck kills more than that a year with manufacture of their parts, fluids, replacements, maintenance, tearing up roads, requireing road upgrades and surface parking, all the crashes they cause and damage and public health cost, the environmental pollution, their fatassness and all that healthcare cost, the trash lots for their dead cars and car parts... Meanwhile remaining carcucks can pay a $1,000 penalty a year. Despite that being like 3 months worth of car ownership cost, watch them freak out about the "exorbitant expense" and how "unreasonable" it is, and they will all demand trains to their front doors because they are unfamiliar with needing to use their legs to transport their fat carcass more than ten yards at a time. >bike commute>hard>not COMFY and relaxing (except for cagers trying to murder you left and right)
>>975301Because a fucking massive amount of economic activity relies on roads and either fleet or personal vehicular travel.>>975306Not what the topic says you illiterate fucking nigger. You're too god damn retarded to understand how naive and massively infeasible your stupid fucking ideas are.
>>975306Read what the original post says because you're just making yourself look real dumb. Although, that's not surprising for someone who advocates for something as hyper-unrealistic as a ban on personal vehicles.
>>975237It's impossible to scale rail travel to that level if you want to have functional systems that aren't constantly down because of severe overburden.
>>975505An ambulance is not a carA delivery truck is not a carKeep telling us how I should be dead because I use a bike, trains, and, on rare occasions, uber to get around the cityMILLIONS WILL DIE!!!
>hurr durr why doesnt everyone live in cramped ass apartments in Brooklyn like I doThe reason I live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere is to get away from people with shit ideas like this.
>>975521Don't worry you can live in Staten Island
>>975237We would need a series of tubes.
>>975253holy fuck midlife crisis detected
>>975417plus cycles of freeze thaw
>>975522>staten islandjust send me to jersey desu senpai
>>975528hyperloop?
>>975531I've been in good shape for most of my adult life, not everyone goes through their 20s struggling with their beer gut and saying "I'd rather die than get old"Some of us planned ahead
>>975508Find us a transit system that can come even remotely close to being used for the majority of trips. Spoiler: you can't. The capacity, even on the largest ones, is orders of magnitude too low. Maybe someday you'll grow up and understand that personal vehicles are a major and important component of any plausible transportation infrastructure plan. Or not, and you'll continue being a brain dead absolutist with no conception of reality.
>>975438I laughed at this then wondered if it was serious (OP here again). I'm pretty sure it's just bait thigh, since everything I've went over has been ignored.>>975507I don't think overburden would be an issue, given the massive amounts of time police, ambulance services and others give to keeping people safe on the roads. >>975521Again, I live in a rural area, in a rural country. This wasn't originally about city dwellers but instead fast travel across the country.>>975583We obviously can't find a transit system like that because there isn't a demand for one, people already have cars. However, putting effort (A LOT OF EFFORT) into the existing transit network would benefit the whole nation and allow faster, more economic and Eco-friendlier form of travel.
>>975252I wonder how you'll feel at 42
My reaction is that if you belive that this would be a good idea, you are ignorant and inconsiderate of people living in the backwoods and in scarcely populated areas.Before anyone makes assumptions, I don't own a car. Only 3 bikes and a motorcycle.
>>975650The title was more or less click bait. Exceptions could be made but the vast majority of people will be forced to accept that they'll now have to travel on new, streamlined and efficient forms of transport.
>>975237Banning cars would be stupid, more so in USA.But we have to agree that current one+ car per person is just unsustainable, wasteful, stupid and I would say unethical. Massive widespread use of autonomous cars will deal with this in upcoming decades.I imagine you will not own a car but only use car as a service. Countless cars would roam the streets but minimum of them would sit in car parks. Public transport will become absorbed into this autonomous, on-demand transport system so keeping light rails and other track-based specialized mass transport systems will become obsolete, too expensive to run. Beating the gridlock will no longer be an argument because autonomous vehicles will not need traffic lights and make virtually zero mistakes, have less crashes, virtually zero fatalities. This will lead to banning manual drivers from the road - initially in inner city districts, then widespread. Car as we know it today will become niche hobby and race tracks will be one of the few places to have fun with cars.Change in the way we use the car will lead to different car designs resulting in more compact cars. Long-distance commutes in peak hours may still use legacy underground infrastructure left by metros but will be able to resurface where needed and drop off people in desired destination. Today's buses and train cars may become obsolete as 1-person pods with same destination will be able to form 'snakes' of pods for better efficiency, less congestion.
>>975677I don't like the sound of thats. Seems even more dystopian than the train option.
>>975696>no cager carnage is dystopianYou people are beyond help
>>975583>current capacity, where only 10% (my ass) of the population use public transit, cannot support 100% of populationYou don't say?>instead of redirecting future development from infrastucture for personal vehicles to public transport, let's keep building more shit for car cucks, then when asked why no one uses public transport, say it doesn't existBrilliant. >hurr grow up>hurrr reality>hurrr u r da dumbz hue hue hueNice argument there.
>>975726You don't seem to understand that it's literally impossible to build, for example, a metro system with the capacity for tens of billions of total trips.The longer you keep ignoring that, the more wrong you get.
>>975757Rail transport in Japan.Ridership 7.289 billion (2014)Passenger km 260 billion (2014)System lengthTotal 27,268 kmElectrified 19,617 km
>>975811Now multiply that by at least 10.
>>975237>nationwide train service in the USyeah that would only cost trillions of dollars to properly implement
>>975819China.
>ban ban! Ban BAN ALL THINGS I DON'T LIKEconsider sudokuMy proposition: Remove all taxes from fuelRemove all subsidy for oil companiesDismantle social servicesInstall authoritarian -free market dictatorshipThrow commies out of helicoptersDestroy every last bit of crony-capitalism I can seeInstall a constitutional seperation of business and stateEnter another era of mighty progress and settlements on mars.
>>975853>neo-liberal nonsenseOne word: externalities.
>>975237>So, thoughts on this?anything that restricts freedom of movement is an awful idea.>get put on the no-train listguess you're stuck!>gov shuts down travel arbitrarilyguess you're stuck!>aladdin snackbarguess you're stuck!
>>975463>Wow anon. You even believe your own bullshit, it's amazing.Tell you what, moron: Let's see how the ER staff and the cops feel when you take your toddler with a fever of 104 ON A BICYCLE IN THE RAIN OR THE FREEZING COLD OR BOILING HEAT to the ER. Five bucks says you get CPS called on you, if not a visit by the cops, for reckless endangerment, a thorough review of whether you're competent to be a parent, if not a full-on mental evaluation of whether you're living in reality, or are just delusional/psychotic.YOU NEED A CAR. GET OVER IT AND JUST ACCEPT IT. You can't live like you're 12 years old your whole life.
>>975641>since everything I've went over has been ignored.I ignored everything you had to say because everything you had to say was retarded, ass-backwards, anti-civilization, anti-progress, go-live-like-the-Amish, pants-on-head-retarded and stupid. You're goddamned Peter Pan, you don't want to grow up and take actual responsibility, you want to live in a world where you can be 12 years old, forever. Well, I guess if you want to live alone your whole life, never have a job that's more than a few miles from where you live, and never be taken seriously by anyone, then it's a free country, do it if you like. But the FACTS of the matter are that if you live a life without a car, you will NOT be taken seriously. Many employers will look at you like you're not a responsible person if you don't have a car. Some of them will even assume that you can't get credit to purchase one, and therefore you're a bad risk as an employee. Many rental agencies want to know what make and model car you own as part of their evaluation process for potential renters; if you don't own a car, they'll wonder similar things about you (can't afford one, can't get financing for one, etc); you'll be denied places to live based on their judgement of you. Most women will not consider you to be a responsible, mature adult man if you don't, and furthermore refuse to own a car, and will laugh at you if you show up on foot or on a bicycle for a date, and probably mock you mercilessly if you expect THEM to drive -- but in your case you'd probably look down your nose at them if they own a car. Never mind that a woman who refuses to own a car is also probably not a responsible adult living in reality either.More to follow.
