> What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? Certainly an interesting question, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Unless

> What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? Certainly an interesting question, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're really arguing against big cities rather than against mass transit, but that's an entirely different discussion. > Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode. No. Cars are human-hostile. Far, FAR more so than ANY other transit mode. Foir one thing, they kill FAR more people than any other transit more. But also because they require So. Much. More Space. Sure, it's nice to have your own private space while moving around (not worth much when you have to concentrate on driving and are thus stressed, but let's assume that will be alleviated by self-driving cars) but you're not alone. There are 100,000 people who also want to move in the same space. And thus everyone gets a big upside once and a downside that is small but multiplied by 99,999. The result is this: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F00000578-0-image-a-3_1518019491865.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F000005... And this: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2019/03/houston-before.jpeg https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/si... Now does that look human-friendly to you? > And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes. But what you're arguing for is to build them for cars instead. And we have done that and we know the result is horrible. And whe have done the other options too, and we know they are much better.