Slashdot Mirror
Creating Car Free Cities
Silas writes "CarFree.com is a great site that "proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles." The site presents a fascinating, detailed proposal for a major city (1 million people in 100 square miles) that doesn't require the use of cars. This isn't a new concept; a lot of the ideas are modeled off of major car free cities in Europe (like Venice)." The page on Morocco is fascinating.
Sponsored by Segway and Amazon.com. Remember, buy a Segway and go car free!
Here is where i see the future !
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Anything is better than the car-clogged cities we have today. Small trips have big cap fares as it takes longer to get there. I tried walking from one hotel to another in Las Vegas, I thought I was going to die from inhaling all of that pollution. At least Las Vegas is moving in the right direction with mono-rails (yes, MonoRail!)
If only NYC and others followed with some awesome inovations.
--------
Free your mind.
I was under the impression this is exactly what the Segway HT was designed to accomplish. Cleaning up cars obviously means much less pollution.
It's a great concept in general- people would be more likely to walk to where they had to go, rather than drive half a mile to the store to pick up the ice cream and chocolate syrup.
Maybe 5 years ago, I would've agreed with this, but now I don't. To me, it seems the main reason of "banning cars" is to make the environment cleaner. But with these new fuel cell cars and electric/gas hybrids, cars will be emission free soon. This idea doesn't really do it for me.
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
Venice is sinking. The major plazas flood frequently. Venice needs something like the Thames Barrier or Holland's dikes, but they haven't been able to get their act together and do it.
Don't feel like driving ?
Rent a Segway
Discussion
Using the latest state of the art in city simulations, something like Sim City 4. Build the city, and see how well it does! Save the game and let us play with the results.
here is another alternative http://www.arcosanti.org/ Arcosanti designed by the world famous artchitect - Paolo Soleri - actaully exists :)
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
sPh
I think for a true car-free city to work, it has to be reasonably compact.
Take for example Tokyo and New York City. The actual amount of land used in the center city is quite small, small enough that walking or using a mass-transit system becomes quite viable.
You definitely cannot do that in Los Angeles, that's to be sure--it's so spread out that you'll need exorbitant amounts of money to build a mass transit system the cover the whole Los Angeles Basin.
Note that in the case of London, England, the Underground subway system got there first before motor vehicle traffic because London HAD to build something to alleviate the horrible street-level traffic of horse-drawn carriages of various types in the late 19th Century immediately. That's why the Underground travels all over the London metro area--in fact, the Underground helped develop a number of London suburbs!
Cars keep getting in the way of my Jeep and the pickup trucks of my friends.
Hydrogen baby! The fuel of today.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The biggest problem with non-car methods of transportation is that it is very expensive to build.
All it takes to move via car is a relatively flat piece of land. If it's paved, all the better, although this is expensive as well (a mile of 4 lane highway costs millions). At least roads are (relatively) cheap to repair... you grind off the old surface, and re-cover the base.
Most non-car solutions involve rail, which is also expensive. Unfortunately, as a city expands, you'd need more and more interchanges, as well as 'feeder rails'. That's a hellacious amount of infrastructure.
Looking at one of the proposed architectures, the spoke-like arrangements, just seems to be comparisons to the cube/squared principle in biology. Perhaps the cities will have a small max size?
Of course, if people use a Segway, bike or (gasp) walk, a lot of this doesn't matter. At 6'5" and 280, I can't use a segway, so t'hell with 'em.
Besides, until 'rocket launcher' is an option, why bother?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
I can see maybe designing a city to be car-free, but it seems like it would be next to impossible to convert a typical city to such. Consider:
1) People like cars. Tell them they can't use thier cars anymore, and you're liable to be voted out of office.
2) If you get rid of cars, you have to have an alternative system of transportation in place. Unfortunately, the only place to PUT that system will many times be where the roads are now. Result: you can't build the system until the cars are gone, and you can't get rid of the cars until the system is ready!
Twenties Retirement
As a famous cybersecurity activist, I feel that I am highly qualified to critique the ideas of these so-called "Car-Free Cities." It's an extension of my earlier work, called "Michael Sims-free Cities."
As a famous cybersecurity activist, I have access to highly sophisticated simulation tools. In one of these tools, which I call "Simple City 3000," roads are represented by small grid tiles which resemble pavement (or as you Americans call it, "asphalt") in appearance. Each one costs $10, but here's the kicker: each year, an upkeep cost of $1 is required. That means that in a small city with 1000 tiles of roads, $1,000 is needed just for road maintenance. In larger cities like the one I downloaded from the web yesterday, more than $50,000 is needed just to maintain the roads.
In conclusion, roads are not the answer. Proper mass transportation can save a large city upwards of $30,000 per year.
Trust me. I'm an expert.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
the question is that of infrastructure.
Disney, for all it's faults, has excellent mechanisms to move large amounts of people around easily. (Although, lately it's been falling off).
Most modern cities have mass transit of one form or another, but the have highways that are filled to capacity (and they'll always be filled) and the cost of adding additional mass transit (or inital mass transit) is so expensive people believe it's not doable.
I mean here it is, 5:00 on a Friday and his webserver just melted into a pile of slag.
Er, sorry dude.
I live in the Los Angeles area, a city which experienced its largest growth after the car was already a staple in our culture. This is the most sprawled-out city I have ever lived in. It would be great to eliminate cars, but is it possible without completely uprooting the entire city and starting over? As it is, many people drive >30 miles from home to work....
I've been thinking about this for some time now. The city center of Montpellier, France is car-free (but with buses), and it's got great atmosphere. I loved walking around in the evening when people were out playing music and enjoying themselves in the streets.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Existing cities are easily converted to healthy, relaxing places if more people would just get off their ass and ride a bike.
Most trips that people take are very short ( a matter of a few miles, a few minutes ) to pick up groceries or go out for food.
These can easily be done on bicycle.
No need for Segways or creating new cities.
We just need some self-discipline people!
this is one of the lamest dumbest things i have ever heard. First off car free cities have to be small. Second, the number of mass transit stops makes it just as crowded as it does with cars. Besids, the subway won't let me take my kayak on the train so I think I will keep my car. Also, how are delievers made?
I did have to make some lifestyle choices to make this happen: I choose to work downtown and chose to live close enough to walk, bike, skate or unicycle there.
Besides, making a car-free city by making cars impossible ("Hey, let's flood the streets!") is not the goal. The goal is to make it possible for humans to retain their current level of productivity without needing cars. Also, within that goal, I think there's the implicit constraint that the cars don't get replaced with something just as bad (like boats in Venice, for example).
Cars are more than a mode of transportation to Americans. Most people I know grow very attached to their car even if it's an ancient, rusting, piece of shit.
Especially in the midwest, where cities are sprawling, trying to take a person's car from them is like trying to take heroin from an addict. It's extremely painful, it's guaranteed to be a drawn-out affair, and without diligence they'll be going back to the beast they knew and loved/hated.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Solution for crowded highways: Flood them with water... and LOTS of it. This will make them impassible to most vechicles and thus eliminate traffic jams. In addition, the boating industry would benefit.
The inefficient use of land and the liberal use of asphalt has turned America into a sterile hell of one 8 lane road after another. I understand that many Europeans are envious of our road system but the envy is misplaced when you have to drive way out to get anywhere or--even worse--you have to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to move four miles. That is reality in South Florida and southern California. I don't think everyone needs a car but the political structure here doesn't want to entertain the concept of public transportation. It's a dirty word or a social program at best.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Leftists hate individualism. They think people should be represented by their group, not by their own selves. They think people should be dependent on the government, not dependent on themselves. Individualism stands in the way of their big truth that all humans must embrace (or go to the gulag, as it always turns out in practice). Hence, Leftists hate cars.
Alright, this just has to be a joke. I mean, nobody is that mind-numbingly ignorant in real life, right?
I forgot something in my previous post: by "eliminating" cars, I didn't mean to imply outlawing them; rather, provide an infrastructure that makes it extremely unattractive to drive one.
You've got lots and lots of traffic, but then you have areas where it's just people walking and the trolly; much nicer without all the cars there.
Of course, this leads to the scariest thing in Denver: parking.
Twenties Retirement
they killed the public transport system in Los Angeles in the 30s, 40s and 50s for that exact purpose: force every person to need to own a car.
Boulder is big into trying to dissuade people from driving cars and to use public transit or other means of getting around. People, bicycles, and other man-powered (or small engine-powered) vehicles have the right-of-way and will use and abuse this fact at any opportunity, walking in front of moving cars and riding against red lights. This causes nasty traffic jams, accidents, and generally pisses people off. The roads are quite cozy and not accomodating to any sort of car larger than a Honda Civic, like my pickup truck.
I would love to live in an auto-free town, riding my bike and using monorails or whatever transport the city provides. But trying to adapt existing cities to this mindset is asking for nothing but trouble.
--Chag
The biggest problem I have found with these types of advocacy groups is that no one is proposing sensible plans for transitioning away from car-centric urban development.
I am all for living car-free, (In fact I have gone out of my way to organize my life so I only drive about once a week), but the fact of the matter is that we are currently saddled with ugly, sprawling, single-use zoned cities. With the possible exception of places in China, nobody is building large metropolitan areas from the ground up. What we really need are feasible intermediate steps to gradually eliminate the sprawl and the dependency on cars.
Intermediate steps need to have both the short term benefits as well as moving cities towards the goal of reducing auto-dependence.
this has been on-going for several years now. a friend of mine has been involved with the author of the book and told me about. it's got some really interesting concepts.
there have been several related stories in the regular news about how current city layouts contribute to the large amount of pollution -- especially the suburbs. look at most housing subdivisions now days, if you want to go to the store you have to get in the car. want to go to the movies and you have to use the car. even parks and recreational areas are mostly not in walking distance. all of this leads to more need to use the car to take care of simple tasks.
better planning is definitely needed. and the circular city idea certainly seems interesting.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
I've always wanted to try those pipes.
Leftists hate individualism.
Yes. We hate you all. Join the collective. Murp!
Hence, Leftists hate cars.
No, leftists hate individualism, and individualists hate communism, therefore leftists hate communists. Logic!
Oh, and the "it harms the environment" argument.
Oh, it's that old saw. No, we hate cars because cars hate individuals. Or communists. Remember, cars don't kill communists, individuals do. Power to the Collective!
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
you get teh wonderful aroma of urine! ... now, being a philly kid, i really wish we had a subway system nearly as good as NYC - this would be a much different city.
... hi bingo
Too bad they don't address the cultural barriers to car-free cities in the United States. Cars represent freedom here, plain and simple. Until that mindset changes, we won't have a car-free city for all the urban planning in the world. Can you even imagine something as benign as London's new car toll happening in Los Angeles or New York? People would scream bloody murder. Granted, there's a geographic component to consider as well; our cities are larger and more sprawling than in Europe or elsewhere.
On the Discovery Channel there is a show called Extreme Engineering. It looks like Japan is going to have some really cool designs to fix the growing population and urbran sprawl. One design is called Sky City which is a city in a building
It's probably not a joke. Plenty of morons actually think (if you can call it that) like that. Rush Limbaugh is the most famous example.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Seriously, cars are needed by most people that live in the U.S., simply because everything is so spread out. A city with no cars might as well be a 'vertically integrated' skyscraper, and either way will be horribly overpriced for people to live in- far more than they will save by not having cars! What a worthless ideal! Cars exist for a reason; they get you from one place to another at a reasonable speed, with little effort, and on YOUR terms. Unlike walking or bicycling or mass transit. I recently looked at using public transit to get to my business, and was disappointed to find that in order to use the bus, I would have to close my shop an hour earlier. Until public transit is universally available, at all hours, and goes reasonably close to all destinations, it's worthless to those that have even the simplest requirements for transportation. And that's why you'll never be rid of personal transportation vehicles.
... have you?
I remember the first time my dad took me there. I was 11 or 12 years old. It was falling apart faster than they were building it. It was an interesting walk albeit risky due to the delapidated nature and lack of any kind of safety barriers. This was roughly 23 years ago.
All these years later not much has changed. The web site makes it look a lot nicer than it really is.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It depends if you want to primarily: A) Reduce traffic B) Pollution A) Requires alternative transport, infrastructure change, and, most importantly, attitude change. B) Simply requires better cars. Implementing method A to solve problem B is like using a hammer to swat a fly. Both problems will have to be solved technically rather than socialogically. We humans are a stubborn bunch.
\\ Mitch
I have to wonder at this...all the above post does is insult, let's see, liberals, college students, environmentalists, and religious people, while adding nothing to the discussion, and it's modded interesting and insightful? I see why some people think the moderation system is broken.
I wanted to reply to the above post and refute the points in it, but I couldn't find any, aside from the author's apparent belief that there's no reason whatsoever to worry about pollution, which I don't think I need to respond to.
Twenties Retirement
Cars provided an incredible service that cannot be matched by public transportation. A truly modern and environmentally designed city that respects the rights of its citizens must keep an individual mode of transportation. Now, the key to this is that this does not mean a car. For example you can use personal transit systems (PRTs) which provide service very similar to your own car. That is, you are the only person in it and it takes you from point A to point B. Such systems run on rails or dedicated lines, and are computed controlled, which allow for much faster speeds (up to 150 mph).
These systems are actually cheap to build if you consider that road space would be freed and can be sold to private parties by the city. Think about it, selling two lanes of 5th Avenue in New York back to businesses would pay for the entire system in Manhattan.
You ever tried parking in a big city? If you can find a spot you'll pay heavily for it. I'm all for something that allows this to all go away.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
...is that it is based on the assumption that you can get everyone to agree on the same thing. I think it's safe to say that, unless you are ready to brainwash everyone or legislate them to the point of living in a mental prison then, it's never going to work.
I think we can all remember the end-result of that last great Utopian experiment known as the U.S.S.R.
-- Galen Rhodes grhodes@the-chatter-box.com Journal: http://journal.the-chatter-box.com/users/grhodes "Consistency
Not with the government in the auto industry's back pocket...
I guess since we can't have a crime free city we can have a car free city. I suppose that will cut down on the amount of bank robbers and hit and run accidents, thus supporting my theory of better transportation causes crime!
You have all lost, back to the horse and buggy.
Or if you are akin to Oregon Trail you can have multiple oxen and you can fix your wagon with parts you buy from the store!
AND SHOOT THEM BUFFALO
Anyways, offtopic you should have quit reading a paragraph or two ago!
i've gone over 800 miles on a segway ht and was able to give up a car and save quite a bit of $ per month. the city of seattle (where i live) has a fleet of segway hts, and after a year long study they're going to double the fleet. the hardest part is the cultural issues, having a car is what everyone does. there will be many posts here that poke fun of my transportation choices, but i also use a bicycle, public transit and car pools, so it's all about choices and having them...something we should all encourage.
first 800 miles
info on city of seattle
and interview i did with the city of seattle
cheers,
pt
And hey, before you even think about it, they put GPS trackers in them, so no cross-country Segwaying for you!
Car's aren't perfect but they are the most economically efficient solution for most places. The main problem with cars is that most governments have decided not to improve the roads when improvements are needed. When they do improve them they do stupid things like the Big Dig in Boston. Trains are wildly expensive for anything but the most densely populated cities. Segway's are too slow to handle long distance travel. Cars are versitile, quick, efficient, and do their job well.
The problem with getting rid of cars is that I want a back yard. The bigger the better. Most people don't want to live on top of one another in big buildings with no place for their kids to play. A world without cars is a world where everyone needs to be packed in on top of each other so that mass transit can work. I don't like that idea.
If the roads are too crouded, build bigger roads. It's not a hard conept. Why do people think they're doing something clever by not building roads when they should (I live in New Hampshire, north of Boston where commuting is horrible.) We waste thousands of man-hours of time every day, waste tons of gas, increase pollution and make thousands of peoples lives more stressful. It's not celever!
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
I don't think simulating cities is actually as easy as it sounds. It was only a few years ago that we reached the capability to simulate traffic in cities over a day or so. The actual growth of a city over years could take some big doing, or dumbing down of the simulation detail.
Here's the info on the traffic sim:
Los Alamos gains corporate partner for traffic simulation
Incidently, here's an interesting if not mildly amusing 'amatuer' traffic analysis:
Traffic Waves
And a more thorough site on better driving (which is actually pretty sweet- this should be required reading for drivers):
Big City Driver
Happy trails,
Jason
I think what people are overlooking is probably delivery services. Sure you could walk to a UPS store to pick up a package under this new design, but how does the supermarket get it's supplies. Local markets I know of need to get at least one truck full every night to maintain their stock. This seems much less feasible. Super markets are not the only ones of course, there are numerous businesses that need large shipments to come in. Unfortunately, CarFree.com has been /.'d so I can't see if they have plans in place for this traffic. It would seem that they would need to develop a transit system dedicated to deliveries, though, and that would be no small expense.
:-)
Further, suppose I wanted to travel outside of my perfect city (I dunno, going to see in-laws in Michigan). Will flying be the only option, or will there be a huge parking garage on the edge of the city so I can drive there. I know many people who prefer driving to flying.