>>975641Then there's what not owning a car will do to your credit rating: Purchasing a car on a bank loan is the number one thing you need to do to build a decent credit history and credit rating. If you refuse to own a car, then your chances of having a decent credit history and credit rating are more or less ZERO. Even if you could get a credit card, that's 'revolving credit', not 'installment credit', and having nothing but 'revolving credit' on your credit history makes you a bad risk so far as banks are concerned. When you purchase a car on a bank loan however the car is worth something to the bank, so they know if you fuck up and not pay them, they can recover their losses. Without a decent credit history and credit rating, you won't be able to get bank financing to own a home, and will always get loanshark interest rates on any revolving credit you might manage to get. Oh and by the way rental agencies and employers regularly check people's credit reports when considering them for renting an apartment or a house or considering them for hiring, and if your credit sucks then you're out on the curb.So you see: Your way of thinking is rediculous, counter-productive, and actually overall irresponsible. You can't live like a kid your entire life and ride a bike everywhere, and refuse to own a motor vehicle. We don't live in a world where you can do that anymore. Feel free to own a car AND a bike, and ride your bike all you like -- but you can't live without a car, not really, and suggesting that EVERYONE should get rid of their cars and ride bikes is about as myopic as you can get. Ironically if you actually do live your life that way regardless, it'll be a moot point anyhow: you won't reproduce anyway, and whatever genetic malfunction is causing this ideation of yours won't get passed on. Call it 'evolution in action'.
>>975950>>975959seems like this 'credit' system you're speaking about is equally if not more heinous than the idea the OP presented.
>>975237Too many niggers for that to work.
Trains should be banned.
>>975266>essentially no large hills in urban areas
>>975976This. It would be wonderful for us to not have to use as many cars, but with nonwhites occupying our civilizations it is impossible as I pointed out in this thread>>973901
>>975243not everyone lives in the city, dumbass.
>>975242>Large sprawling suburban subdivisions could be evacuated and napalmed, their ex-residents being welded shut inside their cages before being tossed into the ocean to be converted into environmentally friendly coral reefs.kekI honestly don't think it would ever happen. Americans love their deathcages too much to let them go without a fight. But sometimes, I imagine what it would be like to live in a city that didn't pander to them.>it's 2030>just got back from work>create a thread on /n/ complaining about those damn bikers>"just ban all wheeled transport for god's sake, they're a danger to pedestrians everywhere!"
>only transportation is a 125cc motorbikeWouldn't care too much. In fact, it would be a lot safer for me.Far too many rich old people here who fly along single-track roads in death machines like that wall from Caligula.
>>975840Doesn't exist dipshit. We're talking about a metro system for a single metropolitan area. You're talking about literally all of the various forms of transit in an entire country.
>>975830It could never be properly implemented. Flying long distance will always be faster.
>>975237Gosh I never realized how much of an echo chamber /n/ is once I came to this retarded thread full of cringeworthy and edgy buzz words such as "DEATH CAGE" "MUH ENVIRONMENT" et cetera.Your utopia is just that: a utopia. It may sound nice on paper, but it will never work in practice. Central planning will be sluggish thanks to large bureaucracy and the typical symptoms of giving a huge responsibility to a small group of people that can't perfectly accommodate for every single neighborhood and individual. Nobody wants to ban bikes, but you spandex wearing faggots always cry about cars and use dumb insults to make yourself feel special. You only make the rest of us look bad.
>>976315New definition of utopia: how humans lived for untold centuries before this one.
>>976319>how humans lived for untold centuries before this oneSolitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
I'm terrified of driving so I'd be excited that public transport would be improved.Public transportation in America sucks.
>>975648He'll just switch from "old people suck" to "damm kids and their rock and roll music"
>>975237Your model needs some refinement. Last mile heavy shipping needs some kind of box truck equivalent, bike/trucks and wheelbarrows can actually cover most of this if some addition accommodations are made. Over all I am not opposed as cars are very wasteful, but think a secondary road network for cross country biking is needed as fail safe along with some other details that need addressing.
Mass death wave of elderly and disabled in rural areas dependent on cars.
>>979162something like this could take care of last mile shipping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkYKjAugJ0cBut you might still need at least some electric cars. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/deutsche-post-wants-its-own-electric-vehicles-64720
>>976624Would you be excited when said public transit becomes too overcrowded to use?
>>979402>because the current capacity of our public transportation network can't Jane everyone getting rid of their cars it means that will always be the caseJust stop already.
>>979418How dense are you? You could vastly increase public transport capacity, but the doesn't change the fundamental fact that the number of riders you'd be adding would massively outpace any remotely plausible level of expansion of service.At the end of the day, you'd end up with systems more overcrowded than anything we have today.This is a basic fact of proportionality. Get it through your head.
For cities, that sounds great. Rails and bikes would work great.Rural areas are fucked if you try and do this though. "oh you want to get food? that'll be 4 hours of biking just to get there"
>>979421No it wouldn't. First of all not all the drivers would transform to using public transportation. There would be a lot of cyclists and walkers as the roads would be relatively empty and there would be hardly any vehicles barring public transportation, emergency and delivery. Yeah there would probably be peaks during commute hours where it could get crowded but even that can be scaled.
>>979439If you think moving the vast majority of individual trips out of cars wouldn't put an absolutely massive amount of pressure on transit systems, even significantly expanded ones, you straight up have no idea about the basic statistics of personal travel in the US.It's a statistical fact that the number of additional transit riders would significantly outpace the practical ability to scale public transit. Period.
>government in charge of all forms of transportation
>>975900What about them, cucklord? You think your big government can control negative externalities? You think government intervention and regulation doesn't create its own class of negative externalities?
>>975237If all cars were banned id be so happy.
>>979442Tell me one reason why buses can't be scaled to provide enough capacity for everyone driving a car before additional systems are introduced. Obviously you'd need time to get enough bus drivers and buses to cover the increased amount of riders but there is nothing that would prevent scaling busses to an enormous amount of new customers as long as the roads are there. And the roads obviously would be there in this case.Inb4 who would make all the buses. Well how about the car companies that have production facilities ready but can't sell cars because people aren't allowed to drive them. In reality you shouldn't ban cars in rural areas. Only villages/suburbs/cities. At least in the first phase.
>>979497Transit agencies are in dog shit financial shape as it is. There no remotely feasible way for them to scale up 10+ fold financially either for buses or rail. Then take away gas taxes, toll road fees, and DMV fees used to fund existing transportation-related public spending and you make the systems even less able to cope financially.At the end of the day, people who think mostly or totally getting rid of private motor transport is a good or feasible idea are fucking idiots. There will ALWAYS be a large place in integrated mobility planning for private transport, and all professional transit planners, urban planners, etc know that. No amount of reality-ignoring, zealot bullshit is going to change that.
>>979435Especially in areas with severe climates. It would take LITERAL risk of starvation to get me to bike for 4 hours each way in 100+ degree heat with 70% humidity. Oh it also randomly downpours for two or so hours every afternoon until November.Fuck that shit. Ill be zipping down the road with AC and the Beastie Boys blasting.>Select all images with carsOh captcha.
>>979506>some transit agencies are in shit financial shape>because of this scaling up buses is impossible everywhereGetting rid of private CAR transportation is totally feasible if you only limit it to cities. Would also provide massive boosts to public health and quality of air. I agree that it won't work in rural areas.
