Streets were made for people. Bikes, buses, pedestrians, and streetcars belong on our roads. Personal cars do not.
>>1997018Motorized transportation is degenerate. Refuse to participate. Do mot accept the motorists intrusions into public space.
Anyone unironically defending this shit is anti-bike by definition. John Forester did nothing wrong
>>1997018it's pretty crazy that we just let ourselves get banned from almost every street in the places we live in. people in the belle epoque didn't know how good they had it.
>>1997018Do people really enjoy sitting in the middle of the street like that? Although it is probably still preferable to sitting next to a busy pedestrian street that feels like im sitting in a window shop
>>1997050What do you mean by “we”? You realize it is people driving the cars, right? They are also part of the “we”. You guys are fucking weirdos
why not go to a park instead of playing in the road
>>1997054yes the drivers, a small amount of people, that mostly don't even live in downtown areas, driving the most space-inefficient vehicle in human history, which displaced massively more efficient trams that used to transport people. thank god for the automobile and oil industries that we don't have to take comfy transit and walk anymore, instead we just sit big metal boxes gridlocking the streets where people used to be able to walk.
>>1997056typical regurgitated big bike propaganda.its called a sidewalk and they've been around for 4000 years. use it.
>>1997061It's the other way around, those people are anti-bike. Motorists know that. Bike people fall for it though because they are desperate for affirmation, you could be stabbing them in the throat and saying "this is for your own good" and they'll lap it right up.
>hackshually, density is good>nooooo why don't we have enough space for people to just sit around outside we need to forbid carsMaybe don't build such dense cities, have more squares and parks and you can still have cars but als public transit and pedestrian spaces idk
I enjoy reading the mental gymnastics of the cagetrolls.
>>1997074I love the mental gymnastics between both sides, the rager cagers and the yuppie urbanists. It's clear both sides are so deeply indoctrinated it's like watching two retards go head to head in the octagon.
>>1997061>propagandano, there's proof of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5Nur642BU
>>1997018>cars are bad in this public space>but it's okay to run a train throughGotta respect the mental gymnastics
>>1997083>s-see, streets used to be an unregulated free-for-allCool, just like in third world countries
>>1997072the denser the city, the more people outside
>>1997087If you think that’s mental gymnastics you don’t know anything about either cars or trains.
>>1997053It's Manhattan nobody's there to enjoy themselves they just want a place to sit for a few minutes to eat or meet someone before leaving to be somewhere else.
>>1997087I don't know where to start.Streetcars are way less obtrusive than cars. The whole street is for pedestrians except the one spot where the tracks are. The tracks are vacant most of the time because there aren't 10 billion streetcars zooming around 24/7. The streetcars are low speed and can stop quickly, so even if you walk out in front of one you're unlikely to be hurt. And they're public transit for the benefit of all those pedestrians. Walking doesn't makes sense for getting around without public transit.
>>1997088It's called freedom of movement. Everything was fine before cars were invented. You could walk on the street safely because everything was low speed. The trams were on tracks and had bells so they were easy to avoid.Cars should have been banned. They were dangerous and threw the street into anarchy. Someone almost gets hit by a car at 4:50 in this video.In fact, I believe they tried to get cars banned at the time because they kept killing kids. But there was too much money on the table.Now they've got us so hard by the balls that you have to buy their $30,000 product just to live.
>>1997018>Streets were made for people.What's with you retards and lying about cars?Streets were made for horse and buggies for thousands of years. A car is just that but 100x better.
>>1997263>big cage good>personal transportation bad
>>1997062I own a car, bikes, skateboards and soon a motorcycle. At no point did I consider driving my car primarily in the city, it's already crowded as hell with cars coming in from the countryside, the only times I use the car is to either get away from the city or to go shopping at the end of the week
>>1997270Your "personal transportation" infringes my freedom, poisons the air I breathe, and regularly tries to kill me. Not to mention the expense.Streetcars do none of these things.
>>1997274sounds like a you problem. ride in the big cage if you can't cross the street correctly
>>1997276There is no correct way to cross the street. Cars made certain of that.I press the button and wait for my walk signal. And then I almost get killed by cars turning through the crosswalk.I'm doing everything correctly, but the cars aren't.
