3 ms·
In cities you'd have instead of roads for cars, to cover each individual need, rolling sidewalks, going all different directions. Which means a lot of interconn
by unnouinceput 6y ago
In cities you'd have instead of roads for cars, to cover each individual need, rolling sidewalks, going all different directions. Which means a lot of interconnected stuff to cover everything. If I want to go to my friend who is 3 blocks to the right and then a U turn and 5 more blocks to the left currently I take a car and I am there in 5 minutes. But if this society where individual cars don't exists but something else covers that highly customized needs for each individual - how you'd envision said technology? I would envision sidewalks on different levels, interconnected with elevators, and all of them on winches and trolleys and whatnot. Hence a lot more expensive technology to deploy/maintain. Or are we talking Sci-Fi and some alien technology became available to us?
- rini17 6y agoWHAT? I think parent was talking about trams.
- alvarlagerlof 6y agoIt sounds like you live in an american city. I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. It's expensive to park and own cars. Instead we have a large bus, tram, train, and subway network, and that's all that's needed.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. So it sounds like they don't dream of it in the same way that many people in the US don't dream of being chauffeured everywhere in an Uber. It's so expensive that it's not even within the realm of possibility. Having "good" public transit as an option is very nice. I once lived in a city like that. But it's not hard to see why a lot of people (and not just in the US) choose suburbs and sitting in traffic as the option that sucks less than the others.
- Talanes 6y agoHave you never taken a bus?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]