>Ban All CarsCan you imagine how faggy Mad Max would be if everyone was riding bicycles and mopeds.Think before you post anon
>>979223No, I was thinking more heavy last mile, focus on heavy. Small stuff like that fist link can be moved by bike, but many pallet transports are in the 500lb to 1,000lb range and small/medium trucks move more then one in range of 7,000lb to 20,000lb. True, many could be broken down in new formats, but the the dramatic increase in number of trips to transport makes things more complicated then many people realize and such things are fairly physically demanding and relatively slow, not that I need it fast like most impatient spoiled people. I have worked a flooring store and grocery store, both take in larger heavy pallets then resell them to individuals. But getting those things to the store in such volume is what concerns me. It is lots of middle back-end stuff people don't see or think about, but is vital if you want a new house or food in your grand society. You are trying to replace these middle ground things, as they are too localized to justify train tracks as trains aren't flexible enough to meet such changing demands, yet large enough that you are pushing past the upper limits of what a bike can do in a reliable and repetitive fashion. That second link, seems more in line with this issues, but there are still a number of other cases that need addressing. UPS, FedEx and such can atomize their loads, typically to manageable 45lb boxes. But what about ordering a refrigerator or stove? Construction sites are a big one, but if the job is big enough a small temporary train might be setup to deal with the heavy loads during the main job but that still would cut out the individual home builder/buy as that job is too small for trains, but too big for bikes. There are likely more as each market has its own needs, the answer doesn't have to be perfect, but it needs to get it done well enough we don't radically change even more parts of our society as there are limits to what people would call reasonable change.
>>975959>you need to buy a car on credit to build credit historyYou americucks sure are 120% idiots.
you don't need trucks, you can haul cargo with a tram
>>975261motorcyckles polute about as much as full size carsand what about those of us with weak knees and who have to hual lots of equipment to work?
>>975959Fuck you asshole. You don't know a fucking thing about personal finance. Stop talking immediately.
I would buy a horse.I need to generate horsepower somehow.
Cars are the cancer that killed civilization. Enjoy your oil-funded spread of fundamentalist islam.
>>975945Besides the fact that you can catch a cab or uber any time, there are these things called ambulances.
>>982263While I hate cars as much as the /n/ext guy, you realizs oil is used for a lot more than just transportation, right? Plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc.
>>979492I really like this image.
We don't need more public transport. We need people driving/riding single passenger vehicles. Motorbikes even. But better than that, things like the velomobile. Basically we need more bike like objects but not traditionally shaped and regulated by the uci. We need pedal assist bikes too, all these lazy fat car drivers aren't going to be able to pedal themselves.
>>982285There's also oil that's produced outside of arab countries. If we didn't need uber-shitloads of oil for cars we could probably do without the shitskin oil.
>>982288And I think cars are making the roads inhospitable to other forms of personal transport. Riding bicycles in traffic is tough. Cars don't respect you. They don't give way to you. We need to stop this. Most people cannot deal being in constant danger, being harassed/beeped at, being cut off. So how can anyone choose to not drive a car?
>>982290Last time I checked, roads were being built especially for cars. So duh, of course they are inhospitable for bicycles. Since automobiles aren't going away, except maybe perhaps in some /n/ posters wet dreams, the solution is to build more exclusive bicycle trails.
>>975460>wasted roadspace.There are still good reason to space out buildings. Both fires and access for emergency services come to mind.>>975358>No more wading past surface lots. No more constant noise, no more breathing in piles of exhaust.I agree with you about the benefits, but you're completely failing to consider the drawbacks. A lot of the traffic in daily life is business and freight traffic, which would still need roads and would still pollute in the same way as before. There is a massive loss of dynamic movement if you removed cars and even moreso if the road network went. We would have to bring back heavily polluted industrial districts to provide industrial railway goods service and introduce industrial trams once more, and this alone would probably make up for what you "save" by removing cars. Don't kid yourself. This idea is wholly unrealistic. >Maybe get a decent public transport network at last. There are MANY situations where public transportation has huge flaws. Trains and trams are not particularly dynamic because they require a rail and they can't climb hills well, air is obviously nonsense for short distances and busses would be constantly full and so you'd have to increase frequency of bus departures, which generates traffic and the chain reaction of delays would still be a problem with busses. There are many places where busses are not profitable, even if it's in a city, and on top of that there's many areas where busses do not go from often enough (once every 2-3 hours, or even less frequent) simply because there's not enough people living there to make it profitable.>muh cager boogeymanStop being so arrogant. I typically walk when I have to go somewhere and I have far more problems with absolutely respectless cyclists running me down where there's not cycle lanes, while cars stop on crossovers and red lights. I've never been even close to being run over by a car, but I've been run over by cyclists many times.Kill yourself.
>>975370>Fuck disabled people. Having to cater to them ruins public transport for the rest of us and bogs it down. Wheelchair vans could still be legal to haul gimps around so they can sit at the mall and look miserable all day.Yes, you're not the problem at all. It's everyone else, cyclists are just innocent children!
>>982265Wow, it's almost like they need maintained roads!
>>982840Trains and trams can be powered by electric, gained from nuclear and other clean sources.The real reason that this would never happen is the same reason that trams and railways were killed off in the West in the first place: tax money and lobbies.This is your big flaw: you don't see that we somehow managed without every single person having a gigantic car, and requiring and even bigger road (that often paves over countryside that people complain over having lost) for them to go on.
Fun fact: banning carriages from the city is actually an ancient Roman idea. It was not a total ban, just daytime traffic. But this might be good enough. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-downtown-traffic-day
>>982854>Trains and trams can be powered by electric, gained from nuclear and other clean sources.I know this, but it doesn't solve the problem that you'd need to centralise both industry and people again, creating lots of pollution in cities due to the reduced mobility of both people and goods. The only way it would work is if you lived in a dream world where industry didn't pollute, but the truth is that cars are actually a really minimal part of pollution (at least where I live).>The real reason that this would never happen is the same reason that trams and railways were killed off in the West in the first placeRail transport wasn't killed off in the west just because the US don't do it anymore. The US has a massively used goods network for rail, but that rail network depends on trucks and shit to transport the goods to the goods terminal(s). European countries have lots of rural trains, many of them have high-speed trains and use said high-speed network for goods trains too. Sadly, my country is not one of those that have a high-speed rail network (yet, because of extremely mountainous terrain). I fucking love trains and wish they were used more, but I am also realistic about it. What you said doesn't change the fact that banning cars, even in just cities, would be extremely impractical and reduce mobility for everyone, including industry and business. It would be a far better solution to push the switch to electrically driven cars, or hydrogen fuel cells or something like that. >This is your big flaw: you don't see that we somehow managed without every single person having a gigantic carWe managed this with the massively reduced life expectancy in cities, hundreds of thousands dying because of huge industrial districts that polluted the shit out of everything and made every single building sooty. Industry may be less polluting today, but it's still enough to seriously reduce health if the large industrial districts were brought back.
>>982854>>982860And let's not forget that if you scrap road maintenance (which require about as much maintenance when unused as when used) you'd have issues getting public services like firefighters and healthcare to respond to emergencies. We would still need the roads if private cars were banned, in cities too, and they'd cost just as much to maintain.
>>982861People who choose to live in bum fuck nowhere don't expect emergency services to show up instantly. Just look at the scalia death timeline. They had to pronounce him dead over the phone and this was a highly important person.The definition of "bum fuck nowhere" would simply be revised to include far sprawl where people currently expect mommy to come rescue them when they start a fire or whatever.You can still get helicopters out to remote areas, it's just a much bigger deal. People can choose where to live accordingly.
>>982909>People who choose to live in bum fuck nowhere don't expect emergency services to show up instantly.Yes, so let's just make it even slower and more unreliable. That'll help!Just fuck those people who don't live in cities anyway. Who the fuck cares about them or their liberty to live where they want to? Fucking privileged scum
>>982923>that'll helpAre you implying it won't?People don't magically pop up in places for no reasonStop encouraging people to inhabit remote territory and wasting resources catering to their delusional belief in self reliance
>>982947Or you could fuck off and not tell other people where to live and just kill yourself.