>>1997053I actually just took a trip to Manhattan with my friend, we stayed at the Martinique right near there and sat there frequently while we drank coffee, met friends, ate food, talked and generally enjoyed ourselves.
>>1997056>driving the most space-inefficient vehicle in human historyIt is by far the most efficient vehicle when it comes to transporting someone from A to B regardless of time of the day in the quickest way possible
The sooner personal cars are finally banned from the roads, the better.What an absurd ides it is in the modern world, to fire up a cancer generating internal combustion engine in order to propel 2 tons of iron and plastic (and you) a couple of miles down the road because you're too fucking lazy to walk, or too insecure to get on a bus.Whenever you see a car with less than 4 people in it you know you're looking at retards.
>>1997372>Whenever you see a car with less than 4 people in it you know you're looking at retardsSo you're in favor of taking buses and trains offline if they're less than 100% full?...your terms are acceptable.
>>1997056>comfy transitMmm I love sitting down on a warm pile of bloody, HIV-positive hobo feces while watching a gang of Indians grope a 14 year old 3 seats down, all while som guy with Down's screams in the back of the bus, and 3 zoomers blast "Nigga Beats vol 5" over a backpack speaker.Most of all, I love lurching back and forth 5 tomes a minute at every stop, and having only standing room during rush hour. I REALLY love paying 15 bucks a day for riding the bus, when a "cage" would've cost me ~7. Oh, but you might say, just do better funding for poopiss cumsportation, of course, having more homeless shelters and safe injection clinics on wheels is a great idea.Mmmm, I'm an /n/-retard, hear me jerk it to pooblic transportation.
>>1997372>too indecureYou're so right, xister, insecurity is the only reason anyone would ever avoid the bus.Refer to >>1997384for my super-cpmfy experience as a 5-year busrider.
>>1997384Is there a term for a phobia of public transportation. Because we need one.
>>1997402thats not a phobia, its disgust. public transportation is disgusting, time wasting and only for those unable to afford their own vehicle.
>>1997384these are all modern issues caused by degenerate leftism, not inherent to transit. you can remedy them with an iron fist, or you can be a coward, hide in your car and ignore them. until you can't. until it comes to your neigborhood, your public spaces.
>>1997404Unfortunately, doing things like adding lots of police officers to the New York subway isn't seen as a universal positive.
>>1997384doesn't happen on my transit system, try not living in an actual shithole.
>>1997370nothing you just says invalidates his point. they're still the most space inefficient transport even if you like them for other reasons.
>>1997263>The streetcars are low speed and can stop quickly, so even if you walk out in front of one you're unlikely to be hurt.You didn't pass physics class, did you?
>>1997402>Is there a term for a phobia of public transportationNo, because phobias describe irrational fears, and tax-funded mass transit in any culturally heterogeneous nation is filthy and dangerous.The only countries where it would make sense to have the term probably don't speak English.
>>1997265What you're refering to are the red flag laes probably. Historically, when motorcars were first invented and became a thing, people were rightfully concerned and worried. In many jurisdictions laws were passed that mandated a car either may need someone walking infront of it waving a red flag to warn oncoming people or the car may only ever go as fast as if this was the case, so walking pace. Which seems like sound reasoning. People have legs and can walk places. It's good progress if the motorvehicles aids cripples and other degenerates in participating. But why would they then need to move faster than anyone else ? So walking pace it was.
>>1997267The whole historic 'argument' is meaningless and a product of a hereditary diseased mind.The argument that should be made instead is:Public space should be for the public. Not reserved for a select group. Public space should accomodate for natural loccomotion. Publich space should not be dangerous, detrimental to health, ugly and harming the environment.
>>1997451aparently you did.The primary determand of available traction is the force perpendicular to the reaction surface. For our intents and purposes it is mass. During braking energy needs to be converted and dissipated. Energy is dependent on mass and velocity but the cube of the later. Thus anon is completely right and a slow vehicle with adequate brakes (such that traction is the limiting factor) stops on a short distance, regardless of its weight. Kek moron back to school.
