Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jim147 on July 29, 2022, 12:00:35 PM
-
Get rid of car ownership to save the planet.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/world-economic-forum-calls-reduce-private-vehicles-by-eliminating-ownership
Of course, this won't affect them or their jets and motorcades.
-
Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... :rofl:
Woody
-
The model that they are following involves the peasants happily marching to do the state's labor, as they sing valiant songs of productivity... You can't have the marching if people have the choice of where to work.
-
Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... :rofl:
Woody
No, there you remove the owners, less to inventory later.
-
The model that they are following involves the peasants happily marching to do the state's labor, as they sing valiant songs of productivity... You can't have the marching if people have the choice of where to work.
Apropos of marching and collectivism, a couple or three months back I listened, as long as I could stand it, to a a couple leftist academics on a podcast defending Stalin and the Soviet Union for the Holodomor.
-
Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... :rofl:
Woody
Update; you will need a subscription for those.
https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon
-
Update; you will need a subscription for those.
https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon
I don't often use this word but that's retarded.
-
I don't often use this word but that's retarded.
That is so disrespectful of developmentally challenged people.
The correct term is fucktarded.
=D
-
Makes sense to me. This represents the gaia worshippers realizing that EVs aren't actually the great panacea that will usher in the era of low impact... just swapping one problem (burning dinosaur fuel) for another (heavy metal mining plus burning gas in power plants). I'm actually glad they might be having a moment of clarity and/or letting slip that the EV push is not a real environment movement but just a car company marketing ploy.
Cars are terribly under utilized at the best of times and it would be great if every single person didn't need a $50,000+ rapidly depreciating machine, or more, with which to sit in traffic just to go to the store. "Ride sharing" was supposed to exploit that inefficiency and I think it has a little bit. Turo is out there too but the friction seems to be just a little too much to make a dent.
-
The report also pointed out that most people around the world already have personal phones or computers but 39% of global workers are also provided laptops and mobile phones.
rare earth mine
"This is not at all resource efficient," the report said. "Keeping a smartphone for five years instead of three reduces the phone’s annual carbon footprint by 31%."
But if we're not buying the latest iPhone and computer every 2-3 years then the world will go into recession, and consumers haven't been properly trained to replace!replace!replace!
Add to that the cell companies carrier protocols tend to change every 3-5 years, and a new advancement in wifi comes out every 3-5 years... 5 years is a long time to keep a phone if you're in the wrong technology window when you buy one.
I'm also rather taken aback at the claim that "39% of global workers" are given a laptop and mobile phone. I guess it depends on what is considered a global worker. I would think it's a person on the globe, somewhere, who works... but I kinda doubt that is what the author means. Not seeing a lot of those cobalt mining children or Uighur laborers and Indian rice farmers getting work laptops. Under the assumed author's definition, I wouldn't consider myself a "global worker" if we're talking about first world economies only, since my work is not global and only serves customers inside my own country (though I do get a work laptop).
All in all, I think the article is a macroauthoritarian wet dream. Full of all the contradiction and befuddlement inherent to such goals of central planning.
-
Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... :rofl:
Woody
Foot traffic is a major cause of erosion, don't you know.
-
Did you know that 99.9% of people who committed a mass shooting were wearing shoes? True story. Ban assault shoes, it's for the children.
-
But if we're not buying the latest iPhone and computer every 2-3 years then the world will go into recession, and consumers haven't been properly trained to replace!replace!replace!
Add to that the cell companies carrier protocols tend to change every 3-5 years, and a new advancement in wifi comes out every 3-5 years... 5 years is a long time to keep a phone if you're in the wrong technology window when you buy one.
I've had an S9 since 2018, and would like to keep using it, since it does everything I want, just like the S5(?) I had previous to it. However, everytime I see a security alert article on the interwebz about a critical issue and "Samsung is pushing security updates", I go to my phone and see that I haven't had a security update in nearly a year, and none are available when I check. I guess maybe they want to force me into a new phone.