>>982997You can choose to live wherever you want. I find it interesting that you are so irrationally angry about this topic that you actually used sage, like that is going to somehow stop the urbanization of humanity
>>982947>Are you implying it won't?Help what, exactly? Urbanisation? Probably, by forcefully reducing their living standards, but it won't help the people that live there, which is what I was referring to you colossal retard.>Stop encouraging people to inhabit remote territory and wasting resources catering to their delusional belief in self relianceThey have their right to live where they want and a butthurt metrosexual faggot like you isn't going to change that. Hell, I wouldn't live in a city if I had a choice because I dislike all the people. It's even necessary in some cases, like food production with current technology. There's multiple other reasons to keep the current road infrastructure like it is and there's multiple problems with abolishing it, but you just ignored every other argument I made so I'm not sure you're worth wasting time on.You're just a fucking idiot.>>983009I have no problems with people moving into cities if it's voluntary, but if you effectively tell them to move into a city or kill themselves then yes I have a problem with it.
>>983032>if you effectively tell them to move into a city or kill themselvesPeople lived for tens of thousands of years without being able to dial 9-1-1 and get some helpers to show up instantly with a fire hose and an oxygen mask, I think you'll be fine. Oh, you didn't really mean it when you said you want to be self-reliant rough and tough pioneer? Then you can live in civilization, your choice. No death squads will come and arrest you.But if you want to kill yourself because you can't handle freedom, who am I to try to discourage you? It's your freedom to do that, too.
>>983035>People lived for tens of thousands of years without being able to dial 9-1-1 and get some helpers to show up instantly with a fire hose and an oxygen maskSee this guy's post: >>976327With a life expectancy of 30? I don't think we want to go back to that. By the way, by banning cars you'd cause a similar drop in life expectancy in cities too, as I pointed out earlier:>There is a massive loss of dynamic movement if you removed cars and even moreso if the road network went. We would have to bring back heavily polluted industrial districts to provide industrial railway goods service and introduce industrial trams once more, and this alone would probably make up for what you "save" by removing cars.If you fancy living in an industrial hellhole cities from the 70's, go ahead, ban cars. Cars are not even close to the biggest problem even in modern cities. >Oh, you didn't really mean it when you said you want to be self-reliant rough and tough pioneer?I never said that. It's just your dumb fucking strawman.>Then you can live in civilization, your choiceSurprise, surprise. Currently, rural areas are part of civilisation. No-one ever claimed otherwise, but you're suggesting they just shouldn't be because of your own personal vendetta against cars. >But if you want to kill yourself because you can't handle freedom, who am I to try to discourage you?>ban cars and take away people's ability to have almost unlimited mobility>freedomHow fucking retarded are you?
>>983040>With a life expectancy of 30?Maybe with your sedentary lifestyle. Life expectancy in olden times had a great deal more to do with infant mortality, lack of understanding of sanitation, and so on, and a great deal less to do with your irrational , bordering psychotic compulsion to trap yourself in a metal and glass box for 1000+ hours a year and alternately press two different pedals while raging hysterically at the sight of another human being (or cage enclosing a human being, as the case may be)
>>983042>Maybe with your sedentary lifestyle.It's not sedentary, but you're too busy projecting to notice that. I've stated already that I live in the middle of a city. >Life expectancy in olden times had a great deal more to do with infant mortality, lack of understanding of sanitation, and so onWhat you say is true, but you are delusional if you actually believe that modern medicine isn't a huge part of what has reduced infant mortality, killed off flu as an actual threatening sickness and made it almost harmless etc. Let's not forget heart diseases, liver failures and all sorts of other things that cause the death of people unless they're responded to fast.By banning cars and removing roads you're directly reducing their life expectancy by cutting off access. It's a retarded idea. >great deal less to do with your irrational , bordering psychotic compulsion to trap yourself in a metal and glass box for 1000+ hours a year and alternately press two different pedals while raging hysterically at the sight of another human being Nice projections again, but I'm too poor to own a car nor do I actually need one. I just realise that banning other people's ability to have a car and drive it is fucking retarded, and abolishing roads is even worse.
>>983045I didn't realize that a car was a form of modern medicine. Are you the one who suggested that not being able to drive a cage to the nearest shopping mall would cause nuclear armageddon earlier in this thread?Amazing what one can learn from listening to cagers!
>>983046>I didn't realize that a car was a form of modern medicine.Jesus christ, your reading comprehension is beyond saving. I said it massively helps availability, not that it's a modern medicine. >Are you the one who suggested that not being able to drive a cage to the nearest shopping mall would cause nuclear armageddon earlier in this thread?No. This is my first post: >>982840>Amazing what one can learn from listening to cagers!>hurr durr muh ebul cager boogeymanI already told you I don't own a car. Are you going to actually deal with my arguments or are you going to just ignore them and project strawmans onto me?
>>983047Ok, I'll discuss your arguments:Argument 1: If we don't blanket every square inch of the planet with emergency services with the kind of responsiveness expectations typical of an urban core, literally everyone outside those urban cores will get leprosy, the bubonic plague, and forget how to wash their hands after wiping their asses overnightResponse: you are right, how could I forget thatArgument 2: If we stop subsidizing the cager-centric lifestyle, suddenly all transportation, logistics, manufacturing, and distribution will cease instantly and we will have to resort to cannibalism and growing produce in our toilet bowlsResponse: quite right, how could I have failed to miss thatArgument 3: Wasteful suburban sprawl is my god-given right and is in no way driven by policy or zoning laws, any effort to change that in any way is literally the same thing as medieval serfdomResponse: I can't believe how selfish I was, I'm going to burn down my high rise right now and move out to Levittown where humans were meant to live, this is the only way to save humanity
>>983049>paraphrasing the arguments into convenient strawmansThat's not really dealing with it, is it? Well, at least everyone else who reads this thread is going to see how fucking stupid your arguments are.
>>983050I don't even need to make up a straw man when you're the one posting stuff like:>you're directly reducing people's life expectancy to 30 yearsNot to mention your bizarre attempt to equate cars and emergency services with stuff like vaccines, preventive medicine, and the ability to stop long-term liver disease (almost always caused by either alcohol abuse or preventable diseases, as opposed to something that just TOTALLY COMES OUTTA NOWHERE like that cyclist you didn't see while texting)
>>983052Argument: People got by fine beforeAnswer: Yes, with a life expectancy of 30I wasn't saying it would be reduced to 30. I said that a return of large industrial districts would negatively affect the health of everyone who lives in cities, which would also reduce their life expectancy. For people in rural places, the loss of availability to health care will also reduce their life expectancy. >Not to mention your bizarre attempt to equate cars and emergency services with stuff like vaccines, preventive medicineI don't. I say that emergency services USE roads and cars to increase their availability for acute cases. Common people also use their own cars to attend an appointment with a GP or they take another person who is suffering, perhaps from something acute, to medical clinics and hospitals by themselves, which also increases availability. >almost always caused by either alcohol abuseThis was the thought behind it. It may not be the most acute one, but let's say someone eats the wrong mushroom and gets kidney failures instead then. There, you have an acute case. Even if we move past emergency services I mentioned multiple problems which you didn't bother to respond to.
