how would a society where personal passenger cars dont exist and only public transportation (no taxis) are available look like? In this scenario public transportation would extremely good and developed and alll of the cities roads and infrastructure would be focused on faciitating public transportation. Parking lots would be unnecesary and roads could be much smaller. ingenious new ways to move people would be common, like cable cars. Could such a city be better than one with personal cars?
>>2017666from a technical and utilitarian perspective yes but what you are describing is just an utopia that would not work very well in real life.But even if it did it would still be wrong because you are removed from the freedom of traveling and can only go where the goverment wants you to go and when they want you to go
>>2017666Well you're already predefining it has no flaws so it can't be nothing but perfect. In reality I forecast a ton of very tall buildings with interconnects and a tram system
>>2017667>can only go where the goverment wants you to goThat's the reality today. Most all cars can only drive down established roads, and someone has to maintain them every day if you want to get to one of those predetermined locations.Modern cars are even more insidious in that they're constantly on the internet tattling on everything you do. They can all be remotely shut down, like Tesla is doing for their repo program. Incidentally Tesla is also currently in shit for their employees using their car cameras to spy and share pics and videos of people
>>2017666>public transportation would extremely goodno you'll just have more public transportation that's divided into classes. You'll have 1st class subway cars, and peasant class subway cars that's just as bad as right now.
>>2017666The government will go tyrannicalWhy do you think Isis worked so hard to import Toyota pick ups?
>>2017666Well, all you need to do is to look what Albania looked like during communist rule. hint, it wasn't good.
>>2017666>>2017667>from a technical and utilitarian perspective yes but what you are describing is just an utopia that would not work very well in real life.Lmao no, what he is describing is not at all some fanciful utopia. It's literally just how most American cities were developed by the early 1900s. Every American city, and even most small towns with 10k or more people, had extensive streetcar systems. Most of these were privately operated for profit, and were not municipal government operated transit systems like they are today. As a result, they went everywhere. In places like Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee etc...you were basically never more than a 4 or 5 block walk from the nearest streetcar stop, unless you were on the clear outskirts of the city. In the modern day, a proper public transit system would incorporate streetcars as well as longer distance commuter rail. Pic related is a streetcar map for Kansas City in 1920, which was when the system peaked. Every major city was like this. For bigger cities, you could ideally have a combination of streetcars with separate subways or above ground trains as well. Streetcars were great before car ownership was widespread. But they suffered because once people started buying cars, the roads had more traffic which meant the streetcar services were slower and subject to traffic issues created by cars. That's all you would need. You don't need stuff like cable cars or gondolas except in very unique circumstances. It's a sacrilege to say this here but if cars were banned, most cities would actually work better with a combination of streetcars and then basically like bird scooter and e-bike rental style stuff for last mile travel.
>>2017672Related question:why are they always Toyotas? Can't they steal any BMWs?
>>2017674animal bus becomes rail busrail bus became bus bus next it will be blimp bus or quadcopter bus and that will collapse to and you will just blame cars, when the reality is that those systems didnt collapse because people had cars, they collapsed because given an alternative people simply chose not to ride the bus with a bunch of other stinky retarded humans.the fact that the vast majority of people can drive themselves around and ho exactly where they want without incident is eons more impressive than any mass transit system ever was.
>>2017677Sure it's an engineeting feat of a whole different scale, but the necessity of such large sacrifice has never sat well with me. If we weren't talking about spending public tax dollars I wouldn't really care, but we are, and so spending as little as possible to get the same outcome is desired. We're constantly out of money on the public sector, why waste such massive quantities.
>>2017666Wouln't work because niggers,in a white ethnostate maybe
>>2017677>when the reality is that those systems didnt collapse because people had cars, they collapsed because given an alternative people simply chose not to ride the bus with a bunch of other stinky retarded humans.that's the same thing, not two separate things. You're not wrong. Cars were produced cheaply enough that lots of people started buying them en masse in the 1920s. At the same time, this made streetcars less convenient to use. The problem with streetcars as opposed to subways, elevated rail, or any kind of light rail with dedicated lines separate from the road, is that they are subject to existing traffic patterns. We have a new streetcar in Kansas City, it's being expanded, but it sucks. It goes slow, and if it's a busy night with a major event, the streetcar is slower than walking due to car traffic. My overall point is that, per the OP's premise, IF all cars were banned or didn't exist, having streetcars on the road would be a great public transit system. And my proof for my argument was that streetcars WERE a great public transit system before automobiles got popular 100 years ago.
