NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont think so.

Roads in citys should only be for

Taxis
Buses
Police
Trucks
Security
Tradesmen
Armed forces
Special Dignatorys
Goods and Services

This will cut the traffic in half, everyone else can use the buses, trains

and cabs.

I live in Manhattan.
I have a car.
I do not use the car to get around in Manhattan below 59th street.
I do use the car to leave the city.
I cannot afford a cab everytime I want to say travel outside Manhattan or above 59th street or to go 150 miles to see family or to shop in New Jersey.
I do not think the government has a right to prohibit me from owning a car.

Now if you want to limit those who use their car for commuting and business you'll have to ask them.

We shouldn't need them but quite many really do need them. Public transportation should be more efficient.

But I'm not from US. I believe the problems with public transportation are quite different around here. I also believe that the problems are very different in small towns than in huge cities, like New York.

We shouldn't need them but quite many really do need them. Public transportation should be more efficient.

Exactly; and more far-reaching. How many of those commuters in the big cities come from small towns that don't have affordable and convenient buses/trains that can get them to the city? My hometown, Alliston, is 45 mins. northwest of Toronto, off to the side of the GO (south-central Ontario's transit system) bus line to Barrie (which is north of Alliston). A good chunk of Alliston's population (as well as the other nearby communities) goes to work in Toronto. However, there is no GO bus that goes to these places (unlike Barrie), meaning that most of these commuters need to use their cars. This means that if the city really wants to control gridlock and make sure people use the bus as opposed to their car they need to give rural people a service so they don't have to use their cars.

At best, just just this (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/toyota-pm.htm)
Beware of pop ups

This thing:
http://www.autonews.com/files/2003tokyo/toyota/toyota_pm_250.gif

i think local governments have a perfect right to not spend tax revinues from non-car owners and from other modes of transportation on streets and roads that are not public transit bus routes.

there really is no logic to economicly coercing people into making the private passinger automobile the primary means of transportation where population densities are sufficient and more then sufficient to justify guideway based transportation systems, even built to the smallest of vehicular scale proportions.

in short: cars in cities make no sense at all. there are only two reasons to drive in a city (other then to enter or leave it and even then ... ) and that is if you HAVE to drag more crap arround with you then you can comfortably carry, or there isn't adiquite public alternative, and the last is exactly the same first cost as cars and roads so the pretense of cost against providing it is down right lame. and yes i HAVE done the research on that:
cost of standard gauge articulated trolly car ~$300,000.00
cost of 4way intersection w/ light protected turn lanes ~$300,000.00 for example.

obviously there are cheeper as well as more expensive figures for both modes, those are just typical of the low side of average.

visit any good engineering university librarly (or city council planing session for that matter) at any rate referances are available.

i know there are serious problems with existing situations in many parts of many cities, these are however not endemic to transit modes but to factors of politics, vested biases, and so forth.

=^^=
.../\...

In my city we have a pretty good public transport system but its between the harbour and hills so if I want to get myself and all my hockey gear to the rink in a suburb on the other side of town, its quite hard if I can't drive through..

sigh. I wish we didn't need cars. I recently moved to Madison, and I was all excited about riding my bike or taking the bus everywhere. Sadly, the Madison bus system isn't nearly as good as it needs to be, so I cracked and got a cheap used Toyota. I'm all for more public transport - if the transportation system in a city is below par, cars will continue to be a complete necessity. What I really want is more fuel-efficient cars. Hybrid cars and electric cars would at least begin to help conserve our natural resources.

we shouldn't need cars in the city
unfortunately it is needed in too many citties :-(
so banning them would be a wrong way to go
in germany they have a efficient park and ride system in some towns
would be nice to have more of those
but in the end if getting around the city is too
bothersome people will use their car...... so make it cheap and easy to get around

Its time for cars to go, as far as citys are concerned, they have had their

day in the sun for far too long now..

Its time for cars to go, as far as citys are concerned, they have had their

day in the sun for far too long now..

Are you a complete fucking moron?

We shouldn't need them but quite many really do need them. Public transportation should be more efficient.
You can bet public transportation would be more efficient if there were no private vehicles.