>>983057>a return of large industrial districts would negatively affect the health of everyone who lives in citiesWhat is the mechanism behind this "return of large industrial districts"?>For people in rural places, the loss of availability to health care will also reduce their life expectancy. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not advocating for the complete abolition of all internal combustion engines. I'm suggesting that personal cars be banned or massively reduced. People can still choose to live in rural places if they can accept the consequences (having to figure out how to get to a clinic using some kind of shared autonomously driving taxi service, or whatever)>let's say someone eats the wrong mushroom and gets kidney failures instead thenPeople hurt themselves in rural areas all the time, they either work it out, or they don't. What I'm suggesting is that if we stop encouraging this insane sprawl that assumes that you drive your personal cage to even pick up groceries, maybe the people who are really hell bent on living the pioneer lifestyle will still go for it, but those who just bought a house in the 'burbs because it was a little cheaper (even factoring in gas and cage purchase price) than life in the city, people might actually reconsider and opt for a less wasteful lifestyle once they realize they have to look after themselves a bit more if they absolutely have to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere>Even if we move past emergency services I mentioned multiple problems which you didn't bother to respond to.I'm not sure which problem you are referring to, because I have a hard time taking any of it seriously given your bizarre reasoning about all of this
>>983060>What is the mechanism behind this "return of large industrial districts"?If you remove cars then you need a new way to give freight availability to industry, and that would happen to be rail, which causes centralisation around where the rail station is.>Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not advocating for the complete abolition of all internal combustion enginesI thought you were, which is why my previous argument was even a thing. I aw people in this thread saying we could save massive amounts of money by just not maintaining roads and save city space by removing them, and I think that's a really bad idea. >I'm suggesting that personal cars be banned or massively reduced. I can see the problem in the US. In my own country, there's not three cars for every household so it's not really a big problem, but it's definitely out of hand in the US. >People can still choose to live in rural places if they can accept the consequencesThis is where I disagree however. The removal of suburbs are also a bad idea. People should be able to live in the circumstances they would like to without suffering massively from it.>People hurt themselves in rural areas all the time, they either work it out, or they don't. Kidney failure is quite a bit more severe than just hurting themselves. There are many mushrooms that cause acute kidney failure within 24 hours or less. It's just an example, but what I'm saying that _anywhere_ there will be need for good availability of emergency services and that means, in many cases, personal cars and maintained roads. >What I'm suggesting is that if we stop encouraging this insane sprawl that assumes that you drive your personal cage to even pick up groceriesIt sort of depends on how the city is laid out. Here there is a shop within walking distance anywhere. If the only way to pick them up is to go to some commercial district fucking miles away then that's a problem with the city itself.(1/?)
>>983065>>983060(2/2)>people might actually reconsider and opt for a less wasteful lifestyle once they realize they have to look after themselves a bit more if they absolutely have to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhereThis "fuck everyone who disagrees with me" attitude is cancerous. The best solution would be to start a conversion to electric cars or other alternative fuels like hydrogen fuel cells like I mentioned before.>I'm not sure which problem you are referring to, because I have a hard time taking any of it seriously given your bizarre reasoning about all of thisIt's only bizarre because people make ludicrous suggestions in this thread.
>>983065>If you remove cars then you need a new way to give freight availability to industryI generally don't see freight being transported by car, what world do you live in where this is actually a thing?>People should be able to live in the circumstances they would like to without suffering massively from it.What massive suffering? Ted Kaczynski didn't suffer from living in bumfuck nowhere, he only flipped his shit when someone built a road on his favorite valley. If you want to be Ted Kaczynski, I'm not suggesting that anyone try and stop you, on the contrary you should be helped. But it's important to recognize what you are actually after, and that is genuine self-reliance, not this bogus "self reliance" where the whaambulance comes and picks you up when your self-inflicted cirrhosis kicks in after decades of alcohol abuse>This "fuck everyone who disagrees with me" attitude is cancerousI couldn't agree more, there is an overwhelming movement towards urbanization and a small, shrill minority is trying to punish anyone who wants urban people to suffer. If you disagree with the inevitable progress of humanity, then it is your freedom to do so, but don't fuck over everyone else to subsidize your delusions of being a self-reliant "pioneer". You can do that on your own terms.
>>983009You're the one who openly tried to claim everyone who doesn't live in a dense urban area think of themselves as rugged individualists. The vast majority of people in rural areas aren't farmers or ranchers or survivalists. They're just people who happen to not live in a major metro you conceited fucking cunt.
>>982947That's not the main reason people choose to not live in the middle of a city. It makes no sense that you would claim as such.
>>983079>I generally don't see freight being transported by car, what world do you live in where this is actually a thing?Uhh, Europe? Rail transport is like 8% of freight transport in the EU and road transport is the vast majority. In cities, there's also trucks everywhere to distribute what freight does come from the goods terminals and harbours. You're fucking retarded if you actually believe that road freight isn't a huge sector, largely because it's a lot more dynamic and on-demand than any other service. There is _loads_ of traffic generated by road freight. You must be really sheltered to never have seen it. >What massive suffering?Worse access to services, you dumb fuck. If you've ever inserted a new window or something you'd know.>small, shrill minority is trying to punish anyone who wants urban people to sufferNo-one is actively trying to punish people for living in a city. People have cars because they think it convenient, not because they hate everyone else who lives in the same city as them and want to piss them off. >If you disagree with the inevitable progress of humanity>It's THE CURRENT YEAR therefore we should ban things I don't like>but don't fuck over everyone else to subsidize your delusions of being a self-reliant "pioneer".There's this strawman again. I don't know where you got the idea that people who don't live in cities see themselves as that.
>>983216>road freight means it was transported by a personal carthat's a lot of text to make such a retarded claim
>>983217>that's a lot of text to make such a retarded claim>hurrrrrrrIt requires maintained roads, you dumb shit, and that's the point. In other words, it might just be that maintaining roads have more purposes than having personal cars on them!Also, there are cases where personal cars are more practical too. If you're moving a lot of stuff, or moving something heavy for example.
>>983220Nobody is suggesting getting rid of roads in populated areasWhat's your concern? That the rocks and trees and rabbits out in bumfuck nowhere are going to be making a lot of Amazon Prime orders?
>>983220Also I've moved twice now without a personal cage and had no problemsIt's much easier and less stressful to hire a professional mover with a truck
>>983222>Nobody is suggesting getting rid of roads in populated areasYes, I guess that's why this thread is full of such suggestions then
>>983225Actual populated areas, anonNot already sparsely populated exurban sprawl zones where nobody ought to be living anywayIf you can walk outside right now and shout and nobody can hear you, it's not a populated area
>>979643>Can you imagine how faggy Mad Max would be if everyone was riding bicycles and mopeds.Don't have to imagine it.
>>975237>roads would now be open for bicycle travelThat's what OP wrote, so roads will still be there. But I guess without billions of cages there would be no need for twelve lane highways any more. The main flaw in this concept of a cage free world is the need for ambulance, fire trucks, garbage trucks, construction vehicles, police cars, and all these cars and trucks necessary for business.
>>983297>ambulance, fire trucks, garbage trucks, construction vehicles, police cars>muh red herringHow many percent are they again? In my town they're about 7%. They can get by just fine on a fraction of the infrastructure now devoted to cages.
>>983297Look at it this way, take away 3 of 6 lanes of a highway, you'll have 3 lanes for emergency services/courier vehicles. If it isn't congested, these services will be much quicker not having to wait in traffic or part them.
>>983331What you're missing is that cagers are a vindictive bunch, if they can't have their personal deathmobile, they'll make sure commercial and emergency vehicles are sabotaged
>>983344>>983297Wasn't there a study that increasing lanes actually also increases congestion?
>>983717Lanes are situational and this also depends on what sort of intersections exist. You can't make a blanket statement that increasing the lanes will increase congestion. The US is in the situation where they keep creating more and more lanes on their roads to increase capacity, instead of developing more efficient intersections (both space-wise and performance-wise).
>>983838>You can't make a blanket statement that increasing the lanes will increase congestion.Yes you can, with the caveat that it applied within and around cities. New roads and more lanes create new travel paterns with longer and more frequent travel. More than the extra capacity you built. The larger, now heavily trafficed roads are also more susceptible to traffic jams and the natural formation of queues through rubberbanding. It has been widely studied and is well understood.