In conclusion, we need transporters like in Star Trek for a car free world to work
Just some thoughts...
Yes. We hate you all. Join the collective. Murp!
And which should concern me more: the snide, childish blather that you type, or the things that Leftists do?
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
No, leftists hate individualism, and individualists hate communism, therefore leftists hate communists. Logic!
Your attempt to show the flaw in my logic fails. Leftists hate cars becuase they enable greater individualism.
Oh, it's that old saw. No, we hate cars because cars hate individuals.
No, you hate cars becuase you hate individualism. Like most Leftists (and Christians, for that matter), the finer points of communication evade you. You mock and insult. My guess is that my words struck a raw nerve in you.
Power to the Collective!
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this
lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'. It is a lie!"
Perhaps you've read that one? My guess is that you haven't.
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. You're actually going to have to engage your brain and debate with me if you expect to have any chance of swaying me to your government gravy-train, "I know what's best for everyone" arrogance.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Sometimes the phrase "harms the environment" is used to mean "makes earth less fit for human survival." Have you considered this?
Of course, I am in complete favor of solving this problem with better fuel. I like my car. I can fit more groceries in it than i would be able to carry on a train.
What people fail to realize is that car free cities might soon have a serious violence problem.
Without the most popular mean of overcompensation for, ahem, insufficiencies, more and more people will turn to what were until now secondary means: guns and wife beatings.
We need to figure out a solution to this problem before we take this big step. Perhaps padded shoes or somesuch.
No sig
You define yourself and your individualism by the car you drive? Or is it just the act of owning one that does it?
Personally, my image of myself & my place on the world is pretty unrelated to the vehicles I drive.
The vehicles I own are not very fuel efficient, but each one serves a purpose for me, so I keep them. Does that mean that I shouldn't have the option to ride mass transit to work? Am I a leftist because I'd rather ride the bus & read than drive my own vehicle and pay for parking? At least thats what I'd do if the bus ran on a schedule more convenient for me. I didn't realize that my distaste for traffic jams meant that I was such a socialist.
And if you think internal combustion engines are not harmful to the environment, would you be willing to start one up in a small garage & sit in there with it? My guess is that you would not.
It's about time we forget the cars. Of course I'm assuming we move to hovercars....I think Avro was working on one, lets start them up again.
I Love Alberta Beef
Oh, please. I recently moved from a small town to a large city(Memphis), which is heavily car-dependent. I must say that I had much more individual freedom back home, where I could walk or ride my bike to the stores, and the traffic was light if I wanted to take my car.
Now, the city I live in pretty much forces me to ride my car everywhere. The geography is such that everything is spread out, so it is impractical to ride a bike, not to mention the fact that the roads are not safe to ride in.
I think that if you want to reduce car usage, you should try to make cities smaller, which makes accomodating pedestrians and bikes easier. Of corse you still need cars for long trips, but one should not have to use one just for everyday tasks. Being forced to use a car is no more free than being forced not to use one.
Man, if this is your sig, then I'm really sorry for saying this, but you're an idiot. It looks like you're saying cars don't harm the environment. Cars do harm the environment, and they do pollute. In big cities like Los Angeles, you're lucky if you can see the hills 1/4 mile away from you. The smog is so thick on some days everything is grey, almost like an overcast day. I don't live in LA, but the few times I've visited, it sure made me glad that I live in Washington.
Also, the oil that leaks out of your car in the driveway, and all the grease and road grime that comes off when you wash your car, all leaks down onto your driveway. From your driveway, when it rains, it goes into the street, then into the gutters, which goes into the sewers, and into nearby lakes, rivers and streams. Now, call me queer, but I'm pretty sure that oil is bad in the water supply.
I would pretty much say, yeah, that cars do indeed pollute.
And since all leftists are just Star Trek watching, socialist, college students, I wouldn't worry about what they have to say. Because it seems that the majority of people right now, are right-wing, SUV driving, Friends-watching, people who once were in college, and aren't going to give up thier selfish, wanna-have-invididualism even though its going to destroy the planet for everyone, ways.
No, i _like_ cars, because they enable greater individualism. Leftists like individualism!
Rightists are the ones who hate individualism! Rightists want everyone to bow down and think the same way they do. Rightists hate cars!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Of course with the warming and rising of the seas, and Venice suffering from raising water levels, swamping the lower levels of many buildings, Venice may soon be called Atlantis
I want a city that uses the Futurama tubes! How much fun would that be... that is until you go where you were going and relized you didn't know hot to stop. Oh, we could use cars back seats as landing cushions. Recycling at its best... or something..
-Valiss
Without the cars, my little sister will be much safer as she walks that 3/4 mile in the dark from the subway to her house, instead of driving directly to her door.
And the "fun" neighborhoods will be great, since going to a different neighborhood, or a different city will be too difficult, so youll just have to enjoy the higer prices and lower quality of your neighborhod market. Or maybe youll be lucky and have all the variety of shops within your area that you want. You wont have a choice anyway, so suck it up.
ANd as for the health bennifits, yeah, its great. Why last january, i would have loved to have had to walk everywhere theough the snow and sleet, much better than taking my heated automobile. THe colds I would catch would definetly help my immune system, and the average health of the nation would go up as all the old people died from longer walks in bad weather.
Youre right, i cant see any downsides to this.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Consider all the human labor and parts, each part built of resources harvested from the environment. Each hour translating into time you spend working to support that car. Consider the sum cost of your car / insurance / fuel / registration / parking tickets in a year. You WORK to support that. Wouldn't you rather be free of that?
Consider all the NOISE that comes off a freeway, as well as the fact that tar / asphault highways must be MAINTAINED. If you live in a city, think about how many times you've suffered the noise from a jackhammer. Think of all the times they've torn out a road to fix a pipe, and then replaced the road with something worse than you had in the first place.
Consider the environmental eyesore that a TEXACO / CHEVRON / SHELL station is. Try to remember what the country looked like before the drivethrough convenience store. You used to be able to walk to those places. Now our cities are half parking, guessing 5% auto maintenace commerce, roadside billboards. Where's the soul?
If you've been victimized by them (i have), consider the involuntary stress / tightening of your jaw muscles when you see a parking enforcer. Ever had your car hostile-towed?
How about car breakins / vandalism / theft? Been there, suffered that.
Been to a bar lately? Had to get home lately?
Consider the sound of a heavy delivery truck in reverse (beep beep beep). Now scale that to the number of times you hear it. Live in a real city? Ouch.
If you live in a snowy area, think of how it is, scraping ice off your windshield in the morning, and hoping your car battery didn't die. And if it did, paying the tower, or buying a replacement battery.
AND, finally, think of all the money you give to the auto and insurance industries. They ARE the same folks who make tanks and HUM-V's. And, yes, they ARE corporate lobbyists. So when you get a lame war, or when the trolley system in your city gets dismantled, remember whose money was used to give them that political power. It was yours.
I'm sure there's more, but that should press the best buttons.
Think b4 you drive.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
I have recently thought about the significant consequences a world would experience if teleportation were to be perfected and economically feasible. The infrastructure of the entire world as we know it would be useless (roads, garages/parking decks, mass transit, etc). The most we'll need would be sidewalks. Car manufactorers, insurance companies, etc would be out of business. How would the government or (god help us) a private corporation bill us for such transportation? What about insurance companies for teleportation? Heh.
There exist quite a number of PRT systems that could give us car free cities.
I think Taxi 2000 has the most mature concepts.
The Ultra concept is also interesting, mostly because it
can make some use of existing streets. They also have a neat test track.
liberals, college students
Why be redundant? College students are most always hyper leftist. It makes sense: while living in their isolated world of "higher thought" where they don't have to work for a living, socialist theories seem like a perfect fit. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "If you're not liberal when you're young, you're heartless. If you're not conservative when you're old, you're brainless."?
environmentalists, and religious people
Again, why be redundant? Environmentalism is a religion, and religion is superstition.
As to your charge that "all most post does is insult," I disagree. I stated that Leftists hate individualism (do you agree or disagree?). I stated that cars promote individualism (do you agree or disagree?). There's several points there that are worth contesting, don't you think? My guess is that you dislike my conclusion but can't disagree with my premises or logic, so you just want to label the whole thing as "insulting".
while adding nothing to the discussion
What a nice opinion.
I wanted to reply to the above post and refute the points in it, but I couldn't find any
Perhaps you just failed to find one that you disagreed with. I've already mentioned two of my points that you could contest. Whether or not environmentalism is a religion is also debateable, don't you think?
aside from the author's apparent belief that there's no reason whatsoever to worry about pollution, which I don't think I need to respond to.
It's "apparent"? Well, what exactly did I type that made this lie "apparent" to you?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Personal Rapid Transit, IMO, is the future. You can see some of it at Taxi2000. I don't like how some of the prototype's look (look flaky, cheap) but it's on the right track. (no pun intended)
In your area, probably not as much.
No, you hate cars becuase you hate individualism. Like most Leftists (and Christians, for that matter), the finer points of communication evade you. You mock and insult. My guess is that my words struck a raw nerve in you.
Not really, but that's gonna strike nerves in whole bunches of individualists!
I've never seen finer points of communication than those exhibited in this thread.
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
OK, I can't RTFA, the host name doesn't even resolve, but...
I guess car free would be OK, as long as:
a. Nobody ever wants to go anywhere public transit doesn't go (another city? countryside?)
b. There's some way to get 50lbs of groceries plus other assorted, bulky, items, to within 10ft of my door while also transporting my wife, two kids and a great-grandparent.
Good luck.
sig fault
seriously, ;p
i know a guy at my work who during lunch would drive his SUV to mac donalds (which only a block from my office)
what a waste of gas and for what ? greasy junkfood without event working your muscle and cardiovascular to get to it.
if people were forced to walk,cycle,skate or at least ride a public transport, we'll see alot more healthy and fit bodies.
imagine a city where all the girls had a killer bodies
drool
for heaven sake...get some excercise people!!!
But what many people overlook is that a large fraction of the cars are taxis and limousines. And taxis are fairly affordable.
You can get by without a car in NYC because you can just flag down a cab any time, day or night. Widespread availability of taxis is an important part of a city free of (personal) automobiles. If other cities had a taxicab system as good as that in NYC, far fewer people would need cars. As a bonus, it is politically and practically much easier to convert taxi fleets to new standards (natural gas, hydrogen, electricity) than personal automobiles.
Last time I was in vegas I walked from mandalay to circus and back on a middle of the night photography trip, carrying 35 lbs of gear. That's at least the third time I have walked the entire strip. Never once was I short-of-breath or gagging from pollution. ...and I haven't done any meaningful exercise in about 4 years.
but they really arn't good for moving masses of people.
In Europe, we pay over a euro per LITRE, and youre complaining about paying over a dollar per GALLON? Replace those giant filthy pieces of metal and buy a nice littlle 1l car.
It consists of small (1-4 passengers) elevated subway cars on a network of tracks. Passengers could ride alone or with friends, and each car could go to every station without stopping. So you'd walk to the station nearest you, wait a minute or so for a car to arrive, and go directly to the station nearest your desitination.
Major traffic centers (e.g., malls, hotels, office complexes) could have stations inside the building.
So far, Taxi2000 seems furthest ahead on the tech aspect. No, I don't own stock. I tried to buy some, but the company is selling only to large investors.
Cars represent individualism. I can hop in my car and drive pretty much wherever I want, whenever I want. It offers me great individual mobility. Much moreso than the ever-so-overhyped Segway(tm).
Leftists hate individualism. They think people should be represented by their group, not by their own selves. They think people should be dependent on the government, not dependent on themselves. Individualism stands in the way of their big truth that all humans must embrace (or go to the gulag, as it always turns out in practice).
Yep. Remember consumers, the American Automobile represents individualism! That's why you should go out and buy a gas guzzling SUV and be like all of the other good, patriotic, middle class soccer moms!
Seriously, though. Cars offer less freedom than you think. For the most part, people use them to get to and from work. Thus they are stuck in traffic on the highways, obeying traffic signals, stressing out when they almost get hit by the half asleep guy who is swerving in the next lane over, and so forth for a good chunk of time when they could be doing more productive and easier things like reading, etc. on a well run public transportation system.
Of course, "well run" is the key here.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
You define yourself and your individualism by the car you drive? Or is it just the act of owning one that does it? Personally, my image of myself & my place on the world is pretty unrelated to the vehicles I drive.
The reason why you had to make this personal is because your argument sucks. The answer to both of your questions is "no". I maintain that cars enable greater individualism, and that's why Leftists hate cars.
The vehicles I own are not very fuel efficient, but each one serves a purpose for me, so I keep them. Does that mean that I shouldn't have the option to ride mass transit to work?
No.
Am I a leftist because I'd rather ride the bus & read than drive my own vehicle and pay for parking?
No.
At least thats what I'd do if the bus ran on a schedule more convenient for me. I didn't realize that my distaste for traffic jams meant that I was such a socialist.
Did something I write make you think that I like traffic jams?
And if you think internal combustion engines are not harmful to the environment, would you be willing to start one up in a small garage & sit in there with it? My guess is that you would not
That which is "harmful to my health" is different and separate from that which is "harmful to the environment". The former is a health concern while the latter is a religious belief.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I can hop in my car and drive pretty much wherever I want, whenever I want. As long as it's not to the mall at 5 p.m. on Friday.
provide an infrastructure that makes it extremely unattractive to drive one.
Los Angeles already has this infrastructure in place. It's called the 405, 110, 101, 710, 5, 91, etc...
Tear down the cities and concrete slum block by block and replace them with Arcologies. Energy effeicient, social, environmental - and no cars.
Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle. There are a few things that would have to change from today's norm, including adapting to slightly smaller houses, much smaller yards, etc. Think of row housing, with enough yard for a small garden, and you get the idea. It would be much more sustainable, but most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.
I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus. It takes about twice as long as a car, but I don't get to work frustrated from the traffic. Five or ten years from now, I expect that my next house will be closer to work, smaller, and better designed. Many poeple I know expect to keep upsizing to ever-larger houses on more land, further from work. Most environmental problems are not someone else's fault, they result from decisions we make every day, magnified by millions or billions of people.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
There's a book I had from years ago about "ecologies" in which the solution was business at the bottom (underground, ground level) and people occupied the rest of the layers. There can be some pluses to businesses being close such as recycling.
here's my plan: a gradually increasing tax on gasoline (with a corresponding decrease in income/sales tax).
this tax would pay for:
1) the fact that if I live in a city I will die one or two years earlier in large part due to car pollution.
2) the deaths of 5000 pedestrians per year.
3) the time I waste everytime I get to a street and have to wait thirty seconds just to get across (stoplights only exist because there are cars).
4) a significant fraction of the military (no one denies that the US interest in the middle east is due, at least partly, to securing oil).
5) the time spent by police officers dealing with traffic violations.
6) the land used up by roads and public parking spaces beyond what is required by a pedestrian/cyclist (taxed at the same rate as the local property tax).
7) etc.
when the tax is fully in place, people will be paying the TRUE PRICE of driving their vehicles, and there will be many fewer people driving as a result. Urban areas will gradually become less car-centric.
Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.
Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.
Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.
Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities. I recommend you visit, oh, say, Amsterdam sometime. What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there. Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light. No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker - and it's safe to say people are pretty individualistic there. The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.
As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.
Just as long as the city is no bigger than 5 square blocks and no one orders anything that weighs more than 10 pounds.
And all furniture has to be rattan, all beds have to be futons.
No ovens, no refrigerators, and no washing machines. Unless you put all of the houses on the outside of the city where vehicles can reach.
It must just be the American in me. I visited the page, saw the word "details" and thought it said "decals." I thought, "Wow! A car decal to advocate a carless city!"
JA
http://www.johnalex.org/
That's bad news for you, since he already made a complete fool of you.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
My idea for a "perfect" urban and sub-urabn living space would be to have higher density living spaces - smaller houses would be a start - with less "backyard" space. However, every few blocks would have greenspace to share with a bigger park not too far away.
I would also eliminate as much as possible the notion of the driveway and make people walk a bit farther to their cars. One big parking lot for everyone. It makes for more enjoyable greenspace. Yes, this does make moving almost impossible so someone has to figure that one out.
Mass transit would be easily accessible - light rail for instance - reasonably close to the living space.
The major problem here though, IMO, is that strip malls and convienice stores are robbing small businesses of their chance to make money. Small businesses would be forced to moved within the cities and not stay in the suburbs. Where I live in the suburbs strip-malls with Business Depots, large electronics chains etc, where I'd rather shop at local businesses - and I have to go well out of my way.
A related issue is that of linking up major metropolitan areas.
Who decided that San Jose should get a Light Rail system that is wholely incompatible with BART. If they had thought for maybe a second, the entire Bay Area could be linked by one complete system.
The same goes for Baltimore's Light Rail and Washington's Metro. Sure, they're about 25 miles apart now... but eventually they'll converge. When they converge they'll be incompatible.