>>2017680I don't understand why you people idealize and worship things you weren't around to witness or experience. And go on and on about how it was when you have no fucking idea and nobody alive does.Public transit has always been awful and always will be awful. Those magical ye olde days streetcars? 99% of the time 99% of people walked, and the fee for using the cars to get everywhere would be exhorbitant for the average person.Public transit where I'm from is too slow, and the $150 monthly pass would necessarily have to skyrocket if everyone needed to use public to get everywhere all the time.Oh and I dont like the idea of my kids being surrounded by strangers to go anywhere. Or needing to go to the grocery store twelve times a month. And having to carry all of that.It's retarded hippy bullshit. Public transit is fucking dumb.
>>2017666Laws and common courtesies would need to be heightened and very strictly enforced if mass public transit were the only option of movement in this theoretical society and had any chance of success. In fact you would probably need to highly segregate people through reserved seats and pricing tiers on certain lines. Zero tolerance for any sort of disruptive or loud behavior or vandalism. In the US this would be very difficult to achieve for most cities.
>>2017667>you are removed from the freedom of traveling and can only go where the goverment wants you to go and when they want you to goAs opposed to blacktop roads and fuel stations which grow naturally from the soil? You retard.
>>2017681You're talking like we're endorsing some roman legion culture, when really public transport exist today. I also embrace running water from public utility.What's something else I also enjoy? Oh right, universal healthcare. I've gotten surgery and walked off -$20 bucks poorer.
>>2017682While I don't object to stricter standards, if everyone used public transport it'd no longer be the concentrated mass of unwanted poor people, it'd consist of 99,9% working class. The atmosphere would automatically improve
>>2017666>how would a society where personal passenger cars dont exist and only public transportation (no taxis) are available look like?Switzerland is basically halfway there, public transport gets you nearly everywhere, with some small villages actually *only* reachable by public transport because they are "car-free". Also only very few rural bus lines have service frequencies of less than hourly, every other public transport runs at least once an hour.However swiss trains on the main trunk lines are often at capacity so in case you got rid of private cars completely you'd need to greatly augment rail capacity, and also offer more rural bus services to the few places that aren't connected or have limited service. I'm talking like small farms on a hill or little country houses, so this would be quite inefficient if at the end you have more bus runs than you'd have private cars travelling on that stretch.>Could such a city be better than one with personal cars?Yes and no. Cities are usually the one place where private cars are least essential, since you have high density and consequently dense public transit. However for some uses cars are still more practical, like when you have to move large things like furniture, or take an elderly person somewhere far away and they have difficulty moving, or if you have a lot of baggage with you, these kinds of things. I don't have a car myself but for some things I've used taxis or someone else's car, so I wouldn't want to be completely unable to use these. I'm fine with cars so long as cities aren't completely bulldozed to make room for them.
>>2017669>Most all cars can only drive down established roads...which go virtually everywhere and can't all be shut down at the drop of a hat. Meanwhile a train or bus line is never more than two bureaucrats away from suddenly not existing.>>2017676This is /o/ but... Toyota builds their shit to last and be easy to repair. BMW and others have the exact opposite design mentality: make the customer come back for repairs as often as possible. Terrorists don't want to drive a continent away every time they need a new timing belt, so they go with the based Hilux.>>2017685It doesn't matter the concentration of antisocial types, it only takes one to run the experience for the whole carriage. Until you get rid of junkies and lunchtime rowdies, public transit is going to remain undesirable.
>>2017674>Pic related is a streetcar map for Kansas City in 1920, which was when the system peaked.That picture is from 1945 (it says so just below the title) and includes "motor bus" lines, with them constituting about half of the routes
>>2017666kill ne
A lot of companies would offer company vehicle as a perk. A whole industry of exploiting loopholes would form, such as long term rentals and leasing, people making up business just to be able to own a car, and stuff like that. Even junker vehicles would become a huge status symbol with having a drivers license being a big deal to show off being well connected. Basically you would end up with something similar to some parts of China 15 years ago. It would fucking suck.
>>2017669it is the motorvehicle, that is depriving you of your ability to visit places you want to be at. Not the modern or otherwise insufficient motorvehicle.The use of motorvehicles causes degeneration of the body and mind and nurtures dependence on motorvehicles.