>>983842>Yes you can, with the caveat that it applied within and around citiesI'm guessing you don't understand the meaning of "situational". The problem with many lanes in a city combined with murrica's grid system is that you absolutely _need_ 4-way intersections with traffic lights every 100 metres. It's the intersections, merges and splits (especially if there's weaving) and interchanges that create congestion, and particularly 4-way intersections are very inefficient. Blame bad road design, not the lanes.
>>983848Grid or not has nothing to do with it and the same effect is observed in non-grid European cities. It's even worse with transport roads built largely without intersections.
It just wouldn't do much good banning cars, they should be on the table with all other forms of transportation.What should be done however is that cities should strive to make it so that their citizens don't need to have cars to effectively get around. Improve existing bus services so that they are actually useful, augment it in some areas with rail transit on busy corridors, build bike lanes and multi-purpose trails in a network that makes them good for transit, and encourage newer developments with Self-Driving Cars and ridesharing. You could cut down traffic to make driving more pleasant, and make it so that there are many options for getting around rather than just one real one.
>>983961There's nothing that could be done, in Britain at least, that would stop people using the car.The issue isn't government legislation, but rather people.
>>983966Well, it would be more about letting people drive when they want to, but not have to make daily commutes in a car because all the other options just aren't suitable.
>>983894In this contex and for the purpose of this discussion non-grid European cities tend to be largely isomorphic to grid based cities.
>>983966And that would also apply to the US where there are 255 million registered passenger vehicles with approximately 5 million being added every year. Ban all cars? Just put down the crack pipe.
>>984026>>983966You can ban almost all cars within cities. Make some parking lots in the outskirts and force everyone to take transit. In a small scale this already happens in some cities, where the central core is restricted to automobiles but allows public transit and service vehicles. You just need to expand that concept to ever larger areas. As long as you have transit coverage everyone has a viable transportation option.
Relevant:http://www.fastcoexist.com/3045836/heres-what-happened-when-a-neighborhood-decided-to-ban-cars-for-a-monthA city in Korea banned cars from a neighborhood for a full month. Everyone loved it and some space was permanently reclaimed for pedestrians afterwards.
Wouldn't work in Canada. Everything is too far away. You're looking for a 45 minute drive down a bendy road to get to the next town of 400 residents.
>>984034Tell Toronto that, or Vancouver, or Montreal
>>984389I think the premise is banning cars for intra-city transportation.Of course you need personal transportation if you live on a rural farmstead in the sticks, but if you live in a city dense enough to have any kind of mass transit then the city could remove private car traffic and redirect road, highway, and parking spending towards radical transit and bike infrastructure expansion. And also revise the zoning laws to stop making walking-oriented development illegal.
>>979492>implying cyclists ride anywhere near that closeIs that a cycling promotion fund that is anti-bicycle?Basically bikes are complete shit, cars are better, and buses are most efficient.
> going camping by trainWhat is this I don't even
>>984389I live in Canada. Cars have no place in our urban core, but we've already fucked ourselves by sprawling out to oblivion everywhere. Yeah, you're going to need motorized transport if you live in a rural area, but building suburbs has already condemned like half of our population to cager hell
>>984828>build good and fast suburban trains>have lots of bus/tram lines running through the burbs feeding the trains>???>profitit really isn't rocket science m8
banning cars from cities should be good enough
>>984493>going camping by carJUST
>>982854>nuclear >clean
>>982923Your "liberty" to live wherever you want is not infringed. Just don't expect any type of service in your desolate area
>>988122Pseudo-environmentalist scum detected. Nuclear is literally cleaner than PV solar.
>>988125Except for all that nuclear waste, right?
>>988146You mean the high level waste that, after 50 years of production, still only covers a few football fields a few feet deep? And because of the lack of actinide reprocessing, is actually made up of a decent amount of unused fuel? Yes, clearly that is *such* a massive problem. A *total* dealbreaker.
>>988123Too bad for you that there are already countless intertwined laws that make providing certain services to rural areas a federal and state requirement. That's NEVER going to go away.
>>988146It's doesn't just sit in open air like coal ash ponds. Modern nuclear waste storage is almost impossible to breach by any plausible means. Oh and you're exposed to more radiation living within 50 miles of a coal plant than you are within 50 miles of a nuclear plant.
>>988152>>988159And I quote:>Nuclear is literally cleaner than PV solar.Except it isn't. Solar Panels don't produce radioactive waste. You can say Nuclear Power is cleaner than Coal, that would be for the most part accurate as it only spews water vapor into the air and not a cocktail of pent up carbon and minerals, while the nuclear waste is contained in caskets.But there is no world where Nuclear is cleaner than Solar Panels. None, not even in mining the required materials.
>>988170Have you factored in the amount of energy compared to the environmental impact?
>>988170Nuclear "waste" (actually unspent fuel) is not a concern if you reprocess it. Even with the extra land used by the storage it still uses less land per unit energy generated than solar. Meanwhile, yes, solar PV does pollute more than nuclear per unit energy produced when including mining the materials. If I wasn't posting on mobile I'd even paste a reference for you.
>>988192>reprocess it.I swear reprocessing spent Nuclear fuel is banned in practically every country that uses Nuclear power. It has something to do with Plutonium.
>>988193>sellafield>fast breeders
In a city, absolutely, as long as the public transport isn't a hopelessly inept badly managed shitshow, which excludes 90% of cities
>>975242>treating human life with such contempt.>their ex-residents being welded shut inside their cages before being tossed into the oceanNice contempt for human life.
>>98824190% of American and third world cities my dear friend.
>>988157Enjoy your ever increasing taxes
>>975237How would you get to the train station if it was too far to walk?
>>988327Joke's on you dipshit, that hasn't happened in observable reality. Try being more of an uneducated shitstain.
>>988333By bike, electric bike, moped, bus or tram.>wew lad
>>975237My work requires me to carry about half a ton or so of electrical equipment with me at all times. I keep a 1 ton company van at home to do this & drive anywhere within a roughly 30mi radius of my work center. Assuming you want to keep enjoying things like internet, electricity, working trains, etc this is impractical. You would need to keep those roads open for people like me to maintain/service the systems you take for granted or civilization would just fall back 100 years. And if we're allowed to drive, somebody is going to have to maintain those roads. You're going to need money, and the only sure way to get it is to allow other people to drive & pay for those roads through services offered by a DMV.Self-driving hydrogen fueled cars are what we need.
>>988344I'm sorry sir, but your post is much too practical for this thread. You'll have to completely lose your grip on reality if you want to continue.
>>988344>You would need to keep those roads open for people like me to maintain/service the systems you take for granted or civilization would just fall back 100 years.What does this have to do with allowing cars for personal transportation? You just license car use and ownership like anything else. Prove you have a need, such as yours, and you get to own a gas guzzler. If you don't, it's not allowed in the city.The roads would be there anyway, if downsized, because where else would you bike?>Self-driving hydrogen fueled cars are what we need.Doesn't solve crowding.
>>988344>& pay for those roads through services offered by a DMVI forgot to adress this. Roads are not paid for by "road tax". They are payed for by income tax. They already are. No changes needed. You don't pay for the roads as a car owner - you pay as an income tax payer.
>>988344>carry about half a ton or so of electrical equipment with me at all timesJust to carry it around?
Cars represent freedom and capitalism.
>>988381Hmmm, you don't suppose that he needs all that equipment to perform his work? Perhaps this is a concept most of the anti-car jihad hasn't dealt with.yet.
>>988334You're really that dense?
>>988344Okay, you actually use an automobile for work. Great. Most people don't. Almost all driving is done by single people transporting nothing but their fat bodies.
>>988250the thirst for oil caused by privileging car transport has done much worse things to humanitythis would be mercy
>>988396So said something that has been proven factually false for decades and got called out for being wrong. Move on.