You can bet public transportation would be more efficient if there were no private vehicles.

Are you that dumb to actually advocate banning private vehicles?

Its time for cars to go, as far as citys are concerned, they have had their

day in the sun for far too long now..
I agree entirely. It would solve a whole host of problems, not the least of which is that people will walk more and not be so overweight.

Are you that dumb to actually advocate banning private vehicles?
No, I am that incised.

Are you a complete fucking moron?

lol keyboard hero

piss off.

I live in Manhattan.
I have a car.
I do not use the car to get around in Manhattan below 59th street.
I do use the car to leave the city.
I cannot afford a cab everytime I want to say travel outside Manhattan or above 59th street or to go 150 miles to see family or to shop in New Jersey.
I do not think the government has a right to prohibit me from owning a car.

Now if you want to limit those who use their car for commuting and business you'll have to ask them.

Yeah but the Government dosent have to allow cars to be used.
I do not think the government has a right to prohibit you from not owning a car.

Most "public" transport used to be private. Most of the light rail networks were built by profit making companies. They were efficient, quick and took people from where they were to were they wanted to go. Then the government took over. Now public transport is a subsidized smelly nightmare. Instead of making the system work and luring people away form their cars, governments no just try to ban cars in the hope that forcing more people onto an already inconvienent, inadequate service will somehow prop it up.

Don't ban cars. Ban cities.

Instead of making the system work and luring people away form their cars, governments no just try to ban cars in the hope that forcing more people onto an already inconvienent, inadequate service will somehow prop it up.
They do???

I come from the wild and "Hairy North" as we say ;) And people there still believe cars are for sissy's - that, or if you're a cripple! Take your pick, neither is flattering! Why you ask? Well, it's really quite simple....I never saw anything so sissy-like as to have a machine move you around for you...I mean WTF!!! You spongy muscled, weak legged fuck!? You to weak and lazy to walk more than 5km? Cars are for people with small dick, who are hung like chipmunks and who insist owning one of those "glorified baby carriages"

My transporatation? My chisled, hard as stone legs that nature gave me! After all, 5 million years of homonid bipedalism can't be wrong!

So my advice is to embrace your legs (and the rest of your body) and say fuck you to cars - they are ugly, they stink, they are inefficient, and are built like crap anyway!

I come from the wild and "Hairy North" as we say ;) And people there still believe cars are for sissy's - that or if your a cripple! Take you pick, niether is flattering! Why you ask? Well, it's really quite simple....I never saw anything so sissy-like as to have a machine move you around for you...I mean WTF!!! You spongy muscled, weak legged fuck!? You to weak and lazy to walk more than 5km? Cars are for people with small dick, who are hung like chipmunks and who insist owning one of those "glorified baby carriages"

My transporatation? My chisled, hard as stone legs that nature gave me! After all, 5 million years of homonid bipedalism can't be wrong!

So my advice is to embrace your legs (and the rest of your body) and say fuck you to cars - they are ugly, they stink, they are inefficient, and are built like crap anyway!

lol

calm down, please.

I come from the wild and "Hairy North" as we say ;) And people there still believe cars are for sissy's - that, or if you're a cripple! Take your pick, neither is flattering! Why you ask? Well, it's really quite simple....I never saw anything so sissy-like as to have a machine move you around for you...I mean WTF!!! You spongy muscled, weak legged fuck!? You to weak and lazy to walk more than 5km? Cars are for people with small dick, who are hung like chipmunks and who insist owning one of those "glorified baby carriages"

My transporatation? My chisled, hard as stone legs that nature gave me! After all, 5 million years of homonid bipedalism can't be wrong!

So my advice is to embrace your legs (and the rest of your body) and say fuck you to cars - they are ugly, they stink, they are inefficient, and are built like crap anyway!

What about bicycles?

What about bicycles?

Only leg powered ones.

Motorbikes only in the country.

What about bicycles?

Bicycles are fine by me. They are efficient, fairly cheap, low maintainence, last longer than cars and non polluting as well as take up less space.

