4 ms·

Freedom of yours, is not freedom of others. You don't get to define freedom for others. Freedom for others is to move to a newly built suburb an hour away from

Freedom of yours, is not freedom of others. You don't get to define freedom for others. Freedom for others is to move to a newly built suburb an hour away from the city, and still work in the city. What happens with most of these, is light rail goes to the city for a few surrounding suburbs with 50-100k people per town. To get to that train station every morning, you need a car. No, you cannot have a bus circle the suburb for an hour to pick everyone up. No you cannot have many buses purchased by the suburb and stand still during off times - the taxes from 50k people cannot pay for that. No, no one is going to wait at a chicago suburb busstop for a bus while it's raining in October, or baking in July, or blasting -15 temp at 20mph winds, while the bus is late. No one is driving cars to the desert. They are driving it to the mall, the restaurant, the rail stop. They don't have to "deal" with parking. Towns have huge parking lots, and land is cheap. What you did is make up a strawman, where people living in the dense city don't need a car. Guess what - most people there don't have one. I'm one of those people who has had cars in little towns, and no car while I live in the city. Yes, there are two people who drive from the suburb to the city. Those are the minority. You see that traffic jam into the city in the morning? That's people's choice to drive. They can instead drive 10min to the rail or bus stop in or near their town. The option of which you speak, is already there. Selecting it or not, is the freedom. No, I'm not talking about every city. Just most. And no, we didn't have that which you describe. What we had is people having to work real close to where they lived. They are still free to do exactly that. I've tried that for over a decade, and don't own a car. As a consequence of that choice, I rent and sold the house. Maybe if you have a kid in school, you don't want to move too much. Maybe you get fired too and the next job's not that close. There was no fast subway or rail going all meshed between every town. Rail trips between towns were a thing you packed and dressed for. They were not a thing you took to work and back every morning. That thing, was the light rail to the city, is still there, and many people use it.

throw0101b 3y ago
> What happens with most of these, is light rail goes to the city for a few surrounding suburbs with 50-100k people per town. To get to that train station every morning, you need a car. No, you cannot have a bus circle the suburb for an hour to pick everyone up. If the suburb is designed to be walkable then the bus is not needed in the first place: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 Each individual community or neighbourhood can be fairly self-contained with regards to daily needs, and travel between them is done on rail or whatever. One could have all-day, frequent (e.g., every 5 minutes) service with trams (or buses) with-in an area, where you can travel with-in it, but also have connections to commuter rail to go to the Big City if the need arises: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail This is how things were generally built post-railway, pre-WW2. (Pre-railroad things were generally all walkable, but long distances being done on horses or boats.)
- usernew 3y ago
  I addressed this point. What you are proposing - replacing roads with rail and trams in a huge train grid of suburbs, costs an insane amount more than a road. You are talking about charging people 10x the property taxes they are paying now. Remember, suburbs do not have the density and hence tax revenue of cities. A highrise has 500 people in it paying for a little chunk of road in front of it. The same length of road in the suburbs is covered by 5 single family homes. But you say (buses!). Again, I addressed that. A bus, at a bus stop, is not something you are going to be able to do half of the time in suboptimal climates in half the country. Even in the 1/4 of the time with bad climate in the other half of the country, you still need to get around 25% of the time when you can't be waiting at the bus stop in 120 degree heat to get to work. And for that, you'll still need a car. So if you already have a car for that 25% of time, why then can't you just use it all the time? The walkable plans you reference completely ignores this issue, and pretends the climate is perfect every time you need to go somewhere. You don't need to design things to be walkable, if everyone already has a car for the times it's not "walkable" outside. Those olden days you dream of weren't as rosy as you think. People would show up to work freezing, wet, uncomfortable, and get sick from being in the freezing wind for a half hour "walking." They were also a lot less mobile, and going between places was a thing, not a multiple times a day part of life.
coldtea 3y ago
>Freedom of yours, is not freedom of others. You don't get to define freedom for others. Freedom for others is to move to a newly built suburb an hour away from the city, and still work in the city. Well, if we want to have a society, we should very much define "freedom for others" too, considering the whole tradeoffs and issues or benefits of a practice (that's how we decided to have laws and ethics and other stuff, of course). Not just leave it at "anything goes", and let everybody else get the consequences of individual choices, even if it's not their choice or to the detriment of the society at large (like, destroying public health or the environment).
- usernew 3y ago
  Here's the problem with this logic. No personal attack, but I want you to think about how similar it is to the nazis and China. >we should very much define the people whose freedom of choice you are taking away for the good of society, are part of society, are part of "we," and the majority can't take their freedom just because it's overall good for that majority. What you did is take a part of "we," made it "them," and made them the enemy. Don't do that.

throw0101b 3y ago

> What happens with most of these, is light rail goes to the city for a few surrounding suburbs with 50-100k people per town. To get to that train station every morning, you need a car. No, you cannot have a bus circle the suburb for an hour to pick everyone up. If the suburb is designed to be walkable then the bus is not needed in the first place: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 Each individual community or neighbourhood can be fairly self-contained with regards to daily needs, and travel between them is done on rail or whatever. One could have all-day, frequent (e.g., every 5 minutes) service with trams (or buses) with-in an area, where you can travel with-in it, but also have connections to commuter rail to go to the Big City if the need arises: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail This is how things were generally built post-railway, pre-WW2. (Pre-railroad things were generally all walkable, but long distances being done on horses or boats.)

usernew 3y ago
I addressed this point. What you are proposing - replacing roads with rail and trams in a huge train grid of suburbs, costs an insane amount more than a road. You are talking about charging people 10x the property taxes they are paying now. Remember, suburbs do not have the density and hence tax revenue of cities. A highrise has 500 people in it paying for a little chunk of road in front of it. The same length of road in the suburbs is covered by 5 single family homes. But you say (buses!). Again, I addressed that. A bus, at a bus stop, is not something you are going to be able to do half of the time in suboptimal climates in half the country. Even in the 1/4 of the time with bad climate in the other half of the country, you still need to get around 25% of the time when you can't be waiting at the bus stop in 120 degree heat to get to work. And for that, you'll still need a car. So if you already have a car for that 25% of time, why then can't you just use it all the time? The walkable plans you reference completely ignores this issue, and pretends the climate is perfect every time you need to go somewhere. You don't need to design things to be walkable, if everyone already has a car for the times it's not "walkable" outside. Those olden days you dream of weren't as rosy as you think. People would show up to work freezing, wet, uncomfortable, and get sick from being in the freezing wind for a half hour "walking." They were also a lot less mobile, and going between places was a thing, not a multiple times a day part of life.

coldtea 3y ago

>Freedom of yours, is not freedom of others. You don't get to define freedom for others. Freedom for others is to move to a newly built suburb an hour away from the city, and still work in the city. Well, if we want to have a society, we should very much define "freedom for others" too, considering the whole tradeoffs and issues or benefits of a practice (that's how we decided to have laws and ethics and other stuff, of course). Not just leave it at "anything goes", and let everybody else get the consequences of individual choices, even if it's not their choice or to the detriment of the society at large (like, destroying public health or the environment).

usernew 3y ago
Here's the problem with this logic. No personal attack, but I want you to think about how similar it is to the nazis and China. >we should very much define the people whose freedom of choice you are taking away for the good of society, are part of society, are part of "we," and the majority can't take their freedom just because it's overall good for that majority. What you did is take a part of "we," made it "them," and made them the enemy. Don't do that.