-
Makes sense to me. This represents the gaia worshippers realizing that EVs aren't actually the great panacea that will usher in the era of low impact... just swapping one problem (burning dinosaur fuel) for another (heavy metal mining plus burning gas in power plants). I'm actually glad they might be having a moment of clarity and/or letting slip that the EV push is not a real environment movement but just a car company marketing ploy.
Cars are terribly under utilized at the best of times and it would be great if every single person didn't need a $50,000+ rapidly depreciating machine, or more, with which to sit in traffic just to go to the store. "Ride sharing" was supposed to exploit that inefficiency and I think it has a little bit. Turo is out there too but the friction seems to be just a little too much to make a dent.
But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit. The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course. Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line.
It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis.
-
Cars aren't going anywhere IMO. Personal transportation on the road network is a pretty fundamental pillar of how things happen in the US. Practical alternatives don't exist. In addition, there's a substantial amount of industry around cars - their production, maintenance, fuel, etc. All of these industries have economic power and will resist their market being destroyed.
-
But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit. The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course. Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line.
It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_ZkPZ8wPY
-
Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.
The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.
Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.
Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.
-
Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.
The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.
Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.
Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.
Paris: 70.7 Square Miles
Amsterdam: 84.68 square Miles
New York: 302.6 Square Miles
Los Angeles: 502 Square Miles
-
Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers.
What about vans?
-
But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit. The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course. Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line.
"Sustainable agriculture" == ag work being done by muscle power, on plantations, by gangs of men with hand implements and horse drawn equipment. Boss man lives in the Great House.
It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis.
-
Reply #6 on: April 18, 2023, 07:47:35 PM »
Quote from: bedlamite on April 18, 2023, 07:41:06 PM
Update; you will need a subscription for those.
https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon
I don't often use this word but that's retarded.
Agreed. Advertisers ought to monitor their advertising agencyies' activities better. "Hey ! Is that supposed to make it sell, or is it just an exercise in artsy-fartsy?"
....
This thread reminds me of the old "down east" adage:
Must be recited aloud with a heavy New England accent...
Buy it cheap.
Make it do.
Use it up.
Do without.
Ayup.
Terry, 230RN
-
Large cities are overwhelmingly leftist. If you can't have a car, it is easier to force people to live together in crowded cities, where left wing pols can more easily control your life.
-
Some people like cities. Not everyone who live there are "forced". I would say the vast majority are not.
There is nothing inherently leftist about living in a city. Or walking. Conversely nothing turns otherwise conservative or libertarian people into raving statists like discussing transportation policy and city planning.
It IS true that most cities are majority Democrat, but it's a mistake not to consider why that is the case. In fact it is the dominant strategic blunder of the republican party, since to a first approximation, all people live in cities, and cities are the only thing that matters in terms of getting elected. It would be great if the republican party would remove their heads from their rears and stop pushing policies and candidates that city dwellers basically can't get behind. It seems the republican party has chosen the rural side of the rural-urban divide, and that's obviously the short end of the stick. I reject the idea that policies have to be either/or or zero sum, and I think the urban/rural divide is a smokescreen. But I guess it's what you get with our two-party, winner take all system. The chips would fall between ketchup and mayo if there were nothing else to choose sides over.
-
It would be great if the republican party would remove their heads from their rears and stop pushing policies and candidates that city dwellers basically can't get behind.
What policies should Republicans push to get city dwellers to vote for them? Honest question.
-
Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.
The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.
Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.
Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.
At core of all of that is cities where zoning and other restrictions drive everything else. Poor people can't live in the city center because they don't let new housing get built. Same thing happens in LA and San Francisco. The car issue is only a small piece.
As far as I see, I don't think we have an issue maintaining the highways in my area. They do just fine. And I would point out it isn't the cars that cause most of the road damange. It is the big heavy trucks passing through that do most of the damage over time. Even if you restrict cars, you aren't going to eliminate trucks delivering supplies.
As we have said other times I think, if I choose to go without a car/truck, that is my choice if I can make it work. I definitely don't want some elitist scumbag in govt telling me I have to go without my car/truck.
-
At core of all of that is cities where zoning and other restrictions drive everything else. Poor people can't live in the city center because they don't let new housing get built.