>>1997263>The tracks are vacant most of the time because there aren't 10 billion streetcars zooming around 24/7Because streetcars are a meme. If you banned cars on streets like a tard and people still had to get across town, the number of streetcars would have to increase to accommodate. And I'm not sure what your plan is for freight transit supplying all the "organic" street level shopping, light rail freight trains?
>>1997404>area will have less crime, homeless and riffraffthis sounds like a fantastic reason to get rid of public transport all together
>>1997513>For our intents and purposes it is massBrake force is mass times (velocity squared), then divided over 2 times the distance. A streetcar is going to be 30 times heavier than a Ford F-150 (assuming that neither is loaded down with significantly more mass) and need 30 times the braking power for the same speed and same stopping distance.
>>1997053Believe it or not Mr. Cagetroll, some people actually have a life and go outside.
>>1997277>There is no correct way to cross the street
>>1997537You have either not read or understood my post. Youre quoting 'braking power' which is limited by the construction of the braking mechanism alone. As such it is not the determining factor for braking performance. It is TRACTION retard. Which is linearly dependent on MASS. While kinetic energy is lineraly dependent on mass and the SQUARE of velocity. D'uh.Example for retards who cant into abstraction:A 40 ton semi will come to a complete stop in 40 m from 80 km/h. This is at least comparable if not on par with many passenger cars. Both are entirely capable of locking up wheels at this speed. Thus traction is the limiting factor.Now if we, like you seem to presume, imagined braking distance to be lineraly dependent on mass, we would expect the 40 ton lorry to need 800 m to come to a stop compared to the 2 ton passenger car stopping in 40 m.On a sidenote: Assuming equal reaction time the distance covered before the brakes are applied does increase linearly with velocity.Your example concerns the ridiculous premise of 'what if a tram and a passenger vehicle were equipped with the same braking mechanism'.Anyways neither belng on streets. One is just a bit better than the other.
>>1997555>Your example concerns the ridiculous premise of 'what if a tram and a passenger vehicle were equipped with the same braking mechanism'.The tram is going to have more powerful brakes than a vehicle, but not on the scale of thirty times that amount. Basically, the sheer mass of the streetcar (78,000 pounds as per the official website, or 35380.205 kg), blows anything by a personal vehicle out of the water.
>>1997558You just presented two calculations that both imply you believe both vehicles to have equally strong brakes. You also insinuated that braking force would be somehow determinant of the stopping or braking distance. And now you're trying to missrepresent what I have claimed and I am pretty sure it's not accidential.I have no expertise in tram or train engineering and don't wish to have any points of contact with such objects. Yet I am pretty sure that their design is sensible. And a sensibly designed vehicle will have brakes that, at expected speeds of opreration, have the potency to lock up the associated wheels. This then makes whatever traction there is the limiting factor and there will be ample reserves in terms of mechanical brake performance for every situation.IF we then assume one of the streecars that employ what looks to be pneumatic tires then it would follow that compared to a passenger car that was equally sensibly designed it would solely be velocity that determines braking distance. A point that too was originally contested >>1997451 in a manner that made an attempt to insult a third anon and aparently the goalpost is sick of it by now.Steel wheels on rails: I dont know, I imagine less friction but don't know and I won't look it up because of someone like (you). Ask the train autists if you really want to understand physics, which you ironically suggest others don't.On a sidenote all of this is completely besides the point the urbanists are trying to make. If everyone parricipated in their idea of motorized and thus no less degenerate form of transportation streets would be alot less busy in terms of traffic volume and thus safer.Also: Lower speeds still decrease the distance covered during reaction time. At higher speeds a braking mechanism might become entirely useless in cases where a vehicle is about to collide with a pedestrian.