Of course we need cars in cities. We need cars everywhere. Every people over the age of 3 SHOULD have a car. And at least 2 from 16 to 80 years old.
Cars are the motor of economy and everybody should be ready to die for his cars.

I actually have some good offers for respectable customers like you. Come and have a look you won't leave without a new friend with 4 wheels.

It really depends on personal need and stuff, but, if pollution and traffic congestion do get really high, then perhaps the authorities should clamp down on private ownership of vehicles...

Prohibiting private vehicles in cities would only come about after an efficient and effective alternative is presented, aka public transportation.

I dont know what its like in other cities, but in Sydney only a small percentage of the greater metro area are adequately covered by trains. Light rail is just an inner city thing which personally i think is quite useless. And buses, ahh buses, one of the things which actually work well, albeit with confusion and complexity. And its also nice that Sydney Buses are implementing more buses which are powered by natural gas, and i think hydrogen aswell?

But the fact of the matter is that it would take an enormous amount of capital which would have to be almost entirely covered by governments, as it would be hardly profitable. Ahh and theres that word, profitable - money. Its all about money, and when money and the environment are in conflict, unfortunately the environment takes a back seat the overwhelming majority of the time.

I live in Manhattan.
I have a car.
I do not use the car to get around in Manhattan below 59th street.
I do use the car to leave the city.
I cannot afford a cab everytime I want to say travel outside Manhattan or above 59th street or to go 150 miles to see family or to shop in New Jersey.
I do not think the government has a right to prohibit me from owning a car.

Now if you want to limit those who use their car for commuting and business you'll have to ask them.

In a situation such as yours, what might be interesting is to somehow manage a secure out-of-district massive communal parking lot that everyone can use, improve the transportation around the city and to the lot, perhaps allow bringing in cars merely for goods loading/unloading on a metered basis and otherwise do a reverse "Park and Ride" scenario so that you can have the convenience of your car for long journeys but do not need to worry about your car cluttering up the neighbourhood under normal circumstances.

There are problems with this, not the least that not many people are particularly happy leaving their cars too far from their own property at the best of times, and with such a tempting thief-target the communal lot has to have a good security system (mind you, maybe it is better if centralised).

It'd need a big shift in public opinion, but then different cities have different issues. New York (I understand) is pretty much squashed together and confined by geography, which is good for an existing/working public transport system but a problem if it needs to be created/improved to cater for transition away from private traffic if the private traffic has to continue in the interim. Other places have their own pressures.


Personally, I live in the suburbs of a sprawling city and work near the centre, I usually drive into work (15 minutes travel, barring what congestion I cannot avoid), if I have to take public transport it's 30 minutes travel (using main routes, making stops and I'm not even counting the initial waiting time) and costs me more per week on fares than the fuel does for the car (does not quite offset road tax and other constants, but I need the car for other journeys anyway), if I walk it takes around 45 minutes and free (except for shoe-leather) but it's definitely much more awkward to do. I could cycle (15-20 minutes, best guess) but I'm not inclined to trust my laptop to a panier in heavy traffic and a backpack is bad for the back in that position, so I generally stick only to leisure cycling... There's also a tram, but the nearest stops are about half as far from my house as work is (but in a different direction) doesn't have a very convenient stop for work either, takes about as long as the bus to get between those stops anyway (because it loops round due to geography and city layout) and costs a lot more to use than the bus, even (unless I commit myself to the tram and use a month-long ticket at every opportunity).

I hate myself for it, but it's cheaper to drive a car for half an hour (plus standing in traffic) each day than any other motorised form of transport, and is more convenient than any of the others, including the leg-powered ones. It is probably the second least environmentally friendly form of transport in my list, however, depending on what you count.

What I really want is more fuel-efficient cars. Hybrid cars and electric cars would at least begin to help conserve our natural resources.

I totally agree. If someone really needs a car, why not buy a small and ecofriendly one? We pay over $ per litre, but still people drive alone in their huge SUVs. I've decided that the next car I'll buy is electric one.
So I admit I have a car eventhough I live in a town. But I never use it in a town but only when I visit relatives or go to cottage. Those places almost impossible to go to without your own car.