Could not be more wrong. This is true in America, yes. Building policies in Europe are extremely favorable compared to in the US. In Japan, building nearly anything is essentially "by right" and nobody can block it, much less the government (the government isn't retarded so they are like, somebody wants to build something...why would we stop them? Japan has extremely strong property rights for landowners, even at the constitutional level. The idea that your neighbor or city could stop you from building is foreign. That's why Tokyo alone issues 140,000 building units in 2014 while the entire state of California issued half that the same year. You can't build anything in the US anymore).
As far as I see, I don't think we have an issue maintaining the highways in my area. They do just fine. And I would point out it isn't the cars that cause most of the road damange. It is the big heavy trucks passing through that do most of the damage over time. Even if you restrict cars, you aren't going to eliminate trucks delivering supplies.
Correct, trucks will always deliver the last mile, also correct that trucks cause essentially all road wear. This is a separate but related transportation policy failure in the US: because the US decided to follow a "cars only" model, it's easy to build billions of dollars of government roads. Thus freight gets shipped on the government roads (no surprise) in trucks, burning untold amounts of diesel fuel, tires, and tearing up said roads. Meanwhile all the local freight rail and rail spurs has got scrapped, and if you suggest the government spend some money on rails, the entire country has been mind jacked into opposing that, successfully. The entire transportation policy of the US is a big grift that operates at the expense of the republic.
I definitely don't want some elitist scumbag in govt telling me I have to go without my car/truck.
That pretty much doesn't happen anywhere (ban or confiscate cars). Not following failed transportation policies is actually better for driving at some level. Even if you like cars and enjoy driving, that's not a reason to push a cars-only transportation policy. Because it's more pleasant to drive when the roads aren't clogged with traffic. Consider Germany, which is very pro-car, most people own cars, they have robust car industry, and they have autobahns with no speed limits. But their highways also aren't clogged with trucks that shouldn't be there, and it's actually possible to move around without a car. Even the rural town where I used to visit for work has rail service and never had any problem getting from Frankfort airport to the factory in a dinky town without ever needing or wanting to drive a car. Whereas in America people have exactly one choice but l to get in their car and drive on government roads to get anywhere, even things nearby, and think they are more free for some reason.
-
What policies should Republicans push to get city dwellers to vote for them? Honest question.
Transgender uber alles, free *expletive deleted*it for everyone, gun bans, free government health care, free university education, ban on oil drilling anywhere, reparations for everyone who's not white paid for by those who are white, abortion on demand...
Oh, wait, one party already supports that crap.
And it's not the Republicans.
You really think the Republican party picking a few of those items to half-heartedly support in hopes of getting support from city scum would actually work?
-
Some people like cities. Not everyone who live there are "forced". I would say the vast majority are not.
Yes... but... if people can't own cars, a lot of people will be forced to live in cities. Car ownership lets people live in suburban or rural areas far more easily.
-
Yes... but... if people can't own cars, a lot of people will be forced to live in cities. Car ownership lets people live in suburban or rural areas far more easily.
1. Almost, but not quite. It's government roads that allow people--note some people --to live in (and typically ruin) suburbs and rural areas more easily. Cars are almost besides the point; they are the effect of the cause which is government policy. And it's a doomed and failed policy that is neither fiscally conservative, nor traditionally American, nor libertarian, not utilitarian. The road building ponzi scheme is simply a grift that has gone out of control. The interstate highway system might have been an OK idea. But the precedent of government funded roads that was set during the build out of the interstate highway system was not, and now it's just gorging on public money, perpetuating policies that function to perpetuate the policies. The Republic can't and maybe never has been able to actually govern in the sense of being able to form stable and healthy public functions. This is true and it's what feeds the conservative impulse never to allow government any increased purview or authority...the instinct says it will become a runaway grift that never ends and eventually fails at it's original purpose while being defended by those it harms. Nowhere is this played out more perfectly than in the road building grift.