I'm no transit expert, but it seems like it is COMPLETELY RETARDED to have adjacent metropolitan areas building incompatible systems.
And what crackhead decided to build Seattle's Bus Tunnels. That's just weird.
Las Vegas' Monorail (that's right, MONORAIL!) will be cool but doesn't go very far and is a couple of LARGE blocks off The Strip.
In the real world, it also takes insurance, traffic police, highway patrols, traffic courts, road cleaning, snow removal, over- and under-passes, gas stations, refineries, planning offices, car junkyards, emergency roadside assistance, fast-responding emergency medical services, helicopters, traffic surveillance, traffic computers,and on and on. Many of those costs are much lower or non-existent for public transportation, and you do pay for them, through taxes, fees, association memberships, auto and medical insurance, etc., expenses you may not associate with cars but expenses that are nevertheless very real.
And those are only direct, easily quantifiable costs. When you add in costs for maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf, for respiratory diseases caused by pollution, for lost productivity due to traffic jams, for ecological damage from paving over large parts of the country, and other such effects, the costs are even worse.
As an exercise, just total up what you pay in terms of gas, insurance, license fees, interest, amortized purchase price, amortized disposal fees, and other car related expenses per year. I think you'll be surprised how expensive driving it, and that only accounts for a fraction of the costs mentioned above.
Oh, by the way, I don't know whether you are in good shape or not, but if you drive less, chances are you would also be in better shape than you are now (and save on medical bills, too).
Man, if this is your sig, then I'm really sorry for saying this, but you're an idiot.
.sig is about the "AIDS==HIV" hypothesis being the largest medical fraud in human history. And thanks for the ad hominem; it's evidential of the sucky quality of your argument.
Actually, my
It looks like you're saying cars don't harm the environment.
You are assuming a point in dispute which this claim.
Cars do harm the environment, and they do pollute.
The first claim is not applicable, the second claim is true.
In big cities like Los Angeles, you're lucky if you can see the hills 1/4 mile away from you. The smog is so thick on some days everything is grey, almost like an overcast day. I don't live in LA, but the few times I've visited, it sure made me glad that I live in Washington.
How much of the smog is caused by cars, and how much is caused by other things? You assume that it's all due to cars, and I don't agree.
Now, call me queer
I'm a gay man, and I don't throw around that word lightly.
I'm pretty sure that oil is bad in the water supply.
Your glittering generalities do not impress me. In any case, I agree that drinking oil would be bad. How much of that oil that you mentioned is in "the water supply"?
I would pretty much say, yeah, that cars do indeed pollute.
I agree.
And since all leftists are just Star Trek watching, socialist, college students, I wouldn't worry about what they have to say.
I agree. Unfortunately, some of them happen to be in the highest offices of the most powerful nation on earth.
Because it seems that the majority of people right now
So leftist of you. "Only the majority is important. Screw the minority!"
people who once were in college, and aren't going to give up thier selfish, wanna-have-invididualism
This is where Leftists and Christians say exactly the same thing. The Christian version of what you've said is this: "People won't give up their selfish ways and turn to God". To Leftists, God is Government (or Gaea). To Christians, God is the 3-in-1. The sin for both groups is selfishness.
even though its going to destroy the planet for everyone
I know you love Gaea very much, but we're not going to destroy the planet. Even if we pollute the hell out of it, it will be "The Earth + Pollution". The Earth will not be destroyed. Yes, I lifted that from George Carlin.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
until we destory america as it is and start over
again
hopefully well get on that soon.
Leftists hate individualism. They think people should be represented by their group, not by their own selves. They think people should be dependent on the government, not dependent on themselves. Individualism stands in the way of their big truth that all humans must embrace (or go to the gulag, as it always turns out in practice).
*blink, blink*.
Odd, I thought the intsitute-government-control, ban-free-speech side of the spectrum was the Right. No, wait, we were both wrong--the Right and the Left are both indipendant thinkers; it's the zealots that fit our stereotypes.
Hence, Leftists hate cars.
I find myself rather on the left side of the political spectrum, and I love cars. Heck, my co-workers all love or are married to someone who loves cars. Heck, a "leftist" program in the area GIVES cars to people!
Not that I like cars, myself. I would actually prefer to see American cities (particularly my own hometown of Atlanta where it is impossible to live sans auto and thus suffers from the worst, most redneck-engineered traffic jams in the country) become more pedestrian friendly.
How so, exactly? All the sidewalks in the world won't help if your job is still ten miles away.
But I'm not so blind as to understand why so many Star-Trek-worshipping pan-socialist latch-onto-the-government-teat know-it-all college-student crybabies would like to ban the automobile.
"I'm not so blind" and "understand" shouldn't go together. You can be "not so blind" that you AGREE with someone, or so blind that you don't "understand" them, but you can't be "so blind you don't understand."
FWIW, "they" want to "ban"* cars because they feel that a car-free city, or a city that isn't build around the automobile, would be a better place to live--and they recognize that no one would ever make a profit by banning cars, thus it must be a government action or it won't happen. (This is simliar to going to the moon, going to war, or protecting the environment--if the government doesn't do it, by law or by program, it won't get done.)
Oh, and the "it harms the environment" argument. To you, I say your God is Gaea, and I think your religion, like all religions, is superstitious garbage.
The rebuttal is "move out of Atlanta and go to a real city." When you can't breathe due to the smog, THEN you can say "the environment's fine."
Environmentalism is a cookey end in itself, but it's a perfectly viablle means to the real end of making life better for "us."
*: to be specific, the "they" = "leftist bogeymen" and "ban" = "legally restrict driving within a city"
There is a major point overlooked in most (if not all) plans to ban cars from cities (or create new cities without cars in them): People ENJOY driving their cars.
:)
I simply do not want to get wet when it rains, I don't want to wait for any form of public transportation either.
Busses, subways and trains go from some point I'm not at, to a place that I do not need to go. And, usually, at a timepoint I dont need to travel.
For this luxury, I'm quite willing to sacrifice some environmental aspects, and I dont mind taking the risk of being ran over too...
Fortunately, I can choose not to live in a city like this
And which should concern me more: the snide, childish blather that you type
.sig your sanity is in question, too, so perhaps I should just bow out of this little conversation...
YOU'RE accusing someone ELSE of childish blather? That's funny.
Your attempt to show the flaw in my logic fails. Leftists hate cars becuase they enable greater individualism.
And yet, it's the Rightists who pass the laws restricting speech. It's the Rightists who all look the same, act the same, dress the same, talk the same.
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'. It is a lie!"
Just because Nietzsche said something doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. And if you're going to quote him, try reading the rest of his philosophy before deciding to appoint him as some sort of moral visionary.
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. You're actually going to have to engage your brain and debate with me if you expect to have any chance of swaying me to your government gravy-train, "I know what's best for everyone" arrogance.
It's difficult to sway someone with reason away from a viewpoint that they arrived at without using reason at all. You're a right-wing sheep; nobody's going to change your mind, no matter how convincingly they disprove your erroneous statements. Judging by your
Just add $1.50/gal federal gas tax, spending the money for research and subsidy of alternatives. The problems will sort themselves out.
Don't forget that the whole car industry is/was subsidized by building the Interstates out of the country's general fund.
See, the problem with your troll is that you didn't build up to the climax. Your first paragraph was pretty good... fairly lucid, yet somewhat controversial. But then you just right into "Leftists hate individualism", which gives the troll away immediately. What you needed was a gradual introduction of the concept... talk about freedoms and so forth (perhaps citing the DMCA or something), then mention the government tendency to limit freedoms, specifically leftist governments, and then *finally* the coup de grace, "Leftists hate cars". I would suggest following as a possible modification:
-----
Cars represent freedom. I can hop in my car and drive pretty much wherever I want, whenever I want. It offers me great individual mobility. Much moreso than the ever-so-overhyped Segway(tm).
Of course, as we all know, the government in recent years has shown a distinct lack of interest in personal freedoms, passing such ridiculous laws as the DMCA, not to mention the state-level super-DMCAs. This is just another similar move, cleverly justified by ridiculous "environmental concerns" being touted by leftists who are really more concerned with limiting our personal freedoms (just look at the attacks on gun ownership, something which is a sanctified *right* in the constitution!)
Thus, its plainly obvious that this paper is really an attack on freedoms, thinly disguised by a veneer of politically correct, environmental double-speak.
Don't get me wrong, I would actually prefer to see American cities (particularly my own hometown of Atlanta where it is impossible to live sans auto and thus suffers from the worst, most redneck-engineered traffic jams in the country) become more pedestrian friendly. But I'm not so blind as to understand why so many Star-Trek-worshipping pan-socialist latch-onto-the-government-teat know-it-all college-student crybabies would like to ban the automobile.
Only 300 odd comments and it's /.ed! OMFG!!!2!1111
How about https://www.cclondon.com/index.shtml - The central London (UK) system. Anecdotal, and personal comments are that it is taking the traffic out - but London does have a rather good public transport system that on the whole works well. For a techie pov - a simple combination of SMS and cameras seems to be providing a good m-commerce solution.
I know this wouldn't be a popular idea, since cars are so damned ingrained in American's lives, but what do you do with "bad" things to discourage people from using them in this society: tax the crap out of them. Slap a gas tax more comporable to Europe, rising the cost of gas to $5 a gallon, raise registration fees, raise licencing fees, raise insurance, etc. AT THE SAME TIME as providing people mass transit opportunities, and watch people abandon their cars (while raising hell in the process, but hey ... it's for the good of us all). Take the example of London charging a fee to drive in downtown during business hours. I don't think it will be done, but it's one solution.
Yeah, I laugh at the dumb fuckers that walk 3 blocks to wait for a idiot-packed, foul-stench bus that will take them near a train station where they wait for an asshole-filled, dead fish smelling train that will take them 25 blocks away from their destination so they wait for another fucking bastard crammed, CSI lab odor bus. How stupid do you have to be to do something like that if you have a choice? Mass transit is for suckers and people who aren't in a hurry.
To be fair, I am probably what you would consider a leftist, and I absolutely love my car. I don't see individualism and "leftism" as being mutually exclusive. ("Leftism" is quite a relatitive term anyway. Doesn't it really just mean "more liberal than those who are conservative"?) I don't think people should be dependent on the government, I think that the government should be a useful tool of the public (George Washington: "Government.. is a handy servant, but a dangerous master."); to be a useful tool, it has to be adequately funded. As a "leftist", you imagine that I want to send everyone to a gulag, yet "leftists" seem to be the ones who speak out most to ensure equal rights. I donate to both the ACLU and the EFF.
You are using the term "leftist" as simply a buzzword, much like "communist" was used in the 1950s and "terrorist" is being used today.
Leftists hate individualism.
I'll agree with you on that, but I hope you're not suggesting the right dosn't hate individualism just as much. There's a lot of difference betwean the left and right if you go by their words, but if you go by actions they might as well be the same party.
Try fighting the Highway Lobby here in the states. There's a reason why mass trans is so backwards here.
Even if there WERE good-fast-cheap public transportation I would still drive a car! I don't want to have to hear, smell or look at the dregs of humanity.
A couple years ago a friend and I got to experience Rome's mass transit firsthand. We were crushed into an unventilated subway car with about a hundred other people: several people tried to pick my pockets and my friend reported an attempt to sodomize her through her clothing. Lovely.
I hear so much harping on the Patriot Act here on Slashdot. Have you ever considered how precious your freedom of movement is, and how the banning of private transportation would limit your freedom?
A lot of activists and such have been pushing mass transit in the states for years. The reason it hasnt caught on is one very simple fact.
People like their cars. People dont like other people, and cars offer sanctuary from the fould world that surrounds us. Mass transit doesnt succeed because of deep seated social problems, and more city planining wont fix that.
While you bring up some interesting points, I refuse to build my life around where I work. Rather, I build my life about the things I want/need (security, friends, family, etc.).
I also plan to change jobs much more often than I plan to move. Five to ten years from now, who knows where I'll be working, but I'll probably be living in the same community.
The cars have been taken from the infidels! The leftist dogs are committing suicide at the gates of Atlanta! In fact, there aren't any cars! You never drove a car, because the villians that watch Star Trek never had a car! They tried to bring a small numbers of cars through Atlanta, but they had their throats cut. Truely.
http://www.virusmyth.net/
It's all well and good to call it "bad science", but it's hardly fraud or a hoax. The people working to stop the spread of HIV may be mistaken, but they're not intentionally misleading anyone. (Well, the drug companies might be--but that's a different topic.)
More disturbing, though, is the theorum that anti-AIDS drugs actually cause the disease--I mean, the darn disease has been around for quite awhile, whether or not HIV causes it. (The best way, IMO, to debunk an HIV-AIDS relationship is to find someone with AIDS who tests as HIV-)
Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.
Are there any cofactors involved in AIDS, or is HIV sufficient? Why does KS appear only in gay men? Do malnutrition and drug abuse cause immunodeficiency?
We'll see just how "kooky" I am if you choose to engage me in this discussion. Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.
Wow, "you dummy"! You could have come up with a better ad hominem than that!
I hate to break this to you, but there is an selfish element in all actions. If there isn't anything in it for you, then you won't do it. This is a fact.
Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.
I agree!
Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities.
Not only do I disagree, but inform you that you can't tell me what to think.
What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there.
And where did I argue against mass transit?
Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light.
And this is where you falsely assume that air quality is related solely to automobile usage.
No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker
The nature of all government is to get bigger until they are overthrown. The government of the USA will become bigger and bigger, just like those of Europe have. Do you think that The Netherlands is a more or less free society than the USA's is? Freedom here means "I can do whatever I damn well please". What do you think? Smoking pot is one of only a few million things you can do that a government may restrict.
And I believe all drug laws should be repealed.
The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.
And don't forget "run by the government"!
As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.
Oh how naive you are! Do you think that the world of science is free of ego and petty politics? Science isn't always exactly scientific. Environmentalism, as a religion, is even less so.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
GM bought the LA streetcar system in order to run it at a profit and to have a customer that would buy only GM products. GM was unable to run the system at anything close to a profit, even considering the captive market. When it became clear that nothing could save this obsolete money-loser, they shut it down. The only thing that could have saved the LA streetcars would have been for the city to take them over and run them at ever-increasing losses.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Related project: a book on those pesky cars. See www.buckmaster.ca/trafficlife To appear soon.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Just another view of all this... How many people died from terrorists last year in the world. 700ish I heard? How many people died in car accidents just in America? 50,000ish? How much money are we (our dictator Bush) spending on playing cowboys and Iragis? 75 billion I think he requested?
I know I'm stretching connections here but it's still interesting to think what could happen if we spent 75 bil$ on transportation in this country. How many lives would be saved just by improving mass transit, or better bike lanes, or just some informative commercials or billboards for all the thick-headed drivers around here.
Just pondering...
Jason
Americans love their cars. The idea of a carless city, however noble, ethical and good, simply is going to be a hard sell for the majority of Americans. For whatever reason, be it advertising, social structures, etc. having a car is a BIG DEAL that so many of us would be loathe to give up.
Having a car for so many people is about control. They drive to and from work in a little isolated bubble, playing the music they want to hear, sipping their coffee. It's addicting. I've talked to so many people who admit they should ride the bus or ride mass transit but they don't, because they always are scared of some bum knifing them or listening to some kid blasting his boom box. Second, people get pissed off when having to deal with bus schedules. They want to go where they want when the want, not wait around for some bus to pick 'em up. It's all about selfish control in this instant gratification society.
Second there's a huge social stigma associated with cars. I've heard people say, they don't want to ride the bus with "those people". "Those people" meaning, the people too poor to afford a nice car. I've lived in LA where people ask you "what kind of car do you drive?", as if it was more important than anything else. It's as if, you don't have a car, you're in another social group. You have to work hard to come up with some excuse as to "why not" that isn't because you can't afford it. But you have to have a reason!
Lastly, the layout of cities is another big deal. If you don't have a car, due to the crappy nature of mass transit in this nation, you're stuck in the neighboor hood you live or work, and are missing out on so many things ... because no city ... save SF or NYC, has everything you need within a walking radius. Seriously. You either have to get on a bus or drive in order to get access to some basic things ... shopping, groceries, entertainment. And so if you don't have a car, the pressure is so great to get one.
I didn't have a car for the longest time but eventually succumbed to the pressure. You simply cannot expect to live one's whole life in this country without a car. And that's sad.
Thanks for making his point for him. He said that cars enable more individuality. Think about it: without your car, you have to take the bus, or whatever pathetic public transportation system Memphis has. You have to do it by their schedule, their routes. Generally this means making a big sacrifice in where you can go and when you can be there. In other words, giving up much of your individual choice in the matter. He argues that having a car enables that individual choice, and he's right. The big city stifles individuality to a point that a car is necessary in order to enable you to gain some of it back!
