It is a commonly held belief that cars bring freedom and independence, but the reality may be the opposite. Car dependent cities are Orwellian in many aspect...
I never said roads, I said car centric infrastructure. You can have roads without being car centric. And elaborating on that, car centric infrastructure restrict the movement on everyone who don't drive, for example poor people who can't afford a car, gas, insurance... or younger people who can't drive yet, or older and people with disabilities that can't safely drive.
How does it impede on those who can't drive? Because they're not allowed to move as freely as someone with a car? How would taking away everyone's car help that scenario?
have you ever been to an American city? everything is at the service of roads, cars, and space to park the cars. we have thoroughfares through residential neighborhoods, monstrous intersections that are unsafe to cross by foot, infrastructure that's unsafe to use by any mode of transportation that isn't a car -- because the cars will run you over -- and it's all wildly more expensive and less efficient than a functioning public transportation system. think of it like this -- if more people can get where they need to go by public transit, the roads won't be so congested.
Right, the road won't be so congested, but you have to run on a specific schedule and only go to specific places.
You have to pay for all of this somehow too, be it through fares at a toll or taxed by your gov. It won't be any cheaper running transit. Maybe even more expensive, because they still have to maintain the roads, but now the cost of vehicle repair is on the gov/Corp and not the individual. More tolls or more taxes.
a functioning public transit system covers the whole city, nearly point to point, and it runs on a regular schedule with buses and trains arriving every few minutes.
but who's going to pay for it???
it's really a good thing no one has ever run the numbers on this and there's absolutely no literature analyzing the costs of various forms of public infrastructure to determine which is the most cost effective. there's no way at all anyone has ever done that.
Car centric infrastructure makes everything apart, so you can't walk anywhere, public transit is unfeasible because the low density, and biking is extremely dangerous. They are not only not allowed to move "as freely", they cannot movebat all. I don't know where you get this "taking everyone's car", you're the only one talking about it. You can can have infrastructure that is inclusive to everyone, even people with cars.
Gas companies are the biggest oligopoly. How can you "break free" from those corporations when you depend on a car to basic subsistence?
Yeah agreed, I'm all for getting rid of them too. Restricting peoples movement isn't the answer though
Like the restriction of movement car centric infrastructure impose kver everyone that dosen't bow to big oil and big auto.
What? Can you elaborate on how roads impose restricted movement on everyone?
I never said roads, I said car centric infrastructure. You can have roads without being car centric. And elaborating on that, car centric infrastructure restrict the movement on everyone who don't drive, for example poor people who can't afford a car, gas, insurance... or younger people who can't drive yet, or older and people with disabilities that can't safely drive.
How does it impede on those who can't drive? Because they're not allowed to move as freely as someone with a car? How would taking away everyone's car help that scenario?
have you ever been to an American city? everything is at the service of roads, cars, and space to park the cars. we have thoroughfares through residential neighborhoods, monstrous intersections that are unsafe to cross by foot, infrastructure that's unsafe to use by any mode of transportation that isn't a car -- because the cars will run you over -- and it's all wildly more expensive and less efficient than a functioning public transportation system. think of it like this -- if more people can get where they need to go by public transit, the roads won't be so congested.
Right, the road won't be so congested, but you have to run on a specific schedule and only go to specific places.
You have to pay for all of this somehow too, be it through fares at a toll or taxed by your gov. It won't be any cheaper running transit. Maybe even more expensive, because they still have to maintain the roads, but now the cost of vehicle repair is on the gov/Corp and not the individual. More tolls or more taxes.
a functioning public transit system covers the whole city, nearly point to point, and it runs on a regular schedule with buses and trains arriving every few minutes.
it's really a good thing no one has ever run the numbers on this and there's absolutely no literature analyzing the costs of various forms of public infrastructure to determine which is the most cost effective. there's no way at all anyone has ever done that.
That describes 90% of all car trips too anyway. From your home to your job at 8am, to your job to your house at 5pm.
I go camping to random remote locations throughout the summer, sometimes you have to drive to find spots because they aren't really advertised online.
What about construction people? Do they need to rent a truck every time they have to drive to a job?
Do you care about people who can't drive? What's your solution for them?
Car centric infrastructure makes everything apart, so you can't walk anywhere, public transit is unfeasible because the low density, and biking is extremely dangerous. They are not only not allowed to move "as freely", they cannot movebat all. I don't know where you get this "taking everyone's car", you're the only one talking about it. You can can have infrastructure that is inclusive to everyone, even people with cars.