3 ms·
Huh? Cars cost thousands of dollars and require upkeep, etc, etc. People use cars to flaunt their social status all the time. They're also an incredibly dehuman
by fortes 17y ago
Huh? Cars cost thousands of dollars and require upkeep, etc, etc. People use cars to flaunt their social status all the time. They're also an incredibly dehumanizing way to interact with people (see road rage, etc).
Cities which weren't built for the automobile are very different that those built in the last 50 years (sadly, in the US you can't really see this, but in much of Europe and Asia you can -- even South America has some pockets here and there).
- erlanger 17y agoA car allows me to travel anywhere I please, not where the Transit Authority deems worthy. Cars are very cheap when you consider the tremendous benefits of such independent mobility.
- fortes 17y agoA car allows you to travel anywhere with roads (which were constructed with public money). Road construction (like transit construction) was decided by the gov't.
- erlanger 17y agoAn effective train/bus must stop at every stop to pick people up. This is why public transit access is limited and could never remotely rival that of roads. On a road, every inch is a stop of its own, and the only people who have to stop for it are those who intend to go there.
- menloparkbum 17y agoDon't buses use roads? You're getting hard to follow.
- erlanger 17y agoYes. And buses only stop at their designated stops; you can't hail a bus like a cab. And you're being dense, which is worse.
- menloparkbum 17y agoAnd you're just pushing your tiresome agenda and boring everyone else on the site. Yes, cars are great in America because it's spread out and public transportation sucks. The point of the article was to illustrate an experiment with something new (a suburb designed for bikes and peds), which was interesting. Nothing you've said has been new or interesting.
- erlanger 17y agoIs that long-hand for "you were right, I was wrong, but nobody cares"? If people were bored by this topic, it would not have generated so many replies while being voted to -2 in the root comment. Also, it's intellectually dishonest for you to claim that these discussions have offered nothing of interest, especially given your propensity to engage in them. "Nothing you've said has been new or interesting." A fixation on novelty in discourse is not a good thing. Defending a conservative belief is no less valid than championing a new, liberal one (I use these terms apolitically).
- menloparkbum 17y agoYes. You win.
- stcredzero 17y agoThere are network effects at play. With good transit, the "worthy" places gravitate towards the transit nodes, for the same reason cities tended to form in river valleys. Cars really only allow you to travel where the Department of Transportation deems worthy. Also, the road network gets congested and is literally unusable in many large metropolitan areas for many purposes for about a two-hour span, twice a day. (Houston!) Rail has a much better record in my experience. (Commuting to work on the 7 train from Queens to Manhattan in the early 90's) Not only that, but the Department of Transportation gets its money from taxes, yet I have only indirect input to where the roads go. If you are touting "free-market" philosophy, you're only going halfway. That said, I love toll roads! I think the Westpark and Hardy tollways in Houston are awesome!