You, on the other hand, are a moron. You essentially argue that the big city stifles your freedom to go where you want, when you want. But being the stupid ass that you are, you confused that with the argument about cars. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Totally separate issues, bucko. Think about it a little longer, and maybe you'll see the truth. Go on, take your time. You'll probably need it.
"Since I bike to work, the only thing I ever use my car for is going "specialty" shopping, usually for things like cat litter, which is a bit too heavy for carrying. If only there was some sort of a website from which I could order these things, and have them delivered right to my house ..." ...on a bike. :)
Seriously I enjoy bikes. I've used them most of my life. Rain, sleet, snow (yes snow), windy (the wind can really slow you down), sunny, etc. But even I will acknowledge that bikes have their limitations. Trailers, pancho's, painers, backpack. I've used them all. But as I've gotten older for all my good health, it becomes harder and harder to do as I once did. Long distances, dealing with snow and cold, consuming good portions of time (I use to come in late from work), traffic[1]. And even though this city has mass transit, it is rather lacking in many ways (they just recently got carriers for some of the buses).
Even a Moped is only a partial solution (ever try one in winter?). A car looks more and more desirable, that and a much warmer climate (I hate winter).
[1] Did you know your food bill goes up? All that energy has to come from somewere.
All that said, I agree that wiser decisions on everyone's part can help. However, you make it sound like a point blank choice of whether to drive a car or not. In most parts of the United States it is necessary to function.
"Catapults"
I've been trying to convince my friends for years that catapults is the answer. Stategically placed around the city, maybe a spoke pattern, or maybe some hubs. With a landing zone and another launcher or two aimed at other fixed LZ's.
How cool would that be?! Sure, there's some (minor) details to figure out (how many people at a time, how should they be packaged, etc etc), but it'd be fast, easy, efficient, and above all a FUCKING TRIP! No more boring commutes!
I gotta start writing my representatives again on this...
Jason
Paranoid Fantasy or Snide Remark, you decide.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
There's one street downtown that's a walking street. It's for tourists and the business-lunch crowd. Otherwise Denver is a traffic nightmare before your very eyes. I drove in and out of a downtown conference three days ago, spent 30min to drive 8miles and paid $14 to park for six hours.
In the grand scheme of things, one of the biggest reasons why cars have been successful over time is that they provide a means of independence. Do you really want to live your life governed by public transportation? Only go places when the system says you can go places? Only travel to destinations where the train/bus/etc. stops? One moment you argue your software should be free and then the next you say that you want the government or some other conglomerate with enough money to implement a system to have control of who, what, when, where and why you go wherever it is you want to..?
Of course, "well run" is the key here.
Well, duh. Which means your argument is totally pointless in the US. Aren't you glad you wasted that time?
Given a choice, what transit system would you ride?
PRT systems have almost all the advantages of a car.
Every non-PRT public transit system has proven itself a failure. That is, the systems fail to attract significant percentages of commuters. And, they fail to cover operating costs by huge margins, let alone recouping capital cost.
The best public transit models available suggest that PRT systems would attract a significant percentage of commuters, cover operating costs, and eventually recoup the capital costs. It's amazing to me that no one has built such a system yet.
Then again, Atlas Shrugged. The auto industry and rail industry have a pretty entrenched interest in preventing progress. Politicians want to be able to say "it's not my fault that the transit system failed. We used proven technologies." Proven to fail, but proven nonetheless...
Support your local PRT movement.
I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)
We're just trying to make a point, see. A car-free city would be like a visit-free website. Or something.
The coolest voice ever.
It is a great balance between not wanting to own a car and being stuck in a 10 block radius. Oh, and I bike too, 10km each way to work.
[i]College students are most always hyper leftist.[/i]
Hah, I can tell that you've never had the misfortune of attending a state-university in the Midwest.
Would definatley be cool, but think of the instantaneous acceleration a person would need to be exposed to. You have to fight a LOT of wind drag....
The only thing Boston needs is a 24-hour T, but that will never happen because that's what they do in Noo Yawk, and anything that Noo Yawk does is stupid and wrong.
Actually, I'd guess Boston's T doesn't have 24-hour operation for the same reason London's Underground doesn't: there's a single set of rails (or only partially doubled), so they need to shut down to do maintenance every night. Compare this to NYC, where the subway is fully redundant - they can shut down any set of rails and divert trains to the other (corresponding) set.
Since they're aware of this problem with the Underground, London has a great night-bus system to make up for it. Boston doesn't have that. (I can never go to an event in Boston that will run late. It sucks.)
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Sounds interesting on a personal level, but completely unworkable on a city level. How would mega-stores get their inventory on a daily basis? How do you get cement to build bulding with? How would you erect a telephone pole?
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Stupid ez-boards ate my soul.
...is a city that you CAN NOT live in without a car, for the most part. This city is ridiculously spread out and it gets bigger every day. This is a city that needs to start building UP and not OUT.
if you'd stop passing out on it.
(Simpsons allusion)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Density is the key. The last time I went to San Francisco I drove there from LA, then parked my car in the hotel lot and left it there. For the duration of my trip I walked everywhere I wanted to go, or took a bus if it was too far to walk. But driving was a nightmare while walking was actually quite nice.
Yes Venice is car free but it isn't gas based vehicle free and so it as the marine equivalent of the car problem. Venice has a big problem with gas powered boats and so it only have the same problem in a different form.
Ignoring the fact that "left", "right", "conservative", and "liberal" no longer have any meaning...
Leftists don't hate individualism, but they do understand that people acting as individuals will not always act in a way that is productive to society. This is not a stretch at all; see for instance the outlawing of murder, theft, rape, etc.(Note: I'm not comparing driving a car to murder. That would be silly.)
Now the question here is not "is individualism bad", the question is "should people be allowed to use cars if a less harmful alternative is easily available". The answer to that question depends on how harmful having lots of cars is and how harmful having lots of the alternative is, as well as the actual cost of switching over. Anyone who lives in a large city will tell you that cars cause problems(traffic, pollution, accidents, drunk driving...). Whether the article's solution is good enough or not is by no means certain, but at least they're trying.
Given all that, do you really believe that "most" people hate cars because of some silly power trip, or because they've experienced first hand the downside of having millions of them crammed in a small space?
Visit the
As opposed to a useful patch of concrete/asphalt that eliminates anything from growing on it, i.e. oxygen producing plants?
I live in an apartment right now. I don't want to, I'd rather have my own house on a foggy, secluded mountaintop guarded by assasin Yeti and reachable only by a flying dragon, AWAY from all you jabbering people if I could. I don't want society all up in my ass every moment of the day.
Having grown up in Brazil, I must say I was probably like most americans. Life without a car was impossible. Public transportation sucked, and maybe differently from the US, was dangerous. Going out with friends usually meant driving for at least 10 miles, usually much more. Downtown was 20 miles away.
I have been living in Paris for 4 years now. I am fortunate enough to afford living in the city centre. And I do not have a car, nor do I want one.
Don't get it wrong, Paris is far from a car free city. It is probably a car infested city. Worse than that, most Americans will find driving here close to insanity. Parking is impossible. Taxis on weekends, inexistant. Well, they do exist, but will refuse to take you anywhere. It doesn't matter. Let me tell you why...
I am only 4 miles from everywhere. That is correct, Paris is a circle 8 miles in diameter. Being in the center means 4 miles from anywhere. And 2 million people live in this area ( 10 million in metropolitan area ).
I am also only 1/4 mile from a subway station. In fact, there is no place in the city much farther than that from some station. The subway goes everywhere.
So, we learn to live without a car. And the city is divided in what we call "quartiers". This means, local neighborhoods where you have everything. Supermarket, bakery, cinemas, restaurants, and everything else you need on a daily basis.
And it is so great. I still like cars, and rent them whenever I am in a travelling mood. But in the city? No point in having it. And walking is so great.
Everyone should try it once in a lifetime. For me, I learned that there is an option to car "dependant" life, and I do not want to go back...
So, if we could each have our own individual reality, we would all be satisfied.
Stories teach us that people would figure out the world is fake, however, are they to be trusted?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
I moved to Portland Oregon because of the public transport and clearn air... it's much better than most cities.
Now I want to buy a house, right next to my kids' school, and right next to a nice grocery store and my (nonexistent) place of unemployment.... and guess what... it doesn't exist. The nonexistence of this home is a function of the fact that we have a car based nation/city.
The design of even this public transport friendly city of Portland forces me to own a car I would prefer not to own.
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult. I'd be willing to make sacrifices to do it... but not if massive public subsidies are offerred to car owners and denied to me. I don't want to be a sucker... and right now our society makes me into a sucker if I choose to do the right thing for the planet earth and not own a car....
The satisfaction of doing the right thing and not having to own a car isn't enough to compensate me for the inconvenience and for the knowledge that others are materially benifitting from their car ownership (through all the road subsidies etc.)
If I choose not to own a car I am not able to compete according to the rules of the American game... and I'm not willing to do that to myself and my family.
If paying for cars were truly a private cost born only by the users, the issue would be totally different. But highway policy and pollution externalities mean that car owners and highway builders force everyone to pay for cars whether they want one or not.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth.
THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy. Individual volunteerism will never cut it. It's not enough and it's not fair to the volunteers.
Cars, at least here in the USA, are a sign of personal independence and a financial/social stauts figure. If we took away cars, how many kids would be excited about turning 16 and getting their license/permit? Its like taking beer away and being excited over turning 21.
Yeah, the g's could be something to plan for. I'm sure there's some technological solution to packaging the people to handle it better. Maybe in a laying down position. Or pillows, lots of em.
The wind thing we already got figured out. Just using doppler radar to measure the exact wind at the moment, then calculate a correction for the wind, and just aim the cat a wee bit left or right. No prob!
Gotta get back to work now weaving these bungee cords...
Jason
YOU'RE accusing someone ELSE of childish blather? That's funny.
.sig your sanity is in question, too, so perhaps I should just bow out of this little conversation...
Yet you fail to enumerate that which you feel is either "childish" or "blather". Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
And yet, it's the Rightists who pass the laws restricting speech. It's the Rightists who all look the same, act the same, dress the same, talk the same.
As if I were a "rightist", whatever that is. I notice you fail to dispute that Leftists hate individualism. Instead, you've resorted to sarcasm. How unimpressive.
Just because Nietzsche said something doesn't make it true. Think for yourself.
I quoted it because it is beautiful and it's true. But if you want something original, here it is:
The more Leftist a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". For example, "The People's Republic of China". That country does not belong to "the people", it belongs to the government! They make that point expressly clear by the way they restrict the freedoms of their citizens.
And if you're going to quote him, try reading the rest of his philosophy before deciding to appoint him as some sort of moral visionary.
You're reading in to my writing too much. I merely posted something that I think is beautiful and true. I am not obligated to read everything he's written if I happen to like one thing that he's written.
It's difficult to sway someone with reason away from a viewpoint that they arrived at without using reason at all. You're a right-wing sheep; nobody's going to change your mind, no matter how convincingly they disprove your erroneous statements.
You here are stating that I am closed-minded. I disagree; I change my mind frequently and often challenge my own point of view. And, no, I am not "right-wing". The Right disgusts me almost as much as the Left does. It's evidential of your own closed mind that if I disagree with you, then I must be right-wing.
Judging by your
Your argument totally sucks, and then you tuck your tail between your legs and run like a yellow-bellied chicken. Perhaps if you could come up with a decent argument you'd stand your ground instead of resorting to your childish invective. And, since you think I'm insane, perhaps you'd like to share with me who isolated the HIV virus and why Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in gay men.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=67 6&e=5&u=/usatoday/20030516/ts_usatoday/5165217
:) Go team GO..TGIF :)
Spend a zillion to track cars then do aways with them
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'm only familiar with 2 cities - St. Louis, MO and San Diego, CA. Both of these cities have neighborhoods that could be converted to "car-free" with a minimum of hassle. In San Diego, Ocean Beach could easily keep cars out of the main strip (which i believe is Voltaire), and then slowly expand the car-free area. I would think that the residents would even be somewhat supportive of such an idea! The problem would then be getting merchandise to the local stores. This could also be done in St. Louis in The Loop (Delmar). There is really no reason why small neighborhoods couldn't do something like this.
Oh, and for all you people that are still talking about Segways - make sure to watch the next episode of American Idol, and also check out the new Britney Spears album. Those are some other products that are worthless but shiny and well-marketed.
-dbc
Details here.
Too bad the authorities can't decide whether it can or can't be used at all...
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
1. Create an inner light rail transit ring with spokes going out to major rapid transit stations
2. Create a rapid transit "beltway" outer ring
3. Create large, tall parking garages at rapid transits
4. Do your sidewalks as usual
5. All streets are bikes only - a 2 car-lane street becomes 4 bike lanes. Leftmost lanes are passing lanes, rightmost lanes are covered as are the sidewalks
6. All buildings have ample bike rack bars, especially the rapid transit stations and light rail stations.
To get to work from outside the city:
1. Drive your car to a transit station in your building's district, or close to it.
2. Use light rail to get closer to your building
3. Ride your bike or walk to work.
To get to work from inside the city:
1. Take rapid transit to get your district
2. Light rail/bike
It's really very simple. Tokyo practically does this already (JR line for rapid transit, chikatetsu for light rail). It takes an hour to get to where you're going in Tokyo, but you're never stuck in a car for 2 hours waiting for traffic to move (read: New York, San Fran).
All it takes is simple common sense, planning, and the ability to reject huge checks from the big 5 auto makers and petrol giants.
Some of the city-design ideas on this Carfree.com site echo those advanced over 25 years ago in the influential book A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander, Sara, Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, and others. This book details a "working alternative to our present ideas about architecture, building, and planning," with over 250 specific advisories starting at the very high overview level ("Independent Regions" instead of our current nation-states) and moving in successive stages down through town design, becoming always more specific ("Mosaic of Subcultures," "Industrial Ribbon," "Nine Percent Parking," placement of food stands and bus stops), and then to low-level details of individual building design ("Sequence of Sitting Spaces," "Light on Two Sides of Every Room," very specific construction details, and "Paving With Cracks Between the Stones").
A Pattern Language is a remarkable book, the principal influence on Stewart Brand's The Whole Earth Catalog and used by the city designers for the upcoming STAR WARS GALAXIES online game. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that its "patterns" concept influenced the current mode of "design patterns" among coders. For other examples of the book's influence, and of the theorists' current work, see their Web site, especially the overview of patterns.
Most Indians, even in cities, cannot afford cars. They drive motorbikes and scooters. There is public transportation in every city and it is quite convenient and inexpensive to use it anywhere you want to go. But, weather there is not as extreme as in the US. One reason you cannot switch to bikes in US is that the weather during cold seasons does not permit it. Using bikes may be a good option during late spring, summers and early fall. That will be a good start. Hopefully, something better than gas-based cars will be discovered in the near future.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
>Why be redundant? College students are most always hyper leftist. It makes sense: while living in their isolated world of "higher thought" where
> they don't have to work for a living
*shrug* Most of the people I go to college with work for a living; many of them hold responsible, full-time jobs. True, college students/professors do have a tendency to be somewhat liberal, which makes sense; they're the ones who are trained to use their brains effectively.
>As to your charge that "all most post does is insult," I disagree. I stated that Leftists hate individualism (do you agree or disagree?).
Disagree, certainly. I'm sure you'd label me a leftist, and I'm certainly not against individualism; I'm too far off the norm to be.
>>aside from the author's apparent belief that there's no reason whatsoever to worry about pollution,
>>which I don't think I need to respond to.
>It's "apparent"? Well, what exactly did I type that made this lie "apparent" to you?
Let's see:
>Environmentalism is a religion, and religion is superstition.
Here you called environmentalism superstition, which dictionary.com defines as an irrational belief. Or would you now like to claim you didn't type this?
Twenties Retirement
Yet you fail to enumerate that which you feel is either "childish" or "blather". Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
It all was. Everything from your capitalizing of "Leftist" (usually the sign of a propagandist), to your blanket assertions ("Leftists hate individualism"--as if all "Leftists" think the same; it betrays your fundamental ignorance about what you're talking about).
The more Leftist a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". For example, "The People's Republic of China". That country does not belong to "the people", it belongs to the government!
And the more democratic a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". Claims are irrelevant; every country claims to speak for its people. If you look at the facts, however, you'll see that the countries that are the MOST permissive of their citizens' rights tend to moderate leftist governments.
They make that point expressly clear by the way they restrict the freedoms of their citizens.
You here are stating that I am closed-minded. I disagree; I change my mind frequently and often challenge my own point of view. And, no, I am not "right-wing". The Right disgusts me almost as much as the Left does. It's evidential of your own closed mind that if I disagree with you, then I must be right-wing.
Most "independents" are closet right-wingers. I get the feeling you are too.
Your argument totally sucks, and then you tuck your tail between your legs and run like a yellow-bellied chicken. Perhaps if you could come up with a decent argument you'd stand your ground instead of resorting to your childish invective. And, since you think I'm insane, perhaps you'd like to share with me who isolated the HIV virus and why Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in gay men.