2. "Forced" is not a valuable term to use. People always make choices based on marginal utility and marginal costs. When they do that, it's not being "forced" to do something, more like they are responding to incentives and systems. Pointing this out is begging the question. In free markets both parties typically benefit. In case of government policy, sadly it's usually somebody benefits and somebody else pays. And often enough, it's actually everyone pays and nobody benefits.
3. You talk like suburban sprawl is a good thing, when it's practically been the downfall of America. Within my lifetime I've seen vast amounts of land that used to be productive, local farmland turned into parking lots and strip malls, most of them destined to degrade into blight. Previous generations watched formerly glorious cities decline, taxes skyrocket, amenities disappear and municipal finances collapse into a wasteland of financial debt and maintenance debt. The US sits on billions or trillions of dollars of maintenance obligations on infrastructure that produces nothing except more obligations. The mental and physical health of Americans has never been worse, and our country has never been more vulnerable to economic shock. Boomers complain kids never go outside anymore, but they turned "outside" into a parking lot next to a freeway. Our children are being killed on the roads at rates never before seen in America or abroad. Our non-governmental social institutions are dead, as is our small business climate, replaced by artificial chains, and nobody sees clearly that it's car-dependent development patterns and the social isolation that it brings which killed them. Our rail and inland waterway transport networks have degraded into irrelevance, to the point we can't move anything anymore without burning oil. Almost nothing has weakened America more than the automobile and the road-building grift. And yet most people have been convinced this is all in their interest. After all, the grift must go on.
-
zahc, we are discussing people proposing banning cars. Cars are not beside the point.
Because I own a car, my family does not have to live in the violent crap hole of a city I work in. They can live in a small town miles away.
I don't want to live a large city. Owning a car lets me avoid this.
If it was illegal for me to own a car, we would have to live in a large city.
-
zahc, Germany has 80 million people in an area roughly midway in size between the states of Montana and New Mexico. Transportation needs there are quite different than in a continent-spanning country like the USA, with a proportionately greater wealth concentration per square mile. And of course, they experienced some major urban renewal in the early 1940s.
But I think you're not wrong when you associate grift with our transportation system . . . though I'd extend the grift to virtually all public works "infrastructure."
-
zahc, Germany has 80 million people in an area roughly midway in size between the states of Montana and New Mexico. Transportation needs there are quite different than in a continent-spanning country like the USA, with a proportionately greater wealth concentration per square mile. And of course, they experienced some major urban renewal in the early 1940s.
But I think you're not wrong when you associate grift with our transportation system . . . though I'd extend the grift to virtually all public works "infrastructure."
I sense an attempt at a "physics are different in this hemisphere" argument. They aren't, because there are dozens of population corridors in the US that have both higher population density and higher trip demand than exists in European countries. So it's just not true that the US is different. And, I know this is hard to believe too, the US existed before cars too. And even if it were true that our "vast size" made a difference, cars are the least efficient mode for long distances anyway. So, the US being such a mythical sprawling place, if it were true, would be the last place where a cars-only transportation policy would make sense.
But we weren't talking about long distance travel anyway. We were talking about cities and suburbs. 3/4 of all car trips in the US are ten miles are less. People drive because the government has given them no other choice, and they don't even realize it. Getting a car to get to work so they can make money to make their car payment. It's like a hampster running in his wheel.
The topic at hand was banning cars from city centers or select areas of city centers. Which is generally a good thing. I would go all-out and say most city centers in most cities should heavily discourage or block through car traffic altogether. There is nothing different about this in the US city than any other city. All of our great cities were built before cars and they would better off without cars again. Cars add nothing to the equation except noise, ugliness, pollution, danger, and generally ruining everything. The only reason they were ever accommodated in the first place makes a fascinating history, but largely was a ploy by cities to boost tax revenues by prioritizing commuters over citizens, and it backfired heavily for a variety of reasons.
I definitely don't want some elitist scumbag in govt telling me I have to go without my car/truck.
Rarely is there any such proposal that you must "go without". In the real world, usually we are talking about a proposal to limit where cars are allowed to drive. There are already an infinity of places you aren't allowed to drive, such as sidewalks, parks, places without roads, walking trails, shopping malls, etc. and so there is nothing evil about designating an area for other road users only. Unless you think cars command some special privilege, and yes in the US, just about no segment is more pampered than car drivers, so this gets weaponized into a "they are coming for your F150 because you can't drive through 8th street anymore" rhetoric.