>>1997542It's just sad to me at this point. I fled Texas for Madrid, and I don't know what there is to say. It's just a night and day difference in living. I think I'm pretty fair too, I can acknowledge the cons. Trains can frequently take longer than driving, and sometimes they're totally packed. I groan when I see a packed train pulling up to the platform, it's going to be uncomfortable. But it's a different kind of discomfort, I read a lot on the train now. When I would drive before, I would hit an unexpected pocket of traffic and what I'd worry about is my wasted time, because I'm stuck in my car paying attention to the road. Even in a packed train, I just read, and the train still arrives in the same amount of time. My time never feels wasted, I always feel like the train is time for me to gain something through reading. This lack of fear for my time has just caused my daily anxiety to plummet. I also understand this requires dependable transit, which Madrid has almost always delivered. Some cities don't deliver that. But if I'm given the choice between the two, a car or dependable transit, it's just not a contest. It's also incredibly cheap. Cars seem transparently for specific use cases now, like living in rural areas, or for the disabled, or for people who frequently need to haul lots of big objects for work. Just living as an average person in an urban area should not need a car, that is a totally dysfunctional kind of city. I thank God I was able to leave, Spain feels like civilization. I love the Texas countryside, but the cities feel like some kind of political abortion now. Like the cities were made to benefit car dealership dynasties, the banks supplying credit for these depreciating assets, and to avoid confronting political tensions around new development by just constantly sprawling out and away.
>>1997056Public transport is not safe due to niggers
>>1997673okay so get rid of the niggers, not the public transit. you guys have things completely backwards.
>>1997274and your "safe and efficient" streetcar demands I conform to a set schedule, forces me to be in contact with some of the worst dregs society has to offer, is likely more expensive than driving and very often is slower than just walking to my destination. god forbid you want to go somewhere specific that a trolley or bus line doesn't serve directly. I shouldn't have to ask permission to go somewhere and then contort my whole timetable just to find out the bus isn't on time. I grew up riding streetcars, subways and buses (pic related) and still think they're neat as fuck, but cars are just far more convenient for A-to-B transit.
>>1997384Is this what americans have to deal with? 15 bucks a day? Homeless people, feces, rape, mentally ill, niggers?I'd almost believe it too if I didn't spend 1year riding buses during college. They were shit too, but because they took 40min instead of 30min with a car, not because they were full of "american" things you just mentioned. At least you got your mental support cage to get you through the day. Good for you.
these streets are made for peopleyeah thats just what theyre forone of these days the streets are gonna be walked on by whoresuh bow bow bow bow bow...
>>1998119not finna read allat
>>1998454How poor must one be to not being able to afford 10 minutes ? Also get a bicycle, it'll be faster than bus and car.
>>1998459>Zoomie nigger can't readColor me shocked.
>>1998454>almost believe it Kek, believe it or not, xister, I couldn't care less.I'm never stepping foot on pubic shitsport again. If I gotta starve because they ban "cages", so be it.
>>1997018wrong.
>>1998526Sure theres no images of it because it cant be done.https://i.stack.imgur.com/g9jqf.pngAlso 99,999% of trips made using motorvehicles are not for the expressed purpose of transporting a sofa (altho the point could be made that every cager is always transporting a sofa amongst other unnecessary things for no reason at all).
>>1998544what makes you walking around in the road more important than anyone else trying to get somewhere, let alone if if its compared to goods and services being delivered?use the sidewalk like a normal person and go to the park if you need space to play. this entire ideology of 'i need to play in the road' is so artificial and retarded
>>1998544The problem when worshipping "car-free streets" is that they're all tourist destinations and were tourist destinations already (see: Times Square, European "old towns", etc.). Not everything is a tourist destination and cities are not shopping malls.
>>1998556The entire ideology of voluntarily becoming a car dependent cripple and insisting on causing others harm to afford ones own laziness is at least as retarded.
>>1998556Goods deliveries can be scheduled to prevent congestion and the delivery companies provided remotes or transponders to access to car-free streets. Likewise, city and emergency services and any local residents would have access in the same way. The point is to keep your suburban ass from driving in and blocking those same services and polluting those neighborhoods with your mobile living room.>>1998561Millions of people live and work in those cities, and still would even if tourism magically stopped tomorrow. The idea that they've all moved out to the suburbs and run the cities as some kind of Disneyland is a uniquely American and wrong idea.
