5 ms·
Let's actually approach this from good faith, shall we? The point is to try to remove car travel as much as is possible, even if that isn't 100%. You can buil
by Turskarama 2y ago
Let's actually approach this from good faith, shall we?
The point is to try to remove car travel as much as is possible, even if that isn't 100%. You can build a city where everything you need on a day to day basis is within walking or cycling distance, and nearly everything else can be got to easily with public transport. There will almost certainly be some edge cases though. Replacing everyones commute with walking or cycling or public transport gets rid of something like 50% of cars on the road. Doing the same with shopping trips is probably another 80% of what remains, so just doing that is already a significant improvement (numbers pulled out of my ass but they seem realistic). If you only need to use a car once a _month_ then suddenly the economy of owning one yourself becomes very questionable next to just getting a taxi on those rare occasions, or hiring one if you need to drive somewhere not so ideal.
So there would still be cars on the road, but it would be very far from the same number of cars.
- randomdata 2y agoSure, let us know when you are ready. None of this explains the car ban. Yeah, make cites more walkable. That's just logical. These wannabe rural areas we call cities today are hilariously nonsensical. But you don't need to ban cars to get there. And if we hypothetically assume for the sake of discussion that you do need to ban cars to get there, then exempting taxis won't help as people will simply replace their personal vehicle use with taxis, negating the hypothetical pressure to change. If someone wants to own a car for their once a month trip, who cares? It is not cars in a garage that is bothersome with respect to the topic at hand.