Heh. I think your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.
And, since you think I'm insane, perhaps you'd like to share with me who isolated the HIV virus
Sure, let's share.
It's debatable whether it's been isolated. So? Doesn't disprove a thing.
and why Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in gay men
See, this is why you're not taken seriously. Kaposi's Sarcoma appears in heterosexual men as well as women. This is what happens when you get all your information from conspiracy theorist pamphlets.
Oh, wait, it wasn't a poll. Sorry
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I guess I will have to pay 90% federal income taxes for this to happen.
I have two children under the age of 4, plus a puppy.
The children can play in the back yard, with the puppy, and be supervised by my wife from the kitchen and dining areas. She's able to do what she needs, and they're able to play and enjoy the outdoors.
Parks don't allow that convenience, nor do they allow the puppy to run free.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Until you live in a place where the temperature drops below -30 F or more for weeks on end, shut the hell up. If I can deal with walking to and from the bus stop and work in that weather, your weak southern ass can.
5 minutes? up here 5 minutes outside with no good protection would freeze you to death.
that, and your reference to ice tells me that you live somewhere that consistently fluctuates around the freezing mark in the wintertime- that means some southern state. blah. go away and get some balls.
EOM
Suburbs beyond walking distance from work have existed for less than 100 years. Cities have existed for several thousand years. Most responses to my comment assume that just because suburbs and urban sprawl are the norm today, they cannot be changed.
Yes, and laws can be changed. Not overnight, certainly. I pointed at possible solutions, you only raise problems without attempting to resolve them. Actually, I quite like the outdoors, and would like to see less of it under asphalt. I would like to have real parks within walking distance, which are closer to the 'outdoors' than a back lawn ever could be. I don't think things will change instantly, but you have to start somewhere.While I would not care to live in a medieval city, for example, there are many factors in historical city design which could help to improve today's cities. Today's cities are socially stratified. They have lifeless centres. They are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. People hate and fear their neighbours.
Canada, actually. A car is even more necessary here, due to colder, longer winters, and greater distances than in the US. I was trying to make the point that actions speak louder than words. That major change is the result of many small decisions. That each of us can do something if we want to see cities change.I have kids and a dog. I would rather have a quarter the yard of my current house, so long as I had:
- no useless front yard (currently 1/3 of my yard)
- minimal driveway (currently 1/6 of my yard)
- a nearby park to take the kids and dog to play, in some real open space
- zero setback zoning bylaws, so that instead of two thin side yards, I might have one usable side yard (or none at all).
I think the above would give me a better lifestyle than the typical suburb. Less maintenance of the showy, useless stuff, more time to do the things I enjoy.Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer? You never took into account how lazy and a tightwad I am. I would never waste my time killing bugs, throwing around chemicals (which cost money) or even meticulously maintaining a yard. I throw some seed around, and let nature take it's course. Some general techniques to kinda nudge the greenspace into what I want, but for the most part, I'd let nature run it's course. A quick cutting of the overgrowth one a year, and I'm set.
Another corporate conspiracy urban legend... exactly how is this "interesting"? It's not like there is some shortage of this nonsense around here. I suspect this moderation represents folks that are just thrilled to see their kook ideas posted first.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Good point. Good link.
Louvain-la-Neuve (LLN) is a city in Belgium that has been built from scratch 30 years ago to create a new university. As it would be mostly a city for students, all the street are for pedestrian (or bikes) only. But there are a lot of parking places around and under the city. I go there a few times a year and it is very convenient. I leave my car under the town and one minute later, I am in the center. It is much faster than any other town I know.
Of course LLN is rather small but the concept can be extended. LLN is still growing fast these days.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
http://www.mackinac.com
Nobody will read this because I didn't post it in the first 12 seconds the article it up but I'll post anyways.
I'm an American from near Chicago IL, but I live in Montreal QC (that's in Canada) completely without at car. The reason I can do this is that the transit and services is setup to let me do this. The metro/bus system is reliable and affordable, and taxis are plentiful and decently priced. If I want groceries I either carry them with me or I can have them delivered to my apartment by any number of grocery stores.
At home, however...
Its HELL. You can't go anywhere without a car. Everything is spread very far apart because either it was built during the "hack and slash" all I want is land years, or because it was easier to put a super-megalo-gigantico mart. These ultra-shops are so big you almost need a car to go through them. It takes forever to get what you actually want, and the service/quality stinks.
The US has simply built cities that are too spread apart. For a nice urban environment you need things less spread apart, with adequate services and clean transportation.
I will only get a car again if I absolutly have to. Otherwise I will rent for vacations.
Rob
Your idea entails people living in cramped apartments, packed on top of each other like sardines. Is that really a way to live? Must we live like the Borg? For all you lambast Gates for being one, you sure as hell are in a rush to become one. I sure as hell don't want that. Forced social interaction? Why? What is this obsession with making everyone be in proximity to another?
I live in an apartment, and I still don't even know my neighbor's name after a year. Thank fucking God for walls.
so what do you do when you want to go driving?
Don't know your circumstances, but I'd definitely recommend slowing down big time at intersections, because drivers just don't expect anything moving faster than 3 mph on a sidewalk. That said, pedestrians get hit at 3 mph too, so that's not a failsafe ;)
Does bring up a fair point in that US streets are meant for one thing - driving. I drive a car, I run, I bike on both streets and sidewalks - and the only place I feel comfortable, unfortunately, is in my car.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Being constrained by the fact that I can't drive through the car in front of me on the freeway is quite miniscule in comparison to the constraints of both timing and destination that even a well run mass transit system will subject me to.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Go stand around on a busy corner of Boulder sometime. It's like a car show. Don't be fooled by the pathologic behavior of the Boulder city/county governments into thinking Boulder is some sort of western meca for liberals. This place is jam packed full of the biggest snobs you can find anywhere in fly-over country. Here, you're either very wealthy or you live at their pleasure. Naturally the leftists take full advantage of the patronage. To me, Boulder feels like the most uptight place on Earth. The only exception is the student population. Absolutely everything else is under a microscope of social scrutiny.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I did this in Simcity Classic with trains. I'll submit my solution (saved game) to carfree.com
First off I use a Mac and I'm not some /. Linux fanboy, so ease of the idiotic stereotypes.
Secondly, I disagree with a lot of what the original poster was saying, that doesn't mean I was OK with letting bad arguments against what he said go unchallenged.
I too would like a large house all my own, with a nice yard to keep me a comfortable distance from neighbors.
That said, there are compromises to be had. Some wealthy people get houses with yards the size of football fields, and similar in appearance: no trees, nothing, except for blindingly green grass that must have been genetically engineered to be that way, and fed megadoses of fertilizer on a daily basis for maintenence. This is a problem.
It's one thing to have a yard to give yourself a place to play catch and have some space so you don't have to hear the fights your neighbor has or the music he listens to. It's another to build your house like a castle, complete with moat.
There also seem to be a lot of new housing developments that are set off from the rest of civilization, where surrounding forests are bulldozed and replaced by endless fields of grass and road just so that the houses can be set back 2 miles from the next nearest development. This is also unnecessary and absurd.
We as a society need to make a decision to stop wasting land like this.
Oh, and have you heard about the oil companies covering up the invention of water-powered cars?
The truth about the GM transit conspiracy is boring and has nothing to do with cars. What GM actually did was conspire to have GM transit companies buy only GM-made buses. It's an antitrust issue, but not at all what the myth makes it out to be.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Make technology so great that nobody has to leave their home. Ever. Why do we leave home as it is?
1. To go to work. Well, let's get net applications and vpns better so more people can telecommute.
2. For entertainment. DVD home theater packages prove that people will choose to stay home if the technology is good enough. So, we need holodecks at home so nobody will need to leave their home for any entertainment.
3. Food and shopping. Revive WebVan. Amazonify everything else. Deliver everything to people's homes.
4. Social reasons. Improve web video so people can interact via their computers. Less need to go out.
Do these four things. People will still need to go out every once in a while for something tangible (visit the dentist, see Yosemite for real) but you'd severely reduce traffic. And, as people got more overweight from lack of physical activity and eating all the home delivery food, they'd be physically unable to leave the home, reducing traffic further.
Mass transit is for suckers and people who aren't in a hurry. ...or who care about the planet and if their children will be able to breath.
And what about people who *don't* have a choice? I'm not talking about not being able to *afford* a car either. I'm talking about not being able to get a license because you got genetically screwed and ended up with shitty eyesight (like me) or zero arms and legs or something. Yeah, I can honestly say, from personal experience, that the concept of public transportation does not work. Period. So when is the auto industry going to start making personal transportation vehicles that everyone, even me, can use so I can have a goddamn life too here in the United States of Automobilia. Meanwhile I'm stuck in this sprawled out hell of the Twin Cities in the midwest. What a goddamn car saturated hellhole. So don't assume everyone who rides mass transit is a sucker or even has a damn choice in it.
doing things on foot requires different approaches, that's all. when the grocery is one block away, you only buy for today and tomorrow maybe. you don't buy 12 bags of stuff. when you buy something big, you get it delivered.
it's not as hectic or as much of a hassle if you don't let it be. car scale thinking for foot scale living makes things harder than it needs to be.
m.
...I will refute some of the hostility.
The original poster claimed lawns were bad. Yes, compared with pure mother nature they are.
I don't require a large house, or even a castle. Heck even my small apartment would do fine, WERE IT AWAY FROM EVERYONE. I would like a buffer area from people. You say no lawns. Fine, I could deal with a nice impenetrable Grimm Brothers story thicket separating my house from yours (complete with wolves and the whole bit).
My "lawn" doesn't have to be the putting green variety, just something that I could walk in barefoot without having a spike sized thorn stabbing me like a Vietnam War booby trap. It wouldn't even have to be football field sized, just something smallish will do. The "grass" wouldn't even have to be lawn grass.
I just want my own area, with a buffer zone between the neighbors. No one above, and no one below. Suffice to say that NYC style "living" is the last thing I want, I'd rather kill myself or live like the Unabomber did before that would happen.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To misquote Barry White, "Your Fatness is your Weakness."
"Dude, if I'm sitting on your head so you can no longer hear Barry White on the stereo, my fatness is your comic end." -- CowboyNeal
An unfortunate way of demonstrating another advantage of car free cities. Eerily Ironic.
. st m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3035803
Ride Red
;-p
My 1990 Honda CBR 600 is still getting 42Mi/gal when I filled up for $7.50 yesterday. Yeah, it sucks that I have to buy the high octane stuff (91)
My son loves getting to ride with me on the weekends around the block to his friend's house.
I can see 40 going down a steep hill, but at 60 you must have been falling off a cliff!
www.skytran.net
taking the PRT concept to the next century (while cars and trains are stuck in the 19th)
It's a cult lead by a charismatic architect. If you think he's famous, purhaps it's just that you're buying into his message.
/.)
(Just what I hear from someone who lived there a couple years. Sadly she's not the type to read
Start Running Better Polls
Also, the oil that leaks out of your car in the driveway, and all the grease and road grime that comes off when you wash your car, all leaks down onto your driveway.
My car doesn't leak oil, and neither should any other reasonably-maintained, well-engineered car.
A lot of the pollution problems from cars in this country could be dramatically reduced through strict laws on emissions and auto maintenance. I live in a city with ozone alerts and biyearly emissions checks, but I see a lot of cars driving around with visible smoke coming out of their exhaust. One such car probably pollutes 100 times as much as a well-maintained modern car. Remove all such cars from the city and the pollution problem would be a fraction of what it is now.
The problem is no one wants to do anything about those old jalopies because they're owned by poor people. "How will they get to work?" They can take the bus dammit.
I'm sure once there's more fuel cell and electric/gas hybrid cars there will be a lot less traffic...
Pollution isn't the only factor, I think the car-only city design leaves a lot to be desired. Suburbia lacks any sort of culture, it just seems like the same 'ol cookie cutter BS, and it makes driving a requirement. To do anything, you need a car (which may be a reason why teenagers are so freggin bored and get in to trouble) Why is this? Because every city is designed for cars, if there is public transportation, it doesn't work because everything is planned so piss poor. This doesn't mean we should cram everyone into high density buildings (this is understandable where land is scare and/or wants to be preserved) It just means we shouldn't have everything in inconvenient places. I don't know how we can solve present design flaws (I'm no engineer) but we should we working on future developments.
Cities around America are going to stay the way they are because people are not willing to give up their 'freedom' of driving. Personally, I see a car as a great recreational vehicle when driving in the hills and whatnot, but I don't see how being stuck in traffic is freedom.
Take in the factor of safety. Not everyone wants to drive and from work. We've all seen the general stupidity of many drivers, I know when I drive sometimes I make stupid mistakes but generally the case is that either I'm A) tired or B) stressed. I sure as hell wouldn't mind relaxing on a train to and from work, where I don't have to worry about getting myself or someone else killed. I work my ass off at my current place of employment why the hell do I have waste more resources on a commute?
So don't just think this is a pollution-only issue. Greens may think of the environment over anything else, but our car culture is more than just a pollution problem, it's a health and social problem.
I live in Houston, home to some of the widest highways I've encountered. There's even a proposal to expand one of our "streets" to 17 lanes (that's 8 each way, with a contra-flow lane in the middle!)
Traffic jams are horrible, freeways crawl to a near stop. And why? because everybody in the five lanes on your side is slowing down since there's an accident in one lane. The other side of the freeway is backing up too. Why? Well, they're scoping out the accident, and (probably unconciously) slowing down as a result. I've even seen it happen for the tiniest of things, like a flat tire.
More lanes provide better flow of traffic under ideal conditions; however, one hiccup and it doesn't seem to matter how many lanes you have.
This kind of 'Utopian' society has very little chance of success. Why do people wake up and go to work every day? To make money.
What do people use this money for? Cars, houses and other luxuries. 1 million people in 100 square miles, that means at least 10,000 people every mile. Why even bother waking up, since the human traffic will be big enough.
Goodbye big luxurious houses and fast sportscars. Hello hell.
Can someone put up a mirror please.
Please provide one city in the US that hasn't already invested in building an automotive transportation system. Then tell me how I can get there without the use of my car.
A solution that is only applicable in a location that doesn't exist is not a solution.
a lot of the ideas are modeled off of major car free cities in Europe (like Venice)
In other news, mayors of various cities were heard to be arranging thousands of large sticks to hand out, for free, to the masses in the face of this brilliant new idea. "We see a bright future for our city, and the hundreds - perhaps thousands - of gondolier jobs that this is bound to create," the mayor of a remote country town was said to say.
1. Buy a large tract of land not too far from a city; preferably a tract that is threatened by encroaching suburbia.
2. (this is the hard part) Bribe zoning officials to let you...
3. ...subdivide the land into small parcels the size of townhouses, some office space, schools, whatever you need. However, designate the periphery as remaining rural land in perpetuity, with the existing rural zoning for farms and stuff, and with the understanding that said land may never be subdivided again.
4. Give half the land away, with stipulations that the houses, offices, schools etc. must be built to a certain height. Houses must be at least 3 stories, offices and apartments at least 10. The receiver of the land has a fixed time to complete construction, or else they must pay the asessed value of the parcel. Receivers also understand that personal cars will be discouraged by design, and that a special tax will be levied for the purpose of sustaining public transportation. Intially, that would mean a bus that ran regularly to a station for the commuter trains of the major metro area. Eventually, a connecting rail line would be built, hopefully to other cities of the same type which would dot the otherwise rural landscape like plumbs in pudding. Personal cars, when they existed, would be quartered in a garage that would be permitted to be built; but you might have to walk all the way accross town to get to your car (not that bad if the city is only a mile on a side). Access roads for the purpose of ambulance, delivery, and discharge of passengers would exist, but they would be one lane and one way. A more radical alternative is to require builders to complete segments of an underground ultralight rail, but that might negate the appeal of getting free land in exchange for the conditions.
5. Profit!!! As the holder of the original deed to all the land, you would end up holding deeds on lots of little parcels (the half that you didn't give away) that are now valuable urban real estate.
The trick to making something like this work is in step 4. It has to be restrictive enough to be truly different, yet unobtusive enough to attract people. With a suitable step 4, you might not have to bribe anybody in step 2. I think something like this would be great for Loudon County, Virginia, where they are habitually moaning about the loss of their precious horse country. Yet I doubt a proposal as radical as this would ever pass muster there.
The closest I've seen to this is a community called South Riding. The developers there have sought to recreate a "small town". Indeed, they've done a good job of building a retail center, but the last time I was there it looked like they skimped on office space. There are townhouses and much of it is pleasantly walkable, but alas every house had to have access for personal cars via fairly wide roads. Of course there are other concessions too. They had to build some cracker-box mansions because there is a demand for those. However, it's better than the miles-and-miles of nothing but houses where I grew up.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I guess they'll have to strap a subwoofer to their ass so they can still walk down the street and annoy people with their lack of respect for others.
Feel sad for all the weenies that think that a honda looks so much better with fins, spoilers, stickers, neon etc...but I guess that's what body mods are for.