>>988687You actually didn't prove shit. You need to move on
>>988388I've never seen a worker taking all this crap in his car to his real workplace in the third floor of a house. So I guess much of this "half a ton or so" is just dead weight.
>>988384>cars represent freedom>but can only be driven on these government-sanctioned roadslel
>>988913You know what they say, 20% of the stuff is used 80% of the time. The trouble is that you never know which of the remaining 80% you need that 20% of the time. Gotta carry it all.
>>988913Perhaps it's possible, just possible, that he doesn't use all this equipment on every job? Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean that it's not true.
>>975242>More rail servicewill be antiquated by autonomous cars>>976315>thinking that only bicyclists hate cars
are there any documentaries that touches on this topic?
>>989177>will be antiquated by autonomous carsI can't wait to sit in a vehicle that gets stuck in traffic jams all by itself.
I wouldn't want to ban literally all cars but I would want to change planning law so that we do away with this ridiculous notion that everyone needs to be able to drive a car everywhereParking is near-worthless land, the wider streets are the worseCongestion charges so that inner city driving is mostly restricted to commercial vehicles (taxis, buses and vans)Bike lanes everywhere
>>989884
>>988384Cars are literally slavery and socialism.>can only drive where state permits>police can pull you over at any time>need to pay the state for the right to drive one>send money to fundamentalist islamic states and fund the spread of terrorism every time you fuel up>isolatess you from your fellow human>literally fart poison into the air we breathe>atrophied legs>nickel&dimed by rent-seekers>roads are funded by general taxation, auto taxes barely cover half the cost of roads>corrupt planning has intentionally forced people to drive cars by making amenity hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, and doing away with public transportCars are the albatross around the neck of civilization.
>>989879FUKKEN THISTHANK YOU BASED ANONI'm so sick and tired of people spouting that automated cars are the future when the traffic jams will be the same.
>>989879>>989892You're retarded and have no understanding of the basic concepts behind autonomous driving.
>>988768How motherfucking willfully ignorant can you be? It is a fact, not an opinion. These laws have been on the books for decades in most cases and the average tax burden has not significantly increased. In fact, for many people it has decreased.
>>989898and shitloads of local munis are constantly going broke for this same reason
>>989897I'm sure it'll be great.
>>989892>believing thisWhy is the average 4chan user so retarded?The difference will be like organizing files by hand in a computer versus letting the computer do it all for you in the most efficient way possible.
>>989995>one is a dimensionless abstraction>the other is two tons of steel and glassNo, anon, it wont magically make cars smaller or queues shorter. Your retarded analogy shows you have no idea about why traffic jams form or why cars as personal transport needs to go.A better analogy would be that you're running out of hard drive space. How is the computer sorting files for you going to give you more harddrive space?Puplic transport is block deduplication and electric bikes a 90% efficiency file compression algorithm. Automated driving is defragmentation.
>>990003Because autonomous cars allow for more storage density, like moving from audio CD to DVD to Blu-ray discsWhen all of the cars can speak to one another we can use mathematics to optimize their movement
>>990010>Because autonomous cars allow for more storage densityNo, anon, they do not. On a microscopic scale that may be true and that's why i compared it to defragmentation. If you have several file fragments smaller that the block size you can recover some small volume by packing them continuously.A backed up highway today is, however, already packed bumber to bumber, and there is nothing about autonomous cars that can increase density. Making travelers occupy less space is what increases density, just like making the blocks smaller is what gives Blu-ray better storage density. You could perhaps argue that your autonomous cars are better able to prevent traffic jams, but you'd be wrong there too. Traffic jams are very well understood on a mathematical level, and the only effective means of combating them we have is lowering the speed limit to prevent feedback systems that give rise to them.The problem is one if simple physical volume. You can't have travelers each being several meters wide, and twice as long, in a context where space is at a premium.
>>989941It's weird that you're doubling down on your flagrant ignorance.
>>990018>>990003Most traffic is caused by humans being shitty at driving. That's a fact.
>>990018>A backed up highway today is, however, already packed bumber to bumberhow the fuck do you actually believe this?>the only effective means of combating them we have is lowering the speed limit to prevent feedback systems that give rise to themthere is no unnecessary braking and accelerating when the whole grid is connectedit moves as one unit
>>990042>if these drove themselves they'd be so much smaller>geniuinely believing automatic cars are goin to solve the massive car footprint>yfw you realise that this is a single tram worth of """traffic"""
fucking cagefags
>>990042I'm sure we'll see road trains any year now. Right before the flying cars.The motor industry have been making promises to the effect that all the problems of car travel have a solution just around the corner, literaly since the inception of car travel. They have not come true yet, and they will not in the future.Let's start shifting the transport system to existing real world-proven systems of sustainable footprint - both ecologically and in terms of livable cities. If the pie in the sky fantasies of car apologists ever come true we might let them have a fair slice of physical space back. Say, as much city space per person as any other traveler occupies.
>>990051it wouldn't get to that point to begin withthat whole picture is caused by system inefficiencies
>>990054autonomous, networked cars are not a pie in the sky idea, they have already been implemented
>>990061>that whole picture is caused by system inefficienciesHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>990064there is not a capacity problem, it's a design problemI could fit twice as many cars into that space and by eliminating reaction time would allow them to move fasterthat's not to mention automatic rerouting to other roadways>The cause of the traffic jam was reported to be a spike in traffic by heavy trucks heading to Beijing, along with National Highway 110's maintenance work that began five days later. The road construction which reduced the road capacity by 50% contributed heavily to the traffic jam and was not due to be completed until mid-September. Police reported that breakdowns and accidents were compounding the problem>50% capacity>unintended spike of heavy trucks (which would be 100% accounted for in a network)>accidents (not happening)>breakdowns (you got me there)
>>990063So have hovercars and helicopters. Doesn't mean they'll ever solve our transportation problems or reduce congestion.
>>990061>that whole picture is caused by system inefficienciesYes. Yes, it is. The inefficiency is one vehicle per person, but sized for five people plus loads of luggage. To get some efficiency to it we need one _seat_ per person on a larger, denser vehicle. That would be a more efficient system, anon. Then we wouldn't have this problem, anon. Then we wouldn't need eight lanes of traffic in the middle of our fucking sities, anon.
>>984469>implying cars are driven anywhere as near as those are parked either>implying 9/1 isnt the widely accepted cyclist/car road denisty ratio>implying busses arent slightly more space efficient at the cost of having to transport everyone everywhere as opposed to directly to their individual destination thereby negating the efficiency advantageYour whole argument is fallacious. Eat a dick.
>>990088Not that other anon. Standard buses aren't too efficient, they're about at par with cars. Articulated are somewhat better. A 2nd gen tram on the other hand carries about as much as a highway.
>>989941Pretty much this. "oh don't look at alternatives we'll fix it in the future" :^)We've ended up with a society of entitled morons who view their fellow civilians as nothing more than obstacles, when in fact it is the atrophied degenerate and the huge cage they drag their lazy ass arond that is the obstacle.
>>990076You are flat out mathematically incorrect if you don't think automation reduces congestion. I bet you think modern train control systems on metros don't allow trains to run closer together compared to legacy controls.
ITT: "Let's not improve the systems we have at all"
just imagine a world without cagefaggery ruining transportation
>>990227Just imagine a world without petulant children calling for the elimination of cars.
>>990236t. polluter
>>990241t. neet
>>990247t. fat
>>990236>Just imagine a world without petulant children demanding to drive cars at any cost+1
>>989177>le autonomous car memeFucking christ I hate this shit. It's straight up wrong. At absolute most, autonomous cars will increase max road density by 30-50%. That isn't even enough to match light rail, never mind heavy rail. Why won't it do more? Because automation minimises reaction time. It doesn't do shit to decrease actual braking distance. Pic fucking related.