>>2018489>The use of motorvehicles causes degeneration of the body and mind and nurtures dependence on motorvehicles.Ok, you can ride a horse for 3 days and 200 miles and tell me which is degenerative to the body and mind after. or better yet walk the same distance in about a couple weeks and tell me how you are feeling physically and mentally. Some of us have places to be and things to do.
>>2018493I for example usually go by bicycle, especially if the distances are greater than daily.A horse may be a viable alternative to some but I imagine it quite expensive, high maintenance and also highly inefficient and environmentally way worse than a bicycle.>Some of us have places to be and things to do.The duality of the cager:>Reeeee only the poors can not afford motoring.>Reeeee my income is so low I need to save every minute I can to spend it being productive.
>>2018503>reeee cagers value their money and time unlike meworld's least gay cyclist
>>2018489>freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, motorvehicles deprive you of your ability to visit places you want to be at
>>2017666>how would a society where personal passenger cars dont exist and only public transportation (no taxis) are available look like?It would handcuff people to the city limits. The barrier of development would be the city public transit.
>>2017699>In the modern day, a proper public transit system would incorporate streetcars as well as longer distance commuter rail. Pic related is a streetcar map for Kansas City in 1920, which was when the system peaked.I'm from KC, not that poster though. His pic is misleading as streetcars were dying out in the 40s and were mostly gone.He is RIGHT about KC's private streetcar lines. But he likely doesn't know why. Line 50 on that Map (N-S on troost ave) was the very first suburban streetcar in KC and started around the 1900s and expanded the city.It was started by Dr. Troost who took his farm and turned it into posh belle-epoque houses and ran a little streetcar line North into the city so the rich could commute in via rail. It was hugely popular and helped grow the eastside.Since the MLK riots the white italian-irish moved out to the north-of-The River communities. Some never sold out and just rent as slumlords. KC is a segregated city and the historical redline was Troost. Now with Gentrification it's essentially Prospect Ave as UMKC and Rockhurst Universities sit off the Troost area and have gentrified things. In positive news KC is expanding their streetcar all the way from the River Market to UMKC. So those fags who always post that one streets v streetcar pics with the dangerous buildings razed for the northern downtown loop can shut the fuck up about their streetcar utopia. The line is nice and tourists like it but it's not really commuter friendly. It exists now in it's current and future vision as a nice way to transport students and tourists around the city. Midwest people adore the streetcar even though it's a bit hokey.
>>2018527>He is RIGHT about KC's private streetcar lines. But he likely doesn't know why.No one's denying the existence of private streetcar lines. But if you look at any system in the U.S., lines started shuttering as early as the 1920s which is against the common narrative that they were replaced by bus lines due to some vast corporate conspiracy. (The commonly-cited "GM conspiracy" was an anti-trust issue, not a plan to specifically replace perfectly functional streetcars).
>>2017666There will be private train carriages and first-class carriages like there was a hundred years ago, politicians and the rich will always find ways to separate themselves from the rabble. Also, they will likely redefine what "public transport" is so they can still have their own cars and jets.
>>2018575I can easily see vehicles being held in elusive trust, sort of like the way the super wealthy get around modern machine gun prohibitions.When you are rich and well connected you can pay someone to spend 40 hours a week looking for loopholes for you instead of wasting your valuable time yourself.
retards really don't understand the massive land usage and cost of roads
>>2018593>massive land usageWhy is it only roads that have a "massive land usage" problem? Where's the outrage over farms, solar power plants, mines, landfills, railyards, etc.?
>>2017666Absolutely terrible. It’s a shift of responsibility from the individual to the State, who literally only considers you to be a corporate drone - a cog in the system that supports their lavish lifestyles. Take away the masses and their electricity goes out, their clean water stops running and they no longer have drones (errr sorry I meant mechanics) to maintain their private jets and helicopters. >cars represent an unprecedented level of freedom and power for the masses. You can dream about a car free utopia but that’s all it is. A dream.It’s also funny how so many urbanists are socialist/left wing/defund the police supporters who favour mass surveillance and policing Twitter while actual dangerous criminals are mugging old ladies on the street, unpunished. You can’t even get the basic framework of society right, much less create a car free world where people are actually happy with the arrangement.