Well that's cool, but what if you can't afford doormen, deliveries, handymen, restaurants (most of the time), cabs, etc ?
s -tickets-may2003.pdf
I live in Houston, which is alot like Atlanta, but with much better roads. Yes, there are lots of crappy things about a motopia. There are also things that are good and bad, depending on your point of view. For example, it allow the middle class to seperate themselves fully from the lower classes, leaving most (until recently almost all) inner city neighbourhoods in Houston 99% lower class.
I do prefer cities like London with their well developed public transport and a decent population. New York is a very different story, because it has such a massive underclass. You have to ride that train with a bunch of scum and watch your back when you get off. Then, you are much more vulnerable on foot to attack, rape, and murder. No thanks.
What is the actual annual minimal cost for a car? If you can teach yourself how to fix basic problems, and buy a used for $1000 that you can probably keep going for about 2 years, that's $500/year. Insurance at a cut rate place runs _up to_ $60 if you answer the questions correctly (no tickets, no accidents, whatever the truth). That's $720 a year. Then, a liberal estimate of gas costs for a full fledged commute acorss Houston is something like $100 a month, for $1200 per year. Add in $200 a year for parts. What is the total? $3,200 per year, $260 per month.
I was unable to find a yearly total for NY, but a one year pass on London Transport, which includes tube and buses, would run you between $1000 and $2250 depending on what zones you need.
http://www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/fare
The major problem with having a car free city in the US is lack of transportation. The reason we don't have transportation is the way the cities we live in are built. The cities we live in are built the way they are cause every one has a car. Here lies the problem.
The root of the problem is we build our housing in too low a density in the US.
For transit to work there has to be a minimum number of riders for the system to work economically. To get enough riders to do that transit need a certain density of population. Also transit will normally only get riders to walk 1/4 mile to a transit top.
The problem is most Americans want conflicting things in housing. They want a big house, and they want open space. These don't sound like the conflict but they do.
Say you have 10 acres of land. If on that land you you build like most modern subdivisions do, you will build 1/4 of the land in to streets, and then 3-5 houses per acre. Most people see this and think it is great. they have a big yard and a big house and a street. But, what they don't see is that 1/4 of all our property is covered in streets. Now on top of that land getting used for streets tons of other land gets used for parking lots and freeways. Leaving nearly as much land in the US tied up in places for cars to go as places for people to go. Also, because of the low density of this housing to driver from that house to another house (or school or store) you have to drive a lot farther. The result is more cars on the streets making longer trips. People who design networks will see the problem here. In addition this method of building houses results in a very low density of people. For transit to move these people it has to make long trips and people have to walk a long way to get to it. Also because it is making long trips it takes a long time to get anywhere making transit inconvenient. Because its inconvenient no one takes it anywhere, they have to raise prices, less people take it, etc...
Now, if you look at cities where transit works, NYC, SF and most European cities houses are built differently. In all of these places houses are built much denser. Most Americans will bitch that they would feel crowded. But the result is less crowding. The reason for this is by building denser, say 15 - 20 unit per acre you now can house all those people in less space. Also because people are closer together there is less street getting built and less land dedicated to cars. You can now use that extra space for some thing like a park. Because most people are not home most of the time, building public areas results in more efficient use of that space. Some one will be using it all the time.
Now that people are closer to each other, they are also able to walk from place to place. you no longer have to walk past those huge lots, you walk past a nice small lot.
Most importantly now you have the critical mass of people required to make transit work
Now for all those people in Dallas, San Jose, and Los Angeles who say they cant survive with out cars, try traveling to another country and you will quickly learn it happen every day. All we need is to express interest in living that way and we can start building that way. Many cities are pushing very hard to get more people living in the urban core of the city. They are offering tax breaks, low interest loans and other incentives. Developers build houses the market demands. If people demand better housing that works with transit, they will get it. If a city doesn't zone in such a way to build affordable housing near jobs go down to the city planning department and tell them, they can (and will) change the zoning. Cities want to build smarter. It saves them money by decreasing the infrastructure they have to build and the area in which they have to supply services.
I love to drive.
Remind me next time I see you on your Segway to run over your ass with my big SUV.
Here's the problem. Make all the claims you want about the great convenience of public transportation, but nothing--nothing--NYC has beats the convenience of getting in your car, pulling right into a parking spot 100ft from the store (one of dozens of spots available), putting your purchases in your trunk, and then pulling right back up to your abode. This is city life in Atlanta. You don't walk anywhere, ever.
Yeah, that's why everyone in Atlanta weighs 300LB! In the rest of the South, too. I believe Houston is statistically the fattest city in America, followed by Richmond, VA. That's what you get when you have good-old-boy, no-rules, auto-centric development. No one walks, and everyone's fat. It breaks my heart to see middle aged (not old) people in Wal-Mart, riding those electric scooter things because they're too fat to walk. You just don't see that in NY, LA, SF, London or Paris. But in the South it's everywhere.
They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others. What you described is not selfishness--it's altruism in reverse. Both are horribly evil.
encourage diverse, "fun" neighborhoods--residences and businesses intermingled, instead of huge, dull blocks of houses"
We had that. We left it. How come?
The inception of welfare created a vast new class of "permanent poor", with attendant crime and social collapse. Nobody else wanted to live anywhere near them if they could help it.
And the flight to the suburbs after the infamous school busing court cases of the 1960s and 1970s is fairly well documented, too.
ASA
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
What's with the #@$#@#$%@ certificates every time I try to access this site?
There is no conflict here. I want a large house and a large plot of land. I don't want to be anywhere near my neigbors. I hate people.
Uhm, no, according to this story at ABC News:
Among "fat cities," Houston ranks No. 1, followed by Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Dallas, according to results released this morning on Good Morning America.
So that's two in Texas, the rest up north. Two of those (Chicago, Philly) have excellent public transportation systems. So there goes your theory.
Americans in general are fat. Period. There just happens to be a much higher concentration of image- and fitness-conscious people in the cities you mention. It's a matter of culture. Go walk around the Buckhead area of Atlanta. You won't find too many fatties. All young, very image-conscious professionals. Not too many good-ole boys either. The CITY of Atlanta is 80% black, anyway.
Leftists don't hate cars.
They hate the fact that the industry that supplies cars with the stuff they need to run doesn't support them politically.
They'll support the hydrogen industry until it turns out that the same oil companies start to crack the petroleum and benefit just the same, and then they'll turn sour on that industry too.
Funny that tobacco was never a problem for them either until Dixie left them hanging.
Everyone will have to give kickbacks to block wardens to keep their good solid union jobs, as the labor bosses blow their pension money on Vegas and hookers.
Soon, everyone will want to leave the super city, and get a little place of their own away from all the prying corruption of big city administration.
Oh, wait, this already happened.
Never mind. Utopia worlds always fail because they are predicated on governments telling you are supposed to be happy. America is superior, because our government tells us we are crazy, and we should buy our own prozac.
I think we should build a pyramid.
This is my sig.
Another interesting city to look at is Curitiba in Brazil, and its innovative bus transit system.
1 million people in 100 square miles is 2788 square feet per person, TOTAL.
Not all of that space will be available to each person, of course. Some of it MUST be reserved for roadways, or helipads, or whatever, for those times when it is absolutely critical (as in life-and-death critical) to move someone, with equipment, from point A to point B in the absolute minimum possible time. (They're called "ambulance rides to trauma centers". They happen. I've done it. It really was an emergency: I stopped breathing about the time they were rolling me through the ER doors. I woke up, in ICU, on a respirator, a full week later.)
There are still going to be requirements for hospitals. There are still going to be requirements for schools. There are still going to be requirements for entertainment venues.
ALL OF THOSE USES COME OUT OF THAT 2788 sq.ft. per person.
There are still going to be requirements to haul equipment from point A to point B. You will still need roads, and you will still need powered cargo vehicles.
Thank you for that simple yet very important point.
Nothing sticks in my craw more than the claim that having a car represents freedom. For the first 22 years of my life I lived without a car. I lived in NYC and took the subway everywhere. Then I got my first real job and the best job I could get in my field at the time was in New Jersey. So I had to learn to drive AND buy a car. And along with this comes this baggage:
I'm still waiting for that freedom to show up.
Since moving to Denver and then getting our first house only 5 miles from my present job, this has been alleviated some, but what if I get laid off next year and have to find another job? I could very easily wind up with another horrendous commute.
Yet people still consider this "freedom". Unbelievable.
So thank you again for this point. People need to wake up to the fact that we're turning into slaves for our cars.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
It's an interesting idea, but we - and I'm talking humans here - will never change until the final hour, when the last drop of oil is squozen from its source and a concrete slab covers the last patch of grass. It is our legacy, and there's nothing to suggest we will change. For cryin' out, I live in L.A., and the number of SUV's here boggles the mind, this the most liberal state I've ever inhabited. If change requires individuals to make uncomfortable decisions, then the plan to change is doomed.
Spread a little sunshine!
Aha! So now you're not only an individualist-hating , Star Trek-watching, whining college student, leftist Earth worshipper, but you also hate the poor! And you're all a bunch of Christians to boot! There, I said it! You're all Christians! Beware! BEWAAAAAAARE!!
[This message brought to you by the Loundry 2004 Presidential Campaign: Remember, a vote for Loundry is a vote for four highly entertaining years]
[Oooh, I'm going to take it in the karma for this one.]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
It's... it's... wait, what is the difference?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Cars, like copper phone lines, were at one point a necessary infrastructure for the US. But I think it's time to start thinking of alternatives -- I mean is it worth fighting wars over?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I ride my bike to the groc and get about 12 bags of groceries per trip. I do not use a trailer. How do I do it then? I have a pair of back saddlebags, a pair of front saddlebags, and a girlfriend equipped with the same. The back ones are each good for 1.5 big brown bags, the front ones good for 1 each, and add to that we can strap stuff (cereal and cracker boxes) onto our racks and pile it high.
:)
My bike has so much damn cargo capacity that I've only ever used it all one time. That was this December 27th when I loaded up all my lame x-mas presents, rode hella far to the malls, returned them all, and got different stuff. This takes a lot more room than, say, bike touring or grocery shopping because of all the huge boxes.
My boss has a more elegant grocery system - he just has an old bike permanently hooked up to a trailer, which he pretty much uses just for groc shopping. He also has a garage to keep it in -- lucky bastard.
The sprawling developments of modern, car-driven America have led to this rather ineffecient impasse. Business models like Wal-Mart's only make it worse, especially for still-developing rural areas where other kinds of development are choked off.
It's unfortunate; the problem lies at such a fundamental level of society, so it's unlikely to be fixed anytime soon.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
1. While the original subway system used steam-powered trains, the problem of pollution from the steam engine exhaust and asphyxiation problems was a major impetus to electrify all the Underground lines by 1920.
2. Because the Underground could travel quite a bit faster than streetcars, their reach from the center of London is considerable. Many of the far-flung suburbs of London grew up around these Underground line extensions (frequently running above ground beyond the London city center).
I believe that London is kind of unique for building a heavy mass transit system on dedicated lines on a large scale well before the widespread use of automobiles.
I'm sure that Carbon Nanotubes could be used to solve this problem in the next year or two.
Individualists, real ones, at their core, do not wish to control others, or to be controlled.
Using laws, government, force to make others change their lives is an attack on this ideal.
European ideals tend toward communitarianism, which is not particularly "left" or "right," it is more interested in control than ideology.
And science is a process, not a destination. You would do well to take your own advice to heart.
I personally prefer the age-old bargain, you stay off my yard and I'll stay off yours. It's not always as simple as that, but it avoids a high percentage of the kinds of disputes we find ourselves in here.
The revolution will not start over cars, or land, or guns. It will start over control.
I believe that this kind of conflict can be avoided by people accepting that other people don't have to do what we want.
Unfortunately, history is not very kind to this particular belief of mine.
It all was. Everything from your capitalizing of "Leftist" (usually the sign of a propagandist), to your blanket assertions
You write "it all was" and then accuse me of making "blanket assertions". I capitalize Leftist because I think that Leftism is a religion and Government is its God.
"Leftists hate individualism" as if all "Leftists" think the same; it betrays your fundamental ignorance about what you're talking about)
Such grandiose words! Did you think they would impress me?
I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism. I notice you have not disputed it. I know that all leftists don't think alike.
And the more democratic a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". Claims are irrelevant; every country claims to speak for its people.
I disagree. What's the full name of North Korea?
I think Democracy is bad. Naturally, it would claim to speak for "the people" when it actually only speaks for the majority.
If you look at the facts, however, you'll see that the countries that are the MOST permissive of their citizens' rights tend to moderate leftist governments.
It depends on the rights in question, doesn't it?
How much do you care about the right to property, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (including racist speech), the right to free press?
Most "independents" are closet right-wingers. I get the feeling you are too.
As a gay man, I have little love for many right-wingers. I guess your "feelings" have led you astray once again.
It's debatable whether it's been isolated. So? Doesn't disprove a thing.
What do you mean "it's debateable"? It's either been isolated by the classical rules of isolation, or it hasn't been. If it has, then tell me who did it!
See, this is why you're not taken seriously.
No, I'm not taken seriously because you fundamentally disagree with me. It leads you to mock and insult rather than engage in dialog.
Kaposi's Sarcoma appears in heterosexual men as well as women.
At what rates?
While we're at it, answer me this: does AZT prolong life of AIDS sufferers?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I think there are two reasons why the American method of transport end up like it is now:
1. Americans love to be able to go anywhere easily on vacation. With America's highly-efficient road system most of the USA is well within reach of 4-5 day's drive.
2. Truckers love it because it allows a massive amount of goods to be shipped anywhere in a matter of days. Why do you think Wal-Mart maintains such a huge fleet of trucks?
3. The USA is a very large country for the Lower 48 states, with considerable distances between population centers especially west of the Mississippi River. Small wonder why road systems developed so rapidly, because they often went places beyond the reach of the railroads.
True, college students/professors do have a tendency to be somewhat liberal, which makes sense; they're the ones who are trained to use their brains effectively.
Typical leftist arrogance. I see it differently.
College students are typically leftist because they don't have to work in the real world. Same goes for professors: they can hide behind tenure. Neither has to be troubled with the evil free market. They can sit in their English classes and wax eloquently about how intelligent they all are and how everyone else would be better off if they would adopt their way of thinking.
Disagree, certainly. I'm sure you'd label me a leftist, and I'm certainly not against individualism; I'm too far off the norm to be.
Do you think that individuals should be allowed to make as much money as they want to in the free market?
Here you called environmentalism superstition, which dictionary.com defines as an irrational belief. Or would you now like to claim you didn't type this?
I stand by it. Environmentalism is an irrational belief in Gaea, i.e., "Mother Earth". We may have a semantic disagreement, but my statement goes for the majority of Environmentalists I've had the misfortune of hearing of.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'd drink to that!
I was once stopped by a policeman in Maine for having the sheer cheek to walk between two towns - it was only about 8 miles and it was a lovely day.
:o)
Having explained to him that I was quite enjoying walking and declining his offer of a lift, I swear that he was tempted to shoot me for being a dirty communist.
This whole car free thing might not work until attitudes change a little
Beep beep.
Leftists don't hate individualism, but they do understand that people acting as individuals will not always act in a way that is productive to society.
And, naturally, Leftists think that they are the only ones who are smart and wise enough to govern what is "best for society" (translated: best for everyone). People can't be left to their own whims, they have to be told what to do by the wise and all-knowing Leftists!
Notice that you can change out "Leftists" with "Christians" and the sentences still hold true!
This is not a stretch at all; see for instance the outlawing of murder, theft, rape, etc.
I do not believe that individualism allows such actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Humans are social creatures, and our society suffers if actions that deprive others of life, liberty, and property are allowed.
Now the question here is not "is individualism bad", the question is "should people be allowed to use cars if a less harmful alternative is easily available".
This most certainly is an issue of individualism, since you are talking about "allowing" people to do one thing or another. Should people be "allowed" to solve this problem on their own, as free individuals, or should the almighty government force them to adopt its will and whim?
Anyone who lives in a large city will tell you that cars cause problems(traffic, pollution, accidents, drunk driving...).
*sigh*
Do you really think that cars cause traffic, accidents, and drunk driving? Do you believe in any individual responsibility in any of those three things?
Whether the article's solution is good enough or not is by no means certain, but at least they're trying.
I like what the article was suggesting. I just meant to bring up the fact that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
Given all that, do you really believe that "most" people hate cars because of some silly power trip, or because they've experienced first hand the downside of having millions of them crammed in a small space?
So typical of Leftists: "what do 'most' people think?"
I am not concerned with what the majority wants. I am concerned with protecting freedom, and that means protecting individual rights. I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
>College students are typically leftist because they don't have to work in the real world
:-))
hmm...seeing as I don't know any college students who don't have a job in the real world, I'm not really sure how to respond to this. This semester I worked mainly with two other students; one writes computer books (and makes enough to support a family), the other is an interpreter for the UN. As for myself, I teach math at the middle school level. (And if you plan to argue that teaching isn't a "real job", I would suggest you've never had to deal with 25 13-year-olds for an appeciable length of time
I don't think unsupported generalizations really make good arguments.