>>1998570without the freight movement that happens 24/7 throughout the world you wouldn't have a device to type such a dumb opinion on
>>1998561That's pretty much wrong. Also you should touch on causation here. You are implying that the only streets without cars are ones where rarely anyone needs to go to do 'real business'. (Besides the fact that no one really needs a car to do anything, especially not 99% of things but thats another point see above) it may very well be so that automobiles have just become so normalized that their fanbase gets their way, despite all the downsides, in virtually every area except for those where the discrepancy between harm and use is another few orders of magnitude greater than it already is in any other area.If I consider some cities in my area where car free streets exist I find none of them to be of interest to tourists and I don't think there is tourists there.Yes those streets are usually limited to the city centre. Now think again and see above. This is not because of there being less utility in a car for lazy and weak people in those areas, it is mostly because those areas were originally overrun by cars or at risk of getting overrun and decision making was thus made possible since the negatives became obvious even to the most morotbrained and the motorcripples don't perceive it as a general threat to their belief if the measure is limited to a certain idolated area and in the context of a severe problem.So, you see, it's not like there wasn't anyone living there or running vusinesses there. It may just aswell be motorists having normalized their absurd activity to the point where none but the most severely affected areas are soared anymore.
>>1998572That's not an argument. It is a strawman. You are failing to realise that motorized personal transportation, that is transportation of people in motorized vehicles, is not the same thing as shipping of goods. Secondly you are failing to realize that current manufacturing and distribution networks have coevolved with cheap and comfortable modern means of transportation.
>>1998571>The idea that they've all moved out to the suburbs and run the cities as some kind of Disneyland is a uniquely American and wrong idea.Don't believe your lying eyes.
Step 1: Ban cars!
>>1998664>He has to cherry-pick the single most geographically constrained city in the world otherwise his argument falls apartA few things anon. First, the entry fee is primarily targeted at cruise passengers because the cruise lines just dump 50k people a day into the city during the daylight hours. These people don't contribute much to the local economy and the ships literally damaged the city's foundations just docking and undocking. This points more to how shitty mass-market cruises are for the ports of call rather than any failure of cities that aren't built on automobile dependence. Second, this is only a major problem for Venice in because the city center of Venice is geographically and architecturally constrained in a way that no other city is. Naples, Genoa, Pisa, Barcelona, etc. don't have this issue despite getting just as many cruise ships, because they're not built on a bunch of tiny islands in the middle of a lagoon and also aren't as constrained by building size for new construction. I'd bet you money that Venetians are moving to the mainland more because it's a pain in the ass to have your streets regularly flood every year and the cost of building and maintaining houses on stilts directly over saltwater is fucking astronomical.
>>1998526I’ve been to pedestrian streets all over the world where delivery and emergency vehicles were allowed. Gets all the heavy lifting done and pedestrians are prioritized, no need for personal vehicles.
>>1998526>Has to cheery-pick one of the least common uses for automobiles: Transportation of goods that would otherwise be impossibly to transport by carrying on foot, on a bicycle, cart, barrow, trailer etc.ITT: One forced argument after another, in between fallacies.Per ejemplo:>>1997018Historical argument. Somehow the past situation is an indicator for what is objectively better now ?>>1997030Appeal to authority. Also bilding and maintaining the same infrastructure but banning private use of cars by (potentially) healthy and able bodied people and capping the pace of all cripple-mobiles to walking pace and outfitting those with all sorts of collision avoidance tech would not be 'anti-bike' in any way.>>1997053Yeah sure. Sitting in the middle of the street. Sure >>1997018 was actually all about his right to sitting in the middle of the street.>>1997054Collectives. Wow. Is the collective now objectively relevant too ?>>1997055Parks do not span from place A to place B and this guy knows it.>>1997061Nothing is as infuriating as people (cagers I presume) using bicycles on a sidewalk. It is called sidewalk for a reason. This is literally on par with motorists, it kicking downwards. Also many streets do not even have sidewalks and a sidewalk is for the expressed purpose of following the road parallel, its useless for crossing, turning left etc.>>1997072This has nothing to do with density. It's not even about 'space'. And anon here knows that. The issue is that the cager inclusion zones cut right through public spaces. Sure >>1997018did simply ask for 'more space to walk and sit', right ? Because OP simply wants to walk far, aimlessly in a possibly big circle, right ? This is about getting to places safely, prefferably without detour and having to cover unnecessary distance.>>1997087Its equally degenerate to use trains. But its probably obvious to anon here that the point made was that trains are alot more space- or traffic-efficient.
https://archive.is/RyFZL
>>1998119>conform to a set scheduleThis is actually good for you in any civilized society.>forces me to be in contact with the worst dregsYes, it forces you to actually give a shit about society instead of just hiding from it behind steel walls like a lazy coward.>is likely more expensive than drivingOnly in the short term, and mostly because driving is heavily subsidized.>very often slower than walkingThat's usually not the case, and if it is then just walk because physical activity is healthy for you.
