3 ms·

Not quite. You will have to pay for endless freeways and you can pay for a subway system on top. You see, even in the most European and sophisticated cities in

Not quite. You will have to pay for endless freeways and you can pay for a subway system on top. You see, even in the most European and sophisticated cities in the world they don't have cargo subways. All the shops need stuff to sell delivered and apartment buildings need trash taken away. The building construction needs materials. Building maintenance needs things like appliances and big HVAC parts taken out or put in. Etc. etc. None of this works with subway. Subways are for people without much luggage (statistically, I am sure someone here will destroy me with facts how he hauled a sofa and a refrigerator on subway in Amsterdam and has not broken a sweat). You still need roads for cargo and using them for people too seems pretty straightforward and rational to me. If my city was flooded with money and everything else was in top shape (roads, parks, schools, utilities, police) then and only then I would not mind spending money on transit.

shiroiushi 2y ago
You need roads for trucks, but not highways. And without much private car traffic, you can make both the roads and the intracity freeways much smaller.
- pandaman 2y ago
  >You need roads for trucks, but not highways. I am not sure what does this mean. You want unpaved roads for trucks? And when there are rains and they become impassable you just go without cargo in your dense cities? > you can make both the roads and the intracity freeways much smaller. How much smaller? Narrower? The lane width is determined by the width of the truck, not the private traffic. Less lanes? You need at least two lanes in either direction so a broken truck does not leave your city without food and three lanes so you have a chance to get around a collision or can do road work without stopping all traffic. Which is the regular width of freeways.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    You're being intentionally ignorant, so I'm not even going to bother responding to this stupidity.
    - pandaman 2y ago
      It is not unusual from "urbanists". Whenever things they've heard from notjustbikes or read on Strong Towns clash with reality, they go into first two stages of grief: denial and anger. Hopefully you will reach the other three eventually.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

shiroiushi 2y ago

You need roads for trucks, but not highways. And without much private car traffic, you can make both the roads and the intracity freeways much smaller.

pandaman 2y ago
>You need roads for trucks, but not highways. I am not sure what does this mean. You want unpaved roads for trucks? And when there are rains and they become impassable you just go without cargo in your dense cities? > you can make both the roads and the intracity freeways much smaller. How much smaller? Narrower? The lane width is determined by the width of the truck, not the private traffic. Less lanes? You need at least two lanes in either direction so a broken truck does not leave your city without food and three lanes so you have a chance to get around a collision or can do road work without stopping all traffic. Which is the regular width of freeways.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  You're being intentionally ignorant, so I'm not even going to bother responding to this stupidity.
  - pandaman 2y ago
    It is not unusual from "urbanists". Whenever things they've heard from notjustbikes or read on Strong Towns clash with reality, they go into first two stages of grief: denial and anger. Hopefully you will reach the other three eventually.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]