4 ms·
In the future it seems completely logical that all surface level traffic would be by walking, scooter or electric bike, etc, and everything else would be subsur
by zarro 7y ago
In the future it seems completely logical that all surface level traffic would be by walking, scooter or electric bike, etc, and everything else would be subsurface.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoBuses (probably electric) are likely to remain surface traffic. Also, you need interconnects around the core where vehicles aren't permitted where people can transfer to private vehicles for travel outside the core.
- zarro 7y agoI think underground or overhead even for buses and trains makes more sense.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoMuch too expensive.
- rootusrootus 7y agoThat sounds like a fairly expensive solution. I can see eliminating most/all private car traffic in urban centers, but I think it's not likely that everything else goes underground.
- zarro 7y agoHigh density and high traffic urban areas would be the first targets obviously.
- isostatic 7y agoRather than build streets underground, in somewhere like Manhattan why not build pedestrian areas on top, with direct building entrance at level 2?
- xhgdvjky 7y agooften the pedestrians don't cause traffic as much as other cars (my perspective as a lay person)
- isostatic 7y agoSure, but this way allows the city to begin again without the angst of trying to ban cars.
- burlesona 7y agoIsn’t this basically what Chicago did? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_streets_in_Chicago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_streets_in_Chicag...
- wolco 7y agoIt would go up with flying cars before it went down. Down is very expensive while up is free.
- zarro 7y agoYou presume boring will always be prohibitively expensive.
- wolco 7y agoMaintaining, cleaning, lighting, environmental controls. Plus the cost to dig up existing items and move them. We would save in road salt. Might be a good idea to start building stores/housing below and would serve as protection against climate change.
- freehunter 7y agoUp is very much not free. It costs a lot of energy to keep something suspended in mid-air. Airplanes that move hundreds of people are already under scrutiny for how much energy they use, there's absolutely no way we'd accept personal flying machines. Personal automobiles that can rest firmly on the ground are already criticized for their consumption even without having to lift off the earth. Down is much cheaper.
- wolco 7y agoNot sure what the future holds but if we could just remove this gravity effect they could float. What if they were more like balloons? I think in the far future we will be able to transport and it will be the cleanest method of travel.
- kps 7y agoFor the cities that aren't as mild and flat as Amsterdam, putting the pedestrians and bicycles undergound would make more sense.
- journalctl 7y agoExcept that kills business and is massively expensive.