4 ms·

Like it or not, that increased car traffic delivers more utility. You can't have a car free metropolis. That's a contradiction.

masklinn 5y ago
> Like it or not, that increased car traffic delivers more utility. It rarely delivers enough utility to even compensate for it costs. > You can't have a car free metropolis. That's a contradiction. It's absolutely not, your assertion is outright nonsensical. Car-centricity is by far the worst way to build a metropolis.
- ben_w 5y ago
  “Car free” is one of several ways to not be “car-centric”, but not the only way. I believe it’s possible to make a car-free metropolis, but I don’t know if any (modern) metropolis demonstrates this.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Sure but I’m not the one which set up this straw man dichotomy and saw no reason to care for or acknowledge it.
tux3 5y ago
Paris is certainly trying. The idea that you need a car to move around a city is probably cultural.
- masklinn 5y ago
  Paris is hardly the only city doing that either, and far from the first.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    While a fair bit smaller, Amsterdam is probably a better example here (and it helps that they got started in the 90s). And as points of difference (aside from size), Amsterdam has a much smaller metro network, but a larger tram network (Paris completely shut down its tram system in the late 30s and has been rebuilding it since the 90s, whereas Amsterdam's tram network was never completely shut down, and while a number of Amsterdam's tram lines were switched over to buses in the 40s and early 50s, trams got repopularized very quickly, as soon as the late 50s).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KptMarchewa 5y ago
The utility vehicles, buses, delivery of goods to stores etc are percentage of overall vehicles on the road and require little infrastructure compared to using cars as main individual mode of transportation.
adrianN 5y ago
You can't have a car-free metropolis, but you sure can have a metropolis where cars are used by much, much fewer people than is typical today.

masklinn 5y ago

> Like it or not, that increased car traffic delivers more utility. It rarely delivers enough utility to even compensate for it costs. > You can't have a car free metropolis. That's a contradiction. It's absolutely not, your assertion is outright nonsensical. Car-centricity is by far the worst way to build a metropolis.

ben_w 5y ago
“Car free” is one of several ways to not be “car-centric”, but not the only way. I believe it’s possible to make a car-free metropolis, but I don’t know if any (modern) metropolis demonstrates this.
- masklinn 5y ago
  Sure but I’m not the one which set up this straw man dichotomy and saw no reason to care for or acknowledge it.

tux3 5y ago

Paris is certainly trying. The idea that you need a car to move around a city is probably cultural.

masklinn 5y ago
Paris is hardly the only city doing that either, and far from the first.
- masklinn 5y ago
  While a fair bit smaller, Amsterdam is probably a better example here (and it helps that they got started in the 90s). And as points of difference (aside from size), Amsterdam has a much smaller metro network, but a larger tram network (Paris completely shut down its tram system in the late 30s and has been rebuilding it since the 90s, whereas Amsterdam's tram network was never completely shut down, and while a number of Amsterdam's tram lines were switched over to buses in the 40s and early 50s, trams got repopularized very quickly, as soon as the late 50s).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KptMarchewa 5y ago

The utility vehicles, buses, delivery of goods to stores etc are percentage of overall vehicles on the road and require little infrastructure compared to using cars as main individual mode of transportation.

adrianN 5y ago

You can't have a car-free metropolis, but you sure can have a metropolis where cars are used by much, much fewer people than is typical today.