>Do you think that individuals should be allowed to make as much money as they want to in the free market?
Sure. If what you're doing is legal and you can get rich doing it, more power to you.
> Environmentalism is an irrational belief in Gaea, i.e., "Mother Earth"
I can honestly say I have never seen anyone even mention "Gaea" outside of cartoons. I'd define an environmentalist as someone who wants to protect the Earth from being damaged, generally by human-caused pollution. Some of them go too far, but seeing as I like being able to breathe, I have to respect what they do.
Twenties Retirement
Oh boy, the billionth comment is mine but... I live near Detroit, home of the Big 3 (Ford, Chryslyer, GM). Perhaps a lot you people don't realize how much the american economy depends on the automobile industry. Jobs, etc. I hate cars too. I prefer subways and walking rather than getting into a stupid polluting car. But eliminating ungodly powerful companies such as GM... have fun. weeeeeeeeee. in michigan there are too many cars. not enough people carpool and public transportation is crap because the automobile industry would lose business. detroit blows anyway. don't bother coming to my home shit-town.
of having no fucking grass or forest or anything of natural beauty other than some pissant park here and there for the winos to sleep. of course not everyone can live in the latest trendy neighborhood ( usus=ally by people who never born in a city) while 95% of the rest of the city os a fucking war zone. you elitist asshole.
Yeah sorry I didn't see your sig, so I guess I was right to argue against you.
When I use the word queer, I obviously use it in a more mature way than you do. Because I'm pretty sure that for many, many years queer just meant strange. In fact it still means that. Just because a few people use it as a deraugatory[sp?] word, doesn't mean that I do.
How much oil is in our water supply? Obviously enough that the county government where I live is sending out pamphlets telling people to please wash thier cars somewhere other than the driveway. How many people do you know, actually want to pull thier car onto the lawn to wash it? NOT MANY.
Leftists and Christians, what the fuck is that? Last time I checked there were quite a few Christians that are right-wing as well. Does that make them leftist right-wingers?
And what are you saying about selfishness, that being selfish is okay? No wonder your post got modded down. nobody likes people who only think of themselves.
I guess you're the first person to give up your rights to protect our country in an 'unselfish' way. But to give up your modern conveniences like cars, you're going to fight like hell to keep those so that you can keep your 'individuality.'
Don't start throwing around Gaea like you know what I believe in. What do you believe anyways? You think it's good to drive around in cars? You think that consuming all the crude oil is the way to go? I love cars, in fact, I work on mine all the time, but I would trade it any day for some really good mass transit.
Okay, earth + pollution == destroyed earth. When everything is dead, and earth is a big hunk of rock, it's not really much for Earth now is it? Good idea to take your quotes from a comedian. As much as I think Geroge Carlin is kick-ass, HES A COMEDIAN!! HE'S JOKING!!
Well whatever, I'm not wasting any more time on this, I have more of a life than to analyze a -1 post. (Or do I?)
I don't see what the big deal is, really. I live, work, and study car-free in Houston, TX, a city not known for its public transportation or agreeable climate. 10 min bike ride to work, 15 min bike ride to school. To compare, the average travel time by car, door to door, including parking, stop-lights, traffic, etc, is 9 minutes to work and 15 minutes to school. I'd rather get a nice work-out and enjoy some nature (the path I use runs along a bayou). 5/8 people who work in my lab live within 2 miles of the building. The convenience lifestyle is boring and over-rated. Anyone who sits for an hour a day in traffic has serious priority problems. Every freeway in this city flows in inches per second for six hours a day. Has anyone studied the physical and psychological price of sitting alone in a hermetically sealed box for X hours a day? People who need 2000sq. ft.+ house in a lifeless suburb should probably rethink their concepts of housing. I like to think of the bus as an adventure. Light rail is a nice, fancy decoration of political motivations but ultimately useless unless it's intra & inter-urban and extensive. Cars are unreliable, ugly, and expensive. Sorry to be didactic, but these are fundamental truths. The commuter city is irrevocably flawed and must be rebuilt.
Conspiracy theories abound about GM and Big Oil breaking up LA's trolley system. The fact is that ridership had fallen to near zero because practically everyone was driving by the late 1940s. The city kept the trolleys running at a tremendous loss for several years because "it was the right thing to do." The final death knell came when angry auto commuters pressured City Hall to remove the damned trolleys because they were blocking traffic.
GM and Standard Oil did buy the trolley lines way before that -- not to break them up, but to get a piece of the transportation pie in a rapidly growing city. By getting their foot in the door with the trolley system, GM ensured getting other city contracts for buses, fire trucks, etc. And oil companies back then were invested in everything under the sun, especially commercial real estate ventures which the trolley lines served.
Ever try and ride a bike with 10 bags of groceries?
I do it all the time, and it's simply not a problem. Maybe not 10 bags, but the equvalent of 5 easily. If I bought one of those little trailers I could do 10 if I wanted to.
The nearest affordable housing is.... Ummmmmmm.... About 1000 miles away. Try $500k for a fixer upper 2 bedroom.
All good points. The fact is that driving is heavily subsidized, and what we pay to drive doesn't even begin to cover the cost.
I have a Body Mass Index of 21.5. I ride my bike to and from campus, and try not to get run over by assholes in a hurry in SUVs, or bus drivers who aren't watching what they're doing. I've had some close calls. I wouldn't mind the biking if people would watch what the fuck they're doing.
Boulder isn't anywhere as liberal as Berkeley, where I live, and I have to watch out for assholes in SUVs trying to run me over. They cut me off all the time, where they pass me and I have to stop because there's no lane left.
FUCK YOU
I hope it's not free as in released without driver.
maybe $2 billion?
Only 2012 until they're done. Too bad the world ends according to the Mayan calendar that year.
You can fix it all by changing the urban planning strategy. I live in Vancouver, and you can see the success of our program. The region is bounded by an Agricultural Land Reserve, and can't grow outwards - so it can only grow by increasing density. This is achieved by "infill" - taking existing low-density lots, and filling in the gaps to increase density. The first target is the surface parking lot, followed by empty malls, brownfield industrial sites, and even upping zoning densities when lots are redeveloped.
Small steps count. Since amalgamating into a larger megacity, Toronto has forced the suburbs to build sidewalks and bikelanes, and is slowly improving the livability of the outlying regions. Vancouver's downtown is a model of urban high-density redevelopment, as the abandoned portlands and waterfront industrial sites were rebuilt into highly livable condominium towers.
So don't give up hope - lobby your municipality for better urban planning, and push out the highway engineers!
- David
They're building a community near the Munich trade fair, where there will be no cars:
http://www.wohnen-ohne-auto.de
what with everything you need within a block or two, why would one need a car in Boston?
The same reason you need a car in every city...because women don't like riding back from bars to your place on the subway or in a tiny electric car. Trust me.
If it ever becomes mainstream corporate culture to allow people to telecommute, a big chunk of this problem could be taken out. You would still need to drive to get your groceries, but those at least tend to have local chains.
If only food didn't spoil. Those SUVs would actually make sense (just hitch a trailer and haul a year's supply of food).
Once King Fahd (who is now 80 yrs old) dies, his heir wants to rase the price of oil to about 70 to 85 dollars a barrel. Iran will follow his lead. This is one of the reasons for the recent actions in the gulf. If Iran and Argentina go along, there isn't much of a reason for the rest of Opec not to follow. Raw oil prices go up 3x, even if taxes remain the same, the price at the pump is going to be up 2.5x at least. Goods prices tend to include energy costs compunded a few times. The current US economy as it works now, can not adapt to that quickly and something will have to give.
So, she's going to be impressed when you get pulled over and lose your licence for drunk driving?
Here in old Europe octane level 95 is what most cars use, a lot of newer/better cars go on 98. That's why we can have cars with smaller engines/better mileage... And if you want cheap fuel, you can get LPG (liquid propane/butane gas, you need special system in your car to use it) that is 2 times cheaper than gasoline at least in my country. The good thing with LPG is that it doesn't detonate at all (100 octane level).
--Coder
In North America the scheme for eliminating freight ways is doomed.
Too much volume. How many donkeys does it take to carry the same weight and volume as a 40 foot semi trailer.? No multiply that by six orders of magnitude.
The use of containers in shipping has eliminated billions of dollars in pilferage and cut many organized crime revenue streams off at the knees.
And if you have roads for freight, they car also carry cars...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Hi, Carfree.com is delighted by the link from Slashdot and sorry that our server wasn't up to the traffic. (We thought it was a Denial of Service attack until I did the log analysis.) The server had to be shut down after about two hours but is back up and running now. Please be gentle, but please do try again! Regards, J.H. Crawford
Public phones are getting removed because drug dealers use them to make deals. In general, a drug dealer is not someone you want to have hanging around in your neighborhood. They tend to be armed, paranoid (particularly if they use their own product), and subject to being attacked by others who fit the same profile.
They are also unlikely to call the police if they see a crime being committed, which means that they don't provide the anti-crime benefit in which you believe.
The objective is mainly to use the carrot approach. It's why the New Urbanism is working--people really are sick of all the cars and the lack of community life. The quality of life in Venice is, I would argue, higher than in any other city in the world.
Very insightful, but I have no mod points left :(
AC
This site makes no mention of emergencies. If someone has a heart attack does a paramedic have to switch between two subway tracks to get to him and let the poor heart attack victim die? To some extent you need cars for "regular (daily) circumstances"... not just for "special situations" like the site says.
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
What about those of us who get extreme motion sickness? I cannot even ride 7 miles w/o feeling sick (I HAVE to drive). I understand biking and all that (I love it), but it's also not particularly realistic in a place like NH where everything is so spread out.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
The more I reread your post, the more I am convinced that it is a subtle troll. I mean the wrong statements that nevertheless have a certain crazed right of logic to them: "If the roads are too crowded, build bigger roads" and "Cars ... are the most economically efficient solution"; coupled with the emotional appeal to the rugged American frontier spirit that is so woefully inappropriate to the modern urban world: "I want a back yard. The bigger the better."
. htm
Then there are inflammatory statements "stupid things like the Big Dig in Boston.", an absence of any evidence for your claims, and finally a disregard for technical advancements such as this: http://taxi2000.com/ http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick
This gets +5? Our moderators are not on the ball today.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
that people make is that we rid society of cars and that is not the intent; we just reduce their use. Instead of people replacing their cars every year or 6 mos, then, we replace them every 10 or 20 years as it used to be and still is in other countries.
families will still own cars but use public xport whenever possible and use cars for family outings, 'emergencies', 'cross-country' trips etc.
increase in use of public xport will help gradually improve the facility so we will need to use cars less and less.
I do not believe that individualism allows such actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Humans are social creatures, and our society suffers if actions that deprive others of life, liberty, and property are allowed.
So in once sentence you say that people shouldn't be told what to do, yet in another you're perfectly willing to tell them what to do for the good of society? Everyone has their own perspective on what's good enough for society. That's where democracy and the bill of rights come in. Some rights are inviolate, others can be modified by law.
Should people be "allowed" to solve this problem on their own, as free individuals, or should the almighty government force them to adopt its will and whim?
Both solutions are equivalent, as far as I'm concerned. Either it's easy enough for people to adopt the solution on their own, or it's more difficult and requires a nudge. Either way, I don't see how regularly spewing fumes around is desirable afterwards.
Of course, the above requires that the proposed solution is a good one, but that should go without saying.
Do you really think that cars cause traffic, accidents, and drunk driving? Do you believe in any individual responsibility in any of those three things?
I most certainly do. Allow me to rephrase:
Due to the fact that people aren't perfect, sometimes an individual will use their car in such a way that it causes a problem. If a lot of people drive cars, there will be a lot of problems.
Better? Consider also that it is quite often in an individual's best interest to drive a car as opposed to traveling by alternative means, due to the way our towns and cities are set up.
So typical of Leftists: "what do 'most' people think?"
As opposed to "What do 'most leftists' think?"
I am not concerned with what the majority wants
That's nice. Pity the majority is.
I am concerned with protecting freedom, and that means protecting individual rights.
That's not a bad thing at all, but I'm talking about stuff that actually affects other people. Given the problems with cars(especially the fact that most of them involve hurting other people too), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to force some people to move to a better solution if they're not going to do it on their own.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion on that one.
Visit the
I don't think unsupported generalizations really make good arguments.
Neither does anecdocal evidence, which is how you've chosen to refute my argument. It is common knowledge that "full-time student" implies that you don't work.
Sure. If what you're doing is legal and you can get rich doing it, more power to you.
Do you believe in progressive taxation?
I can honestly say I have never seen anyone even mention "Gaea" outside of cartoons.
Oh, none of them will say it, but it's what they mean. They think that the earth is a living being to be worshipped. Mother Earth. Gaea.
I'd define an environmentalist as someone who wants to protect the Earth from being damaged, generally by human-caused pollution. Some of them go too far, but seeing as I like being able to breathe, I have to respect what they do.
I think you're talking about two separate things. I also like being able to breathe and don't want someone else's trash in my lungs. But "protecting the Earth from being damaged" is a separate and much more nebulous thing. Does it "damage" the earth to rip out trees to build a road? As more particulars emerge, it becomes evident that "damaging the Earth" is a purely subjective notion. Introducing pollutants that damage humans is not.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Where do I start?
A yard isn't just a patch of green that you can spend time in. It's land that you own that you can do things with or more importantly, noone else can do things to. It's a buffer between you and people you may or may not like. It's much easer to like someone when you don't have to deal with the things they do that you don't like.
The difference between having a lawn and having a park is the same as the difference between apreciating art and being an artist. A yard is what you make of it. You can put buildings up here and bushes over there and a swingset, a sandbox, a path, a garden, flowers, or just leave it all lawn and apreciate the green.
The world is way too out of touch with nature these days.
The smell of fresh cut grass. The satisfaction that you have finished taming the wilderness... for now.
A yard is a place where there are two forces of change, nature and you and you have to learn to live together.
A nice lawn is a sign that you can take care of things well and make them grow.
City's stink. Literaly not figuratively (although both are approprate). Lawns smell good.
Yeah sorry I didn't see your sig, so I guess I was right to argue against you.
You must feel so big and important by fighting against a person so wrong-headed and evil as I am.
When I use the word queer, I obviously use it in a more mature way than you do.
Why do you have to prove how mature you are to me?
How much oil is in our water supply? Obviously enough that the county government where I live is sending out pamphlets telling people to please wash thier cars somewhere other than the driveway.
I didn't ask if your county government was sending out pamphlets. I asked how much oil was in the water supply. It's usually expressed in terms of parts per million. I must add here that oil in the water supply does not damage the Earth. It damages humans' health.
Leftists and Christians, what the fuck is that? Last time I checked there were quite a few Christians that are right-wing as well. Does that make them leftist right-wingers?
I'll explain it again. Maybe this time around you'll get it.
Leftists and Christians pretend to be mortal enemies when, in fact, they say practically the same things. They both believe that they are better than everyone else. They both believe that their way is the one, true way for all humanity. They both believe that their way is moral and everything else is immoral and evil. They both believe in marrying their morality with government and persecuting those who deviate from it. They both have a God -- with Christians it's the 3-in-1 and with Leftists it's government. And they both believe that selfishness is the root of evil.
I've debated many Christians and many Leftists. Believe me, they repeat the same lame-brained arguments. Christians are generally more polite (they don't need to be "cool" and "rebellious" like so many high-school and college-student leftists need to be), but their arguments are generally worse.
And what are you saying about selfishness, that being selfish is okay? No wonder your post got modded down. nobody likes people who only think of themselves.
You don't understand. Selfishness is okay. In fact, it is moral. I'm not talking about "I'll do what I want, screw everyone else!" I'm talking about rational self-interest. Each person is responsible for their own happiness and thier own happiness only. We are social creatures and cannot allow those actions which infringe on another individual's life, liberty, or property.
I guess you're the first person to give up your rights to protect our country in an 'unselfish' way. But to give up your modern conveniences like cars, you're going to fight like hell to keep those so that you can keep your 'individuality.'
I don't understand what you mean here.
Don't start throwing around Gaea like you know what I believe in.
Do you believe that Earth is a living being that must be protected and cherished?
What do you believe anyways?
Lots of things!
You think it's good to drive around in cars?
It is an amoral act. Personally, I dislike doing it. Car manufacturers ignore risk theory, which makes things worse, not better. Driving a car is dangerous.
You think that consuming all the crude oil is the way to go?
Consuming all the crude oil is an amoral act.
I love cars, in fact, I work on mine all the time, but I would trade it any day for some really good mass transit.
I'm particularly annoyed by people whose personalities are so weak that they have to dress up their cars with "V-TEK" stickers, spoilers, big muffler pipes, and what-not. Are you like that? I agree with you about mass transit. I have my car becuase I must, not because I want.