-
There is nothing more dystopian than some people’s utopias.
-
Could not be more wrong. This is true in America, yes. Building policies in Europe are extremely favorable compared to in the US. In Japan, building nearly anything is essentially "by right" and nobody can block it, much less the government (the government isn't retarded so they are like, somebody wants to build something...why would we stop them? Japan has extremely strong property rights for landowners, even at the constitutional level. The idea that your neighbor or city could stop you from building is foreign. That's why Tokyo alone issues 140,000 building units in 2014 while the entire state of California issued half that the same year. You can't build anything in the US anymore).
I was specifically talking to what you said about Paris. Many other countries are different from the US and different from each other.
Correct, trucks will always deliver the last mile, also correct that trucks cause essentially all road wear. This is a separate but related transportation policy failure in the US: because the US decided to follow a "cars only" model, it's easy to build billions of dollars of government roads. Thus freight gets shipped on the government roads (no surprise) in trucks, burning untold amounts of diesel fuel, tires, and tearing up said roads. Meanwhile all the local freight rail and rail spurs has got scrapped, and if you suggest the government spend some money on rails, the entire country has been mind jacked into opposing that, successfully. The entire transportation policy of the US is a big grift that operates at the expense of the republic.
When it comes to lighter loads, trucks are the more efficient mode of transportation. Much more flexible at supplying customer demand and also a lot more competitive. I think competition is likely a big factor against rail. I think we might have anti-grav hover trains before problems with the way the frieght rail system is organized are solved.
That pretty much doesn't happen anywhere (ban or confiscate cars). Not following failed transportation policies is actually better for driving at some level. Even if you like cars and enjoy driving, that's not a reason to push a cars-only transportation policy. Because it's more pleasant to drive when the roads aren't clogged with traffic. Consider Germany, which is very pro-car, most people own cars, they have robust car industry, and they have autobahns with no speed limits. But their highways also aren't clogged with trucks that shouldn't be there, and it's actually possible to move around without a car. Even the rural town where I used to visit for work has rail service and never had any problem getting from Frankfort airport to the factory in a dinky town without ever needing or wanting to drive a car. Whereas in America people have exactly one choice but l to get in their car and drive on government roads to get anywhere, even things nearby, and think they are more free for some reason.
That is pretty much what we are talking about. Govt enacting authoritarian policies to restrict and steer things the way they want. And there have been activists talking about banning cars for a long time now.
Houston has a commuter rail they put in some years back. It never went anywhere I wanted to go. In order to work, they would have to expand it to all the freeways and major roads in Houston. And it still wouldn't have the ridership to come close to justifying all that cost.
-
I sense an attempt at a "physics are different in this hemisphere" argument. They aren't, because there are dozens of population corridors in the US that have both higher population density and higher trip demand than exists in European countries. So it's just not true that the US is different. And, I know this is hard to believe too, the US existed before cars too. And even if it were true that our "vast size" made a difference, cars are the least efficient mode for long distances anyway. So, the US being such a mythical sprawling place, if it were true, would be the last place where a cars-only transportation policy would make sense.
But we weren't talking about long distance travel anyway. We were talking about cities and suburbs. 3/4 of all car trips in the US are ten miles are less. People drive because the government has given them no other choice, and they don't even realize it. Getting a car to get to work so they can make money to make their car payment. It's like a hampster running in his wheel.
The topic at hand was banning cars from city centers or select areas of city centers. Which is generally a good thing. I would go all-out and say most city centers in most cities should heavily discourage or block through car traffic altogether. There is nothing different about this in the US city than any other city. All of our great cities were built before cars and they would better off without cars again. Cars add nothing to the equation except noise, ugliness, pollution, danger, and generally ruining everything. The only reason they were ever accommodated in the first place makes a fascinating history, but largely was a ploy by cities to boost tax revenues by prioritizing commuters over citizens, and it backfired heavily for a variety of reasons.