>>1997056>yes the drivers, a small amount of peopleThe majority of Europe commutes by driving. As well as the rest of the world. Bikecucks are a minority.
>>1999758>mass transit rider believing that "driving is heavily subsidized"My sides.
>>1999901the numbers are freely available. parking, roads, gas etc. are extremely subsidized, especially in the US.
>>1999890>the cagie thinks other people are cucksPoetry
>>1999903>the numbers are freely available. parking, roads, gas etc. are extremely subsidized, especially in the US.It's late. Is this going to be an "It's subsidized because it takes up valuable real estate" argument, or a "It's subsidized because Strong Towns said it's the most expensive budget item and I believe them without question" argument?
>>1999906Cope and seethe.
>>1998556Think of how much space roads take, now think of what else some of that space could be utilized for if we had less roads. Recreation and alternative transportation are just a couple of ideas, but possibly even mini farms, more housing, etc. I wouldn't mind walking an extra 200 feet to my house to gain an extra 100 feet in usable property.
>>1999909Imagine being cucked by literally negroes exporting your fossil fuels. KEK
>>1999975>Think of how much space roads take, now think of what else some of that space could be utilized for if we had less roads.Like what? You guys seem so out of touch with people. Most people go to work then go home and if they go out with someone or go somewhere, they do it with a plan. People don't just aimlessly wander around
>>1999908my man you don't know what the word subsidized means. it means that something is paid for by the government, that's it. both public transit and car infrastructure don't fully pay for themselves directly (actually not completely right as some transit systems do) it can be argued either can benefit the economy in externalities more than they cost but that's hard to quantify, it is easy to quantify how much space highways and road extensions take up in comparison to transit in terms of transporting people, and it is quantifiable how extra lanes rarely fix congestion, and it is quantifiable if you have eyes how cities are ruined by solely focusing on car infrastructure as a transportation method.
>>1999992> it means that something is paid for by the government, that's itFair enough, but when in comes to road infrastructure, people on these types of boards bitterly complain about it even though its a rounding error compared to how much money is spent on education> actually not completely right as some transit systems doWhen it comes to transit system, there's operating costs and capital costs. A few are able to cover operating costs. London Underground does, but it doesn't cover the capital costs (i.e. the budget). Japanese transit companies do cover it, but they also run extensive retail operations at the stations.>it is easy to quantify how much space highways and road extensions take up in comparison to transit in terms of transporting peopleYes I too have seen the meme graphics of cramming people into a smaller space, but even assuming everyone has more than enough space it makes the assumptions that those trains are full, in use, and everyone is going to the same place>it is quantifiable how extra lanes rarely fix congestion The original study's numbers varied wildly between cities and had no control variables. It is an interesting study but not nearly anywhere as cut-and-dry as reported, and there are questions to be asked.>quantifiable if you have eyes how cities are ruined by solely focusing on car infrastructure as a transportation methodYes I too have seen the meme graphics of "City Downtown 1950 vs. City Downtown 2000". The problem is that correlation doesn't equal causation; to the point where you could scratch out "highways" and write "Civil Rights Act" in any of these cases and have them still be "true".
>>2000009>people on these types of boards bitterly complain about it even though its a rounding error compared to how much money is spent on educationRoads are a waste of funds. Education is an investment for the future. Idiots like you wouldn't understand.
>>2000015I had to check ... yes Anon really wrote that. Wow.
>>2000015>>2000016>missing the point this hardNGMI
>>1997018>Streets were made for people.Cars are a horse and buggy but 100x better, you know the thing streets have been made for for thousands of years,You faggots are literally insane.