Of course we need cars in cities. We need cars everywhere. Every people over the age of 3 SHOULD have a car. And at least 2 from 16 to 80 years old.
Cars are the motor of economy and everybody should be ready to die for his cars.

I actually have some good offers for respectable customers like you. Come and have a look you won't leave without a new friend with 4 wheels.

Not in the citys mate, you take your pedestrian killing gas guzzeling, middle

east war causing coffins out to the country, and make sure they cant go

more than 100mph.

I see a few immediate problems with banning cars in cities:

1. Define CITY. Is it determined by population, or population density?

Most cities that were founded after the invention of the automobile have been built with far greater distances between locations. Compare Boston to Houston. In Boston, a public transportation system would be much easier to configure, since the city is packed together tightly. But Houston, with approx. the same population, is spread out across 8000 sq miles. The logistics would be overwhelming. Walking and bicycling are not viable alternatives in sprawling cities.

2. Determine the percentage of population that actually lives/works in these cities. If only 5 or 10% of the population would be included, then this measure would do little to reduce the overall problems caused by cars. In fact, it might just add to the exodus from cities and cause more poverty. Businesses would just move from cities to rural areas to attract employees, thus defiling the few clean places we have left. You would reduce automobiles in cities, but not reduce automobiles overall.

3. Determine the cost of providing public transportation. Would the cities have to fund this themselves? Would you have the government step in? And compare this cost to the cost of encouraging the development of cleaner cars. Is it cars per se that you object to--or the pollution they cause? I think the solution is not to make everyone ride a stinky bus together, but to move toward cleaner transportation.

4. Hours of operation: Would you require that people only travel in cities during the hours of operation of mass transit? Or would you require that mass transit run 24/7? I just don't believe that 100% dependency on mass transit would be in keeping with the ideals of personal freedom. Now, if you want to live in a communist dictatorship, then this argument is moot.

Alternative energy and clean-running vehicles is the solution, whether it's large buses or trains or personal cars.

Here's my anti-pollution, anti-traffic, money saving solution.

Property owning White Anglo Saxon Protestant males are pampered around town on gigantic rickshaws with personal staffs of 5 attendants fanning, feeding, bathing, and attending to their every need. Monocles, top hats, lots of chrome and gold plating, and a gigantic bullhorn for scattering indignant plebeians out of the road lest they be run over (for the warmhearted WASP's who care about such things) should be included.

Women, minorities, catholics, and other such undesirables make their way about town rowing through disease-ridden subterrenean sewerways in rickety slave ships after paying outrageous fees for passage, and only after passing strict qualification tests. Non-aristocrat pedestrian travel, taxi services, and public transportation are outlawed. Those unable to pass tests are put to work in suboceanic mineral deposits, far from the delicate eyes of the landed gentry who naturally take the large majority of profit, due to their generous sacrifice of capital toward the operations.

For truly "landed" white males, re-allocate the current medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and worker's compensation money toward developing electromagnetic technology to allow for precise, airborne transportation above cities. Maintenance of the new "sky chariot" technology is paid for by imposing a 85% tax on all religious and charitable organizations, as well as by pillaging the weakly defended principality of Monaco.

In rural areas, government subsidies allow male WASP's to purchase Maybachs, Evolutions, Skylines, Sti's, and other such vehicles for bargain basement prices and drive them on highways of ivory and polished silver, while public trebuchets and wooden catapults are constructed at half-mile intervals and charge exorbitant fees to assist the "lower denominations" of citizens more efficient transportation from place to place.


Come on, you know we deserve it, and you know it would solve the aforementioned problems.

Bikes
Buses
Trains
Metro
Cabs in really big cities

So many better ways go move around the city than owning cars.

I live in a suburb of Wellington, New Zealand and have to get out to Petone, a few kms away on a state highway each day.

To make it by public transport I would have to catch a bus into the central city, a train from the central city to Petone and then walk from the train station. Can't bike it, can't walk it and you'd be out of your mind to spend $60 a day on cabs.