Rarely is there any such proposal that you must "go without". In the real world, usually we are talking about a proposal to limit where cars are allowed to drive. There are already an infinity of places you aren't allowed to drive, such as sidewalks, parks, places without roads, walking trails, shopping malls, etc. and so there is nothing evil about designating an area for other road users only. Unless you think cars command some special privilege, and yes in the US, just about no segment is more pampered than car drivers, so this gets weaponized into a "they are coming for your F150 because you can't drive through 8th street anymore" rhetoric.
That is just one particular example of complete nonsense. "Sidewalks"?
I would like to know what you consider great about cities back in the day? They were dirty and smelly and crowded and people moved out of them as soon as they had the freedom to do so without losing employment opportunities. Easy transportation allows employees to quit and take a better job without moving their families near the new job. Not to mention that the original big cities weren't all that big compared to today. Downtown Houston is big enough but they could ban cars there if they wanted. However, that is a few square miles in a town that covers hundreds of square miles.
Small Trucks and cars are the most efficient way for the population get where it wants to go since Everyone wants to go to a different place at different times and they often want to bring more than they can carry. I really don't want anyone trying to force consolidation along railroad lines.
-
There is nothing more dystopian than some people’s utopias.
Amen, brother.
-
I sense an attempt at a "physics are different in this hemisphere" argument. They aren't, because there are dozens of population corridors in the US that have both higher population density and higher trip demand than exists in European countries. So it's just not true that the US is different. And, I know this is hard to believe too, the US existed before cars too. And even if it were true that our "vast size" made a difference, cars are the least efficient mode for long distances anyway. So, the US being such a mythical sprawling place, if it were true, would be the last place where a cars-only transportation policy would make sense.
Maps aren't physics. :facepalm: But I can see by examining the overlay of Germany and the CONUS that " . . . it's just not true that the US is different."
(https://i.imgur.com/KSzectF.png)
And cars are a very efficient means of transportation, since they're the only things which will take me from where I am to where I want to go, WHEN I want to go. Cars provide a modicum of comfort and they include the ability to take the passengers I want with me, and carry along a fair amount of cargo. Bicycles, busses, and commuter trains DO NOT offer all this - anywhere. Cars also enable me to live outside the crowded environs of a major city core - I've seen crowded cities in other countries and in the best cases, it was a matter of "Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."
Some places have "invested" in bike lanes, light rail, etc. Austin, TX is one of them. Usage is low; Why? It's because people who can afford cars - the majority of working adults - choose cars.
And of course for long hauls, we DO have air travel in the USA . . . and nearly everywhere, we can rent a car at our destination . . . with the advantages cited above.
-
The topic at hand was banning cars from city centers or select areas of city centers. Which is generally a good thing. I would go all-out and say most city centers in most cities should heavily discourage or block through car traffic altogether. There is nothing different about this in the US city than any other city. All of our great cities were built before cars and they would better off without cars again. Cars add nothing to the equation except noise, ugliness, pollution, danger, and generally ruining everything. The only reason they were ever accommodated in the first place makes a fascinating history, but largely was a ploy by cities to boost tax revenues by prioritizing commuters over citizens, and it backfired heavily for a variety of reasons.
Let me provide a real-world example, and ask for your response. Because I make horrible life choices, I currently live in the suburbs of a large city. If I want to go to that city, I have a few choices. If I don't want to walk there, I could drive into the city in my privately-owned vehicle (POV). Or, I could park said POV at one of the light rail stations, or take a bus.
Based upon my experience with the school buses I rode for 2 hours each weekday, from K-12 grade levels, I would expect bus travel to take at least a little bit longer than traveling by POV. But that's not an insurmountable objection. But there's also a lack of flexibility. Let me explain. A few days ago, I decided that, instead of going directly home from work, I would stop for several bags of top soil, some grass seed, and a wheelbarrow. F150 for the win. But that was just going from one suburb to another. A couple of months ago, my wife found some Ikea sectional she really wanted, but it was in some apartment building in the heart of the city. F150 FTW, again. I assume there's some way of moving furniture in and out of your "no cars allowed" city. What is it?
