4 ms·

Please don't that, in general. Don't be an absolutist. "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g https://www.you

by oblio 1y ago

Please don't that, in general. Don't be an absolutist. "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g 0. This discussion is about urban environments. Suburbs/rural areas will probably be car centric forever (or at least for a long time). If you don't or plan to live in a city, you should move on from this conversation. 1. Of course you'll be able to use car or van to move furniture. > And take your children and their equipment to activities, etc. 2. What kind of equipment do said children have, pianos??? You can use public transport perfectly well. In dense enough environments with decent public transit things are generally not that far away by public transit. And a backpack + at least 1 big bag/1 trolley bag fit perfectly well in all but the most crowded public transit. > Nevermind the issues of poor timetabling and service for public transport, and the risk of crime. 3. All of these are resolved when large amounts of people use public transport and people actually care about it. If it's only for poor people.. yeah, you get US public transit. And regarding crime, fairly sure that in most places your overall risk of death/serious injury is still higher in a car. * * * > A personal car is freedom. A personal car is freedom. Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery.

GardenLetter27 1y ago
> "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? > You can use public transport perfectly well. But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. > Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery. Yeah, I don't want that either, I really hated that in parts of the US and Mexico. Like where you can't even cross the street because there's a big road in between.
- oblio 1y ago
  > Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? Watch the video linked inked above, it answers your exact questions. Also, smoking as a thing isn't banned. Smoking is just banned in reasonable places. But instead of debating me, please watch the video. No place on this planet with more than, say, 10 000 people (so places where probably 80% of the world population lives) banned cars. A few amusement parks (or equivalent) are basically the only places where cars are banned. > But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass?
  - GardenLetter27 1y ago
    > What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass? It does, but it costs ~$106 a month. That's what happens when there's no competition. Automated self-driving taxi services will be better.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      That's roughly 5 uber rides. That's not bad at all?
    - oblio 1y ago
      LOL, in what world do you live in? That's a super good price. How much do you think daily usage of "automated self-driving taxi services" will be? :-))) Bucharest, a city in a much poorer country, charges about €16 for a 1 month pass for surface transport and €20 for a 1 month pass for the subway. That's about €36. The average salary in Stockholm seems to be about €46 000. The average salary in Bucharest is less than €24 000. So €100 per month seems about fair for what I assume is a pretty solid public transport network in a place with far more disposable income than Bucharest. Edit: Switzerland is famous for having a very well run public transport system. The Zurich monthly pass for all zones is about €250 per month... Yeah, Zurich has higher incomes for sure. Stockholm probably has a decent rate for public transportation. Privatizing it won't help, like it didn't in many places in the world (see England).
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        To be fair, the public transport in Vienna is €365 for a whole year and the network is one of the best in the world.
        oblio 1y ago
        There are some outliers that are very cheap for their cost of living but life is complicated, geography, politics, administrative capacity are all different, even between cities in the same country. And we have 0 proof for the private sector being cheaper. Privatization of transport is almost universally a disaster, even for cars and roads, frequently the costs are just hidden in a million places: budget deficits for road infrastructure, ever increasing public debt due to it, ever increasing car prices, road infrastructure budgets being distributed in a million places, etc. Uber was sort of cheaper for a while during ZIRP and thanks to massive price dumping/subsidizing due to VC investments while trying to corner the market. Now Uber is basically the same cost as regular taxis...

by oblio 1y ago

GardenLetter27 1y ago

> "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? > You can use public transport perfectly well. But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. > Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery. Yeah, I don't want that either, I really hated that in parts of the US and Mexico. Like where you can't even cross the street because there's a big road in between.

oblio 1y ago
> Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? Watch the video linked inked above, it answers your exact questions. Also, smoking as a thing isn't banned. Smoking is just banned in reasonable places. But instead of debating me, please watch the video. No place on this planet with more than, say, 10 000 people (so places where probably 80% of the world population lives) banned cars. A few amusement parks (or equivalent) are basically the only places where cars are banned. > But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass?
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  > What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass? It does, but it costs ~$106 a month. That's what happens when there's no competition. Automated self-driving taxi services will be better.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    That's roughly 5 uber rides. That's not bad at all?
  - oblio 1y ago
    LOL, in what world do you live in? That's a super good price. How much do you think daily usage of "automated self-driving taxi services" will be? :-))) Bucharest, a city in a much poorer country, charges about €16 for a 1 month pass for surface transport and €20 for a 1 month pass for the subway. That's about €36. The average salary in Stockholm seems to be about €46 000. The average salary in Bucharest is less than €24 000. So €100 per month seems about fair for what I assume is a pretty solid public transport network in a place with far more disposable income than Bucharest. Edit: Switzerland is famous for having a very well run public transport system. The Zurich monthly pass for all zones is about €250 per month... Yeah, Zurich has higher incomes for sure. Stockholm probably has a decent rate for public transportation. Privatizing it won't help, like it didn't in many places in the world (see England).
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      To be fair, the public transport in Vienna is €365 for a whole year and the network is one of the best in the world.
      - oblio 1y ago
        There are some outliers that are very cheap for their cost of living but life is complicated, geography, politics, administrative capacity are all different, even between cities in the same country. And we have 0 proof for the private sector being cheaper. Privatization of transport is almost universally a disaster, even for cars and roads, frequently the costs are just hidden in a million places: budget deficits for road infrastructure, ever increasing public debt due to it, ever increasing car prices, road infrastructure budgets being distributed in a million places, etc. Uber was sort of cheaper for a while during ZIRP and thanks to massive price dumping/subsidizing due to VC investments while trying to corner the market. Now Uber is basically the same cost as regular taxis...