We do have a pretty good bus service, quite often if I'm going into town I'll catch the bus, as it comes every 10 minutes.

But take an hour and $7 to do what I could do with 15 minutes and a few bucks of gas? Nah.


Craig

Bicycles are fine by me. They are efficient, fairly cheap, low maintainence, last longer than cars and non polluting as well as take up less space.
have you ever heard of a thing called 'winter' ... sliding down the street on a bike is not that much fun... i used to live in a city with trams, and winter was horrible, because you kept causing accidents when you tried crossing frozen tramrails... :(
(yes, please... pity me... ;))

Here's my anti-pollution, anti-traffic, money saving solution.

Property owning White Anglo Saxon Protestant males are pampered around town on gigantic rickshaws with personal staffs of 5 attendants fanning, feeding, bathing, and attending to their every need. Monocles, top hats, lots of chrome and gold plating, and a gigantic bullhorn for scattering indignant plebeians out of the road lest they be run over (for the warmhearted WASP's who care about such things) should be included.

Women, minorities, catholics, and other such undesirables make their way about town rowing through disease-ridden subterrenean sewerways in rickety slave ships after paying outrageous fees for passage, and only after passing strict qualification tests. Non-aristocrat pedestrian travel, taxi services, and public transportation are outlawed. Those unable to pass tests are put to work in suboceanic mineral deposits, far from the delicate eyes of the landed gentry who naturally take the large majority of profit, due to their generous sacrifice of capital toward the operations.

For truly "landed" white males, re-allocate the current medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and worker's compensation money toward developing electromagnetic technology to allow for precise, airborne transportation above cities. Maintenance of the new "sky chariot" technology is paid for by imposing a 85% tax on all religious and charitable organizations, as well as by pillaging the weakly defended principality of Monaco.

In rural areas, government subsidies allow male WASP's to purchase Maybachs, Evolutions, Skylines, Sti's, and other such vehicles for bargain basement prices and drive them on highways of ivory and polished silver, while public trebuchets and wooden catapults are constructed at half-mile intervals and charge exorbitant fees to assist the "lower denominations" of citizens more efficient transportation from place to place.


Come on, you know we deserve it, and you know it would solve the aforementioned problems.

The catapults are a good idea, if people were wrapped up with enough padding... lol

I live in the suburban sprawl of Phoenix, but I think the best thing to do in 'real' cities would be to tax private motorcars like they've done in London.

Most "public" transport used to be private. Most of the light rail networks were built by profit making companies. They were efficient, quick and took people from where they were to were they wanted to go. Then the government took over. Now public transport is a subsidized smelly nightmare. Instead of making the system work and luring people away form their cars, governments no just try to ban cars in the hope that forcing more people onto an already inconvienent, inadequate service will somehow prop it up.

Don't ban cars. Ban cities.

How I wish that was so. The only bus out of Alliston (a town of 8,000) to Toronto (a 45 min. drive) is operated by Greyhound, and the times and prices are so inconvenient that no one uses it (what purpose does a bus that shows up at 11AM and leaves at 1PM have?). The government operated GO Transit at least makes sure you can travel to a specific area, spend some time there shopping or working, and come back home that same day. Greyhound used to have an extensive service from Alliston to Toronto, but the company (operated from Calgary) obviously doesn't care about the area and cut down service to where they won't get any passengers. How smart was that?

I live in the suburban sprawl of Phoenix, but I think the best thing to do in 'real' cities would be to tax private motorcars like they've done in London.

The friend of my girlfriend's cousin's family once also suggested that- stick a toll on the road and any advantage to having a car is nullified. Of course, also improving public transit to the point where a car would not be needed would also be a good option, but that doesn't provide enough immediate cash, now does it?

The friend of my girlfriend's cousin's family once also suggested that- stick a toll on the road and any advantage to having a car is nullified. Of course, also improving public transit to the point where a car would not be needed would also be a good option, but that doesn't provide enough immediate cash, now does it?


London has fantastic public transportation, the tax is just a deterrent from driving in the City of London.

I dont think so.