For the light rail option, the objections are basically the same. But there's something else they have in common. In my state, gun laws are very lax, compared to most. But it's still a fairly serious offense for me to be caught with a firearm on a metro bus or train. And buses (not sure about rail) are one of the only remaining spaces where covid masks are still required. (Or at least they were a few months ago, long after covid hysteria had died down elsewhere.) Now, sure, we could change the rules about guns or masks, and if more gun-owning super-spreaders rode public transit, there would be more pressure to change the rules. But most Americans seem to prefer the option of having a POV, where we make our own rules.
How do you respond?
-
In my state, gun laws are very lax, compared to most. But it's still a fairly serious offense for me to be caught with a firearm on a metro bus or train. And buses (not sure about rail) are one of the only remaining spaces where covid masks are still required. (Or at least they were a few months ago, long after covid hysteria had died down elsewhere.) Now, sure, we could change the rules about guns or masks, and if more gun-owning super-spreaders rode public transit, there would be more pressure to change the rules. But most Americans seem to prefer the option of having a POV, where we make our own rules.
Public ground transport aside, the above are two very good reasons (for me) to drive. I've flown with guns, and while not a nightmare, it's still something of a hassle. Covid also kept me from flying to CA a couple of times and I drove instead. No mask, gun handy, and counting all the bullshit about getting to, parking at, and going through the airport, plus the reverse on the other side, plus plane changes, those particular trips were about two hours more travel time (12 vs 10) by car than by plane, but I was also able to do what I wanted.
-
Foot traffic is a major cause of erosion, don't you know.
Yeah, maybe. We don't hold a candle to wind and rain, though. We do our best to limit what we erode. Just think: How deep would the ruts in our roads be by now if we hadn't paved them ... ?
Woody
-
We don't hold a candle to wind and rain, though.
Climate Change! Duh!
-
A few days ago, I decided that, instead of going directly home from work, I would stop for several bags of top soil, some grass seed, and a wheelbarrow. F150 for the win. But that was just going from one suburb to another. A couple of months ago, my wife found some Ikea sectional she really wanted, but it was in some apartment building in the heart of the city. F150 FTW, again. I assume there's some way of moving furniture in and out of your "no cars allowed" city. What is it?
You won’t need soil or grass seed when you live in a high density apartment building and don’t have a yard. You can go to the nearest park by light rail and see grass if you want.
Your furniture can be delivered by the place you buy it from. It is more efficient to have dedicated delivery trucks than a truck you control.
-
I’d rather slam my dick in a car door than get on city public transportation with the garbage humans that frequent it. I already see enough *expletive deleted*ing bums and hobos on a daily basis with Atlanta running daily hoborelocation buses into my region. I’ll keep my truck which doesn’t smell like a homeless orgy and drive into the city when I want to go there instead, thank you very much.
-
I’d rather slam my dick in a car door than get on city public transportation with the garbage humans that frequent it.
That too. In fairness, it could be addressed. As Germany seems to be coming up -- if you take the worst train in Germany, it's still 1000% better than most any of the US light rails / subways. The krauts don't *expletive deleted*ck around. If you act up on the train, it's off to the ovens for you.
Conversely, while I used to prefer the Metro in DC to driving a rental through that mess, it was only barely. The Metro infrastructure is actually pretty good, but the scum of the Earth both ride it, and hang out at the entrances and exits looking for victims. That was like ten years ago, the last time I rode it. I can only imagine what it is now.
-
I took the Washington, DC, metro and DC and Virginia buses for about 6 years -- 2011 to 2017 or so -- for my one at State Department.
I saw some absolutely crazy *expletive deleted*it. Nothing completely off the wall, but still...
-
I took the Washington, DC, metro and DC and Virginia buses for about 6 years -- 2011 to 2017 or so -- for my one at State Department.
I saw some absolutely crazy *expletive deleted*it. Nothing completely off the wall, but still...
I've been driving the city bus in Las Vegas for just over 37 years. I've seen some stuff too.