>>990285Autonomous cars will probably result in even less dense traffic because they're not stupid enough to tailgate like a fucking retarded cager.
So which one of you anti-car guys was this?https://www.rt.com/uk/354775-leicester-man-attacks-car/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
>>990387>ref_farkWhoa, that site still exists?
>>990285Not to mention that the trouble is the width of the vehicle.As James May said: the road is infinitely long, but only finitely wide.
>>990285These braking distances don't represent all cars.A standard car would have a long braking distance due to inertia by virtue of weighing a ton or more. A single seat autonomous car would obviously be smaller, meaning less inertia and braking distance.And couldn't an autonomous car system just account for these distances and create appropriate buffers between cara?
>>990502>couldn't an autonomous car system just account for these distances and create appropriate buffers between cars?Erm, yes? That's the entire point. Appropriate buffers have to be maintained for safety reasons due to required braking distances, and that requirement doesn't go away by automating things. The sheer space inefficiency of cars doesn't really go away either. That puts an upper limit on how dense you can make the traffic, and that upper limit happens to still be FAR below typical rail capacities.What autonomous cars will do is mainly make roads safer, reduce car ownership levels, and completely destroy the taxi industry. Maybe also slightly increase max road density because of reaction times and slightly increase city density because of relaxed requirements for parking. But replacing the need for rail? Hahahaha no.
>>990502>hey guise everyone look what i figured out and foun all om myself its a simplified rule of thimb chart ment to give you a rough idea of relationships and there will be variance on the absolute numbers>t. captain sherlock obvious holmes
>>990236>petulantYou hear this word a lot recently, did the establishment decide this was the current go-to word for curtailing dissent?
>guns kill 12000 dead per year in USA>boohoo ban guns black lives matter>cages kill 33000 per year in USA (not counting those killed by pollution or by the wars and terrorism funded by oil)>*shrug*Stop de kindermoord!
Join the micro electric car revolution!
>>990285Not only that but that "reaction distance" part doesn't really count how inattentive cagers are.
>>990589You're not even trying to hide your trolling, which means that you're doing it wrong.
>>975237I'd love that, but then again I live in a very urban area on my own, so I have no need for a car. But if I imagine living further outside and had kids and stuff, I'd probably want to have a car. Still, I kind of hate cars and hate driving them, always did. Just walking or going by bike was always so much more fun to me.What I really see happening in the near future is self driving cars. You don't privately own one, they are just parked all over the place and are basically public property (or rather property of some huge cooperation). When you want to go some place you just look at your smartphone and it shows you where the next available car is parked. If there's none available in a given range, then one will drive directly to you. Then you can drive places and when you are done, the car is back to public property. Or, if you really want this car to stay where it is, you can pay a small fee to keep it there for an hour or something (a quarter hour is free maybe, I don't know, details). In case you have special needs (say, you want to transport something big, or you have a group of 10 people) you can order larger cars as well in advance.It will probably happen in our life time.
>>990793It's a best case scenario reaction distance. For the average cager double it and for someone texting or doing something else instead of focusing on driving their cage you can multiply it by a factor between 3 and 10.
>>990894>lets all swap cars with eachother and that will solve everything without actually reducing drivingDude, just...
>>990908I didn't say it solves anything, actually. It's just what I see in the future, a lot.
>>990033So shitty at driving that they think a daily commute of under 10 miles and a trip to get groceries once a week makes caging necessary.
>>991025I have to commute 29 miles each way across a literal bay. They determined with a traffic survey a ferry would not be cost effective, a heavy rail connection is not needed because we don't have the passenger volume for a trans-bay tube set yet, and I have to do bymonthly trips to a medical facility another 40 miles away. Please go away bike kid.
>>991043>I have toNo.He also wasn't talking about your situation specifically, and it's a fact that most car travel is less than five kilometres and with no baggage.Funny that. In my town the _average_ distance for bike commuters is 9km, while the car commuters fucking drive half. And then you hear them whine and moan about how biking is not a plausible solution to this citys travel needs because 'long distances'. Cagers...
>>975275Neat
>>975237How the fuck do you suppose rural people/goods would get anywhere?
>>991064This is the norm in the 757 because everything big floods, so it is the hard limit on structures (its why we lack skyscrapers, things tend to sink in all but a few places). The bases are opposite of the best schools so most commute (either across the bridges or from Virginia Beach to Norfolk). If I was back in San Diego I'd take the trolley, but Norfolk that is not an option. Welcome to the US autism-friend.
>>991228>lives in hicksville>thinks hes got input relevant to the discussion
>>991240>calling the 757 a hick town>largest non NOVA growth literally who are you
>>991249>a 50km one way commute is standard for the area>constant flooding means we cant have a proper city>supplies are flown in over the bay by bushplane>pretends to not living in fucking hicksville, nowhere"Okay"
>>991043If you live in SF then I'm so sorry. That commute is literal hell on earth
>>991221There could be exceptions. For instance a farmer could truck their produce to the local train station, like they used to.
>>991064I ride to the local supermarket(s) which is not even 2km away and I know all the cages in the carpark drove that distance or less, because there's closer supermarkets if you go out further. But it's no surprise considering that when I'm walking to the local corner store I see people driving the same 200m.It's pure degeneracy and they know it, which is why they get so butthurt about people who choose to use their goddamn legs.
>>991043What sort of dumb cunt lives 29 miles away from work? An atrophied degenerate that's who.
>>991362>It's pure degeneracy and they know it, which is why they get so butthurt about people who choose to use their goddamn legs.They might also live in America where using your legs is a criminal offence. I visited some family there once and the police stopped me and questioned me for no reason because I was on a bicycle. Of course if anyone thinks this is strange, then logically it follows that the person is a heroin dealer or something. >america logic
>>991387Nah mate I'm talking about suburban Sydney, and not way out in the sticks either.
>>991255More or less, this is a series of 20 cities that roll into each other. It's like how people commute 100 miles into NYC daily yet live in their own city. You are an idiot.>>991373I was transferred from a shipyard which was 7 miles to fleet command which is 20 miles away. I used to use my (electric assist) bike but biking across the bridge tunnel is illegal.Since I am leaving the area in a year, breaking my lease and moving would cost me 2K that I have but why bother spending.
>>991424>break a lease for 2k>move closer to work>spends hours less commuting per week>use bike instead of car for commute>+$$$Or>don't break lease and save 2k now>suffer awful commutes and be depressed>spend a fortune on gas while sitting in traffic>-$$$
>cagershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xFXxwZMNA
>>990529>Appropriate buffers have to be maintained for safety reasons due to required braking distances, and that requirement doesn't go away by automating things.That buffer shrinks dramatically when you shave off a 1000lbs of crash protection and crumple zones.
>>991982>1000lbs of crash protection and crumple zones>the cager's wife
Just stumbled into this board... I never thought I'd find a place filled with more pretentious socialist hipster douches than /lit/.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFuwWd8Teoored pill yourselves
>>992793lrn2urbanplanning filthy cager
>>992814> said the cocksucker who thinks roads effectively shouldn't exist
>>992813The funniest thing is every time you drive a cuckmobile you need to send money to the coffers of fundamentalist islam.
how can this be realistically done (say in Canada)?what about a developing country?
>>994449For both cases >increase the cost of riding cars a lot>improve public transport>outsource urban planning to /n/>limit private car usage in cities
>>994466>>outsource urban planning to /n/mane
new thread pls
>>975279>As the OP, I myself live in a rural town however there is a train station which could be traveled to by bicycle or by foot if necessary,That's not rural. Try living 50 miles from the nearest town. And keep in mind that places like this are where you townies food comes from.The USA could go back to a pre-automobile agrarian society. And maybe support 10 or 20 million people. The rest of you can just die.