Okay, earth + pollution == destroyed earth. When everything is dead, and earth is a big hunk of rock, it's not really much for Earth now is it?
It's still Earth. It's a dif
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm surprised that I didn't see Singapore mentioned by anyone. It's is one of the cities I have seen which comes close to the private-car-free utopia. They have an excellent public transportation system comprised of taxis, buses and the mass rapid transit system (MRT), all maintained to exacting standards. People are encouraged to use public transportation not only by keeping costs low and availability high, but also, in true Singapore style, making it a very expensive proposition to purchase a car through a variety of taxes. Anyone buying a car in Singapore has to pay for a 10 year Certificate of Entitlement (COE) to obtain the car in the first place and then pay the same huge sum (several tens of thousands os Singapore Dollars) once ten years is up. There is a limited quota of COEs allocated each month by the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) and demand almost always outstrips supply, pushing the price up.
So in once sentence you say that people shouldn't be told what to do, yet in another you're perfectly willing to tell them what to do for the good of society?
Individual actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property cannot be allowed becuase society cannot function if those things are permitted. Beyond that, it is not the place of the government to tell people what to do. Does that clear it up? I am trying to draw a disctinction between those actions which prevent a society from functioning and those actions that a government might want to regulate for other reasons.
Both solutions are equivalent, as far as I'm concerned. Either it's easy enough for people to adopt the solution on their own, or it's more difficult and requires a nudge.
I don't understand how you can think that both solutions are equivalent if you think there are some circumstances where the government can arbitrarily decide that citizens are incapable of handling things themselves. Do you see how that is just ripe for abuse?
Either way, I don't see how regularly spewing fumes around is desirable afterwards.
It depends on the amount of fumes and the effect it would have on humans' health. What if spewing fumes was the result of a factory's operation which happened to employ 500 people in a small town? It's not so cut-and-dry once the other human factors are thrown in.
Better?
Yes, better. I think you agree with me that people cause drunk driving, not cars. Just like people cause murders, not guns.
That's nice. Pity the majority is.
The majority of people in the South wanted segregation to continue. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they want something good.
That's not a bad thing at all, but I'm talking about stuff that actually affects other people.
This was in response to my desire to protect individual rights. Well, what are the "other people" you're describing? Are they not individuals also?
Given the problems with cars(especially the fact that most of them involve hurting other people too), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to force some people to move to a better solution if they're not going to do it on their own.
I agree with you. Here are the problems with your statement:
1. How do we know that the government solution will be the best one?
2. How can we prevent abuse?
I'm all for giving the government total control if it is being run by infallible, incorruptible angels. As is, it is run by fallible humans who are drawn from the same barrel that yielded Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin. This is why I believe that government power should be limited. We shouldn't allow fallible humans to have that much power.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion on that one.
Yes, I believe that government power is bad while you believe the opposite.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You mean the convenience of hunting around for a parking space for 45 minutes? The convenience of sitting in traffic for 90 minutes to go 10 miles across the San Mateo Bridge? How about the convenience of getting hit by a drunk driver, or having your car break down on the freeway or overheat on the road back from the weekend in Vegas? How about the convenience of getting the oil changed, tires rotated, and smog device checked out? How about tolls on the road, or the astronomical price of gasoline? What about the thief who smashes your window to steal your radio or the whole schmear? How about the asshole who keys your door in the suburban shopping mall parking lot because you have a nice car? How about your friendly car insurance company that keeps raising rates without an end in sight? What about the cop waiting to bust you for speeding or the week-long waits at the DMV to renew your license?
Yeah, buddy, sounds great to me. Tell me, at what point did the endless car commercials on TV get to you?
I grew up out West and have driven enough miles to circle the earth dozens of times. But now that I'm in NYC, it's like waking up from the automobile nightmare. Instead of that wonderful list of benefits above, I get to go anywhere within a 75 mile radius for $1.50. Or $63/mo. for an unlimited pass. And it's all far faster, more convenient, and relaxing than any car trip I've ever taken.
All of your other objections to public transportation are, frankly, quite silly and demonstrate that your knowledge of life in New York is quite superficial. Nobody who buys groceries in bulk carries them home, because the stores all have free delivery. Fridges, TVs, and other big ticket items? Delivery. Food, mail, entertainment, movies? Delivery, or even better, internet and cable.
New York is the most convenient city in the world, and would be even more convenient if Bridge-and-Tunnel people from Long Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Atlanta didn't insist on unnecessarily driving here!
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
You write "it all was" and then accuse me of making "blanket assertions". I capitalize Leftist because I think that Leftism is a religion and Government is its God.
There's a difference between making a blanket assertion about people who comprise a large philosophical movement, and making a blanket assertion about a finite post.
The problem with your analysis is most leftists are very suspicious of government. Which you fail to address.
I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism. I notice you have not disputed it. I know that all leftists don't think alike.
If you're going to define "leftists" and "Leftists" separately then there's little point in arguing. I will just say leftists are more likely to respect individualism than either moderates or rightists.
As a gay man, I have little love for many right-wingers. I guess your "feelings" have led you astray once again.
I don't think so. Right-wingism is not incompatible with a gay lifestyle, and I bet if we looked at your stance on issues you'd fall in on the right side of the divider mainly.
No, I'm not taken seriously because you fundamentally disagree with me. It leads you to mock and insult rather than engage in dialog.
You said Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in homosexual men. Not only do I disagree with you, the entirety of medical science disagrees with you.
While we're at it, answer me this: does AZT prolong life of AIDS sufferers?
Yes.
Regarding the first part of your post, I didn't mean to imply that the situation was in any way cut and dried, merely that this is a situation where government intervention may, at some level, be warranted.
The majority of people in the South wanted segregation to continue. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they want something good.
Nor does it mean they want something bad, either, but I see your point.
Here are the problems with your statement:
1. How do we know that the government solution will be the best one?
2. How can we prevent abuse?
1. We don't, but if the status quo and the grass roots approach aren't doing anything, I'm willing to give the government a try.(Note: *If*)
2. We can never totally prevent abuse, but at some point the danger of abuse may be outweighed by the dangers of the status quo.
I don't believe that government power is any more inherently bad than corporate power or 501(C)(3) power or any other kind of power. People tend to take a more pessimistic outlook towards the government(which only lets it get worse) but individuals and corporations have certainly caused their fair share of problems. However, at its root, the government is an organization dedicated to keeping people happy enough to get their vote. As such, I find it's motives more likely to do good in thise case than the alternatives(read: corporations).
Visit the
We don't, but if the status quo and the grass roots approach aren't doing anything, I'm willing to give the government a try.(Note: *If*)
This assumes that a government "solution" will be better than not doing anything, and that is at least arguable in any case. What you also fail to recongnize is that once a government solution is in place, it never goes away, ever.
We can never totally prevent abuse, but at some point the danger of abuse may be outweighed by the dangers of the status quo.
I disagree on principle. Government is the only entity that has the right to trump all private solutions and also use deadly force to acheive its goals. I can think of few situations where the status quo might be worse than the threat of this abuse (and this abuse happens all the time -- do you blame human nature for wanting to exploit power when it's readily available?).
I don't believe that government power is any more inherently bad than corporate power or 501(C)(3) power or any other kind of power.
I disagree. Government has the right to seize and kill to acheieve its goals. Corporations do not. Hence, government power is worse.
People tend to take a more pessimistic outlook towards the government(which only lets it get worse) but individuals and corporations have certainly caused their fair share of problems.
They couldn't dream of competing with governments in terms of problems caused. How many people did Stail kill? How about Mao Zedong with his "great leap forward"? Pol Pot killed half the population of his country with his "social experiment"! Government takes the cake over and over again in terms of problems caused.
However, at its root, the government is an organization dedicated to keeping people happy enough to get their vote. As such, I find it's motives more likely to do good in thise case than the alternatives(read: corporations).
I think your view of government is naive. Do you think that there are people in government who like weilding power and will do whatever it takes to keep it? Once you realize that there are, then it becomes easier for you to realize that Social Security is much more about buying votes than it is about helping people. Old people vote in droves, young people do not. Every time the Republicans breathe, the Democrats scream, "The Republicans are going to take away your Social Security!" and the codgers flock to the voting booths.
I don't mean to imply that I like Republicans. As a gay man, I would find that counter-productive.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The article is interesting as is much of the related Segway/hybrid/SUV/bike discussion. I'd like to suggest that the bicycle really is the best solution.
Anyway, here's a website that has some good links about how to ride safely in traffic, has reviews of commuting equipment etc. It's just starting to try and build community and encouraged bicycle use in major urban areas: http://www.cicle.org
PRT would be a boon for people with disabilities, as it would provide them with the freedom and mobility of the auto.
I am glad you mention this kind of in-fill planning. I happen to live in an area of Denver, CO that is a beneficiary of exactly this kind of wise policy. I live in a new multi-use apartment building that was built on a site that used to be abandoned industrial wharehouses. Not only has the density increased in this neighborhood, but the older businesses have been revitalized by the influx of residences and several historic buildings (which couldn't be condemned) have been re-occupied.
The problem in Denver, though, is that while the city of Denver has had a good zoning policy for several years, the outlying counties are extremely sprawl-centric, often attracting developers who would rather not include retail space or are put off by the smaller lot-sizes.
Our neighboring city of Boulder has seen an interesting backlash to the "green zone" type of policy you mentioned also. What has happened is that places just outside of the green zone have experienced a kind of "super-sprawl" where huge residential developments pop up with virtually no services. These people actually have an easier time commuting by car into the center of town because the freeway goes through the relatively empty green zone.
The bottom line around here is that the only way wise urban planning policies are going to help is if all of the counties start cooperating. Unfortunately this seems unlikely given the current political climate.
Excellent points. One additional one that's important to consider in this day and age is terrorism. A mob of people in a subway station, or packed into a bus, is much more susceptible to an attack, ala Tokyo with the serin gas. PRT would not be nearly as tempting a target.
However, some of the Amtrak reformers have the right idea. Abandoning the long-distance lines (which attract 20% of the riders but have 80% of the costs) and increasing the regional networks.
I think this is a GREAT idea, especially for cities east of the Mississippi, where the distances between large population centers are quite a bit closer. Amtrak should pour in as much money as possible to turn the entire Northeast Corridor line from Boston to Washington, DC into a true high-speed line with its own dedicated right of way; this will allow Acela trains to possibly lower times between New York and Boston and New York and Washington, DC by 40 minutes or more.
Here in California, they could use the money saved from no long supporting long-distance trains to upgrading the Capitols (San Jose to Roseville) and San Joaquin (Oakland to Bakersfield) operations so the lines they run on are true dual-track operations with full CTC control. This will allow much faster operations and also increase the number of passenger trains running on these lines--along with the benefit of less interference from freight trains that use these lines also.
The last car I bought was in 1993 (looking for another). It was a 1988 Pontiac Firebird Formula 350, for $4000. I spent $200 a month paying it off for 2 years. This car lasted me 8 years, before it finally gave up the ghost due to easily identifiable and preventable events of my own making.
My next car will cost about $2000, and it will probably last me 6 years, and no it won't be a junker.
Only suckers or very rich people buy new cars. It has been scientifically and financially proven that buying a used car provides the best bang for the buck.
There's a difference between making a blanket assertion about people who comprise a large philosophical movement, and making a blanket assertion about a finite post.
I disagree. Blanket assertions are fallacious.
The problem with your analysis is most leftists are very suspicious of government. Which you fail to address.
Asking me to address it might be a start.
Leftists are not very suspicious of government in general. They are only suspicious of those government programs and positions that they happent to dislike. Leftists love things like Social Security and Medicare and have no suspicion of those vote-buying programs at all.
Conversely (I hope I'm using that word correctly), those on the right have no suspicion of their "anti-terrorist" government snooping, "faith-based" programs, and "anti-sodomy" laws. They are instead suspicious of all of the programs that you are not suspicious of.
I am suspicious of ALL government programs.
If you're going to define "leftists" and "Leftists" separately then there's little point in arguing.
Nah, I'm just lazy with the shift-lock key. Stop threatening to stop debating with me. It doesn't scare me.
I will just say leftists are more likely to respect individualism than either moderates or rightists.
I disagree. Leftists hate the idea of people making as much money as they want to. They believe in income redistribution, which means taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. Leftits believe in the government interfering in people's business. Leftists believe in regulating that which they believe to be "hate speech". None of these things support individualism.
I grant you that Leftists support gay rights and other such seemingly-individualist things.
I don't think so. Right-wingism is not incompatible with a gay lifestyle,
It seems we have a semantic problem. What defines "Right-wingism" to you? To me, it implies fundamentalist Christian or Jewish with "economic conservatism".
and I bet if we looked at your stance on issues you'd fall in on the right side of the divider mainly.
As I said, that's going to depend on how you define left and right. To me, "Leftism" is a religion in which government is god. "Left-wing" (not the religion), to me, implies the belief that free enterprise is bad, and that government should regulate the economic activities of humans to make things more "fair" (and the government arbitrarily defines "fair").
You said Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in homosexual men.
Yes, what I said was false. I then asked you about the rates of KS. I notice you dodged this question. Why?
Yes.
And this is where medical science disagrees with you. Can you quote for me anyone who still belives that AZT prolongs life? Everything I've read, everywhere, states that AZT is extremely toxic to the body.
Perhaps this was why the drug was shelved long before the notion of HIV even existed. It was deemed far to toxic to the body to be used as an effective cancer treatment.
Have you read the AZT Phase II FDA trials? They're very enlightening, and do serious damage to your contention that AZT prolongs life. Are you curious at all about what they might say, or are you just going to dismiss me as a troll, a loon, a "right-winger", a loser...?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
If you want to discuss things that you are forced to pay for but don't use, then you could have picked a better example than automobiles. Take Social Security, for example. I'm forced to pay even though I may never draw from Social Security. Remember, if you die before you reach the age of eligibility, then the government just keeps all the money. Or, take government schools. Even if you don't send your child to a government school you are forced to pay for it. You may argue, "But those programs are good for society!" That point, in both cases, is certainly arguable!
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult.
The problem with your argument is that you've spent a lot of words making an argument that I agree with. I hate the fact that I'm forced to own a car to succeed in this society. The fact that I hate driving exacerbates this.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth.
Here it is: we are damaging your Blessed Mother Gaea. I know you love Gaea very much, but the planet is not bothered by cars or anything having to do with them. The planet is not alive, does not have a conscience, and cannot be bothered by anything. It's people that are bothered, and that's the problem that we should address. I don't have any interest in entertaining this superstitious "Mother Earth" nonsense.
And I am against ALL taxes, not just the hidden "automobile tax".
THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy.
I think it would be better to, instead, find a way to stop government to bowing down to the whims of the automobile lobby. You fail to realize that government is complicit in our country's transformation into a car culture. I like the fact that there are interstates that can allow me to drive practically anywhere, whenever I want. I hate the fact that cars are used as the principal means of transportation in cities: it's horribly inefficient and terribly prone to accidents resulting in many injuries and deaths.
I think we need better solutions to transportation in cities, and I don't want them to be run by the government. It should be open to private competition.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Its cheap: even a really, really nice roadbike is going to be US$4000 (and that's ridiculous overkill for most people).
Mine was $350, at current exchange rates (I'm in the UK)
Foreign oil wars become unnecessary. (I suppose we need to consider manufacture of plastics in this, though. Anyone know how much oil it would require just to produce our plastics?
IIRC, about 10% of global petroleum production goes into assorted feedstocks - various chamicals, pharmacueticals, plastics, etc. If that was all we used it for, we'd have no problems for around 200 years; even the depleted US stocks would last ~50 years.
Cycling is an excellent solution for many problems, including congestion, pollution, oil dependance, obesity, accidents, and even mental health. Unfortunately, this will offend the road building lobby, the car industry, the oil industry, the diet industry, medical insurers and the funeral industry; expecit it it be banned outright soon...
Well you probably seen them in simCity, but didn't know where the term came from. In the 60's Paolo Soleri pioneered the concept of a pedestrian based car free city call an arcology. He released a book called City in the Image Of Man detailing a number of his designs. More information can be had at www.arcosanti.org. Cheers!
One issue not mentioned in this discussion is Crime. I, for one, would be concerned that such Cities would leave one more vulnerable to Crime. Unless the City is Singapore!!!
Take your point on the threat that cycling is to profiteers. They won't ban it outright though: it happens in incremental stages as they try and convince us that it's too dangerous to cycle on the road as a vehicle and we have to ride in "bike lanes".
If I had mod points you'd get one. Poignant statement.
Quintus malus puer est.
Back when I used to play SimCity (the original DOS game, that came with copy protection printed on red paper to prevent photocopying)I would build a city using masstransit only. Very little polution from what I recall.
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. ~Steven Wright
(Is it funny if I'm quoting someone?)
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
your history may more be more accurate but i prefer the who framed roger rabbit conspiracy theory version. :)