>>2000018>being this dumbYou killed your point with that shit analogy
>>2000024The point, anon, is that you were complaining about everything by the government being "subsidized" and you are retarded if you think that the point is "we shouldn't give money to education". The point is that education receives a lion's share of taxpayer money, not highways and roads.The issue is that a lot of people who follow the Strong Towns circles have got it in their heads that somehow roads and infrastructure are overbudgeted and a burden on taxpayers, especially those who live in denser areas.
>>2000027>she thinks every anon is the same anonI'm not even the same anon as the one you're arguing with about subsidization. Personally, I'm ok with subsidizasion as long as it's not for stupid shit like roads or bailing out banks. Road subsidies are one of Big Oil's schemes of ensuring a car dependent future to secure their wealth through The Government's dime, it's absolutely despicable because the end result is a less secure society. Big Oil and Big Auto have spent the last century, killing America and its culture at the expense of our, The People's, future.
>>2000031>any government funding of roads is a plot by oil companiesUnbelievable that transit advocates think they're the smartest people in the room and spew dumb conspiracy theory shit like this
>>2000009>when in comes to road infrastructure, people on these types of boards bitterly complain about it even though its a rounding error compared to how much money is spent on educationThe difference is that much of that road infrastructure is there primarily for the convenience of expensive single-occupancy vehicles with no reasonable alternative form of transportation. These single occupancy vehicles congest the roads, blocking emergency services (and stupidly enough generate a majority of emergency service calls because the US does not remotely take driver education and law enforcement seriously), delay shipments of goods and services, and dump shitloads of microplastics and harmful chemicals from their tires into the neighborhoods along the interstates and highways. Meanwhile the education budget is there to make sure that the people taking care of your useless ass in a nursing home can read a fucking drug label.> but even assuming everyone has more than enough space it makes the assumptions that those trains are fullMy local metro, MARTA, is moving as many people an hour at 1/4 capacity as a single highway lane does at maximum capacity, and that's running on 15 minute frequencies>and everyone is going to the same placeWalk fatty
>>1997018Stop letting politicians and other privileged decide where your roads go and how they'll be used, and suddenly the car manufacturers won't have monolithic entities to bribe for influence and they'll have to compete with what people actually want.If that results in mass transit and walkable, bikable cities, awesome.If that just means more cars, then it was meant to be so.I'd love to not need a car. I'd love to relax on a clean, safe train most everywhere I go. But I know the world is a lot more complicated than whatever study is currently popular on IFLScience, and I don't pretend to know what's better for everyone else.
>>2000053>you can ride the metro or you can walkRefreshing to see some honesty
>>1999981>incoherent nonwhite ESLSad!
>>2000137In developed countries the metro gets you close enough to your destination to walk you disingenuous whoreson
>>2000053No thanks, I won't be walking. In fact what's going to happen is you will continue to pay for my roads.
>>2000137let me guess you believe that 15 minute cities are a WEF control method.
>>2000136what a disingenuous non argument >idk bro things end up like they are supposed to, I'd like to improve transit but that's just not how it worksyou've said nothing here besides that you are complacent.
>>2000160>living in pods and eating bugs isn't a WEF conspiracy Anon pls
>>2000156>t. $700 monthly lease, $250/month insurance, $60/tank gas billThe autojew appreciates your continued patronage
>>2000180I don't lease, my insurance doesn't cost that much and you STILL pay for my roads and will continue to do so. I'm also not poor. Lol.
>>2000166buzzwords don't make your argument true. now back to your pod (car) with subscription fee and eating your onions HFCS products
>>1997263Why are those vehicles in the gore? Blue truck, black car, white suv. Does it become a turn lane just after the streetcar crossing?
>>2000188As opposed to your 100 sqft goyim pod eating premium cockroach goyim feed.
>>2000195actually it's 650 sq ft and I make my own food every day. do you know how to cook anything besides frozen pizza?
>>2000196>Uhmm it's 650 sq ftLOL.>w-what do you cookMy wife cooks.
>>2000200>trad larperyep, you live with your mom and you eat hot pockets, do you even browse this board or are you an election tourist.
>>2000201>noo everyone is a forever alone poor faggot like meLol
>>2000182>he's proud of giving his hard earned money to the autojewSAD