Roads in citys should only be for

Taxis
Buses
Police
Trucks
Security
Tradesmen
Armed forces
Special Dignatorys
Goods and Services

This will cut the traffic in half, everyone else can use the buses, trains

and cabs.
not every city has public transportation or widespread public transportation, and cities are big

London has fantastic public transportation, the tax is just a deterrent from driving in the City of London.

I agree. London's subway can take a bit of getting used to (memorizing all those lines would probably be a daunting task) but at least you can get anywhere in the city with the subway.

What I was talking about was Toronto. In Toronto, if you're not aware of it, there's two lines running north-south (that are practically next to each other), and two lines that run east-west, the first one spanning the entire breadth of the city but lying directly north of the bottom third of the city and the second running in the extreme north and only for a short distance. The friend who suggested the toll suggested that's what Toronto should do instead of improving its transit system, which I think is stupid. A toll is just a cop-out- if the public transit system isn't made to make cars useless, then a toll would be nothing but an inconvenience and would just anger drivers. Improve the system and then people will use it.

I live in a city of 80,000 - although it's an outer suburb of NYC.

Let's take this hypothetical scenario. I need to get a few things at the local Wal-Mart or Stop n' Shop (grocery store). Both stores are a mile and a half down one of the busiest, congested, commercial strip roads in the city.

By car: about 10 minutes. One eigth of a gallon of gas, cost to me: a quarter - and that's probably too high

By bus: about 35 minutes. Switch buses downtown - one mile in the opposite direction. Then go another mile out of your way before you're finally on the right track. Cost: $1.25 per way, $2.50 total.

And on a side note, there was another bus route which directly served my location to another Wal-Mart and Stop N' Shop - 15 miles away - in almost the same amount of time as going to the one in town - walking or by bus.

By taxi: by the time these idiots find you, it's already close to an hour after you called them. Then it's about $5-6 per way. If they don't decide to wait up for you, hello more waiting time.

[QUOTE=Tropical Montana]I see a few immediate problems with banning cars in cities:

Of course, there would be an adjusting period when great change comes in,

there always is.


1. Define CITY. Is it determined by population, or population density?

Or better still define how a city would become with the majority of

the population relying on public transport, or indeed the whole of civilisation.



Most cities that were founded after the invention of the automobile have been built with far greater distances between locations. Compare Boston to Houston. In Boston, a public transportation system would be much easier to configure, since the city is packed together tightly. But Houston, with approx. the same population, is spread out across 8000 sq miles. The logistics would be overwhelming. Walking and bicycling are not viable alternatives in sprawling cities.

This goes on to prove my previous point, citys were different before the

introduction of the private automobile, and will be different again after its

removal.


2. Determine the percentage of population that actually lives/works in these cities. If only 5 or 10% of the population would be included, then this measure would do little to reduce the overall problems caused by cars. In fact, it might just add to the exodus from cities and cause more poverty. Businesses would just move from cities to rural areas to attract employees, thus defiling the few clean places we have left. You would reduce automobiles in cities, but not reduce automobiles overall.


To solve these problems, I would see a return to smaller city states of

500,000 or less widley seperated from each other, and built around swift

public transportation.

Trains going at 5000 mph in especially sealed underground tunnels would go

between the citys for the public to use, thus you could live in one city, and

work in another a 2500 miles away if you liked.




3. Determine the cost of providing public transportation. Would the cities have to fund this themselves?

Funding would be provided by the public, instead of spending over a 10,000

plus a year to keep a car running, they can instead pay less than half that

on public transport, as millions would be using it, in all its forms, you could

lower the personal cost for each person even further to say an $80 a week

ticket that will get you anywhere on anything within the country for that

period of time only.

Unemployed people, could be subsidised with a twenty dollar weekly ticket,

that would only get them around in the city they live in.

Pensioners can use it for free.


Would you have the government step in?

Yes, for the good of our population, I think this will soon be a neccessity.


And compare this cost to the cost of encouraging the development of cleaner cars.

The costs will even out in the end, and whether the government makes a

profit or not, it will still make a benefit for itself by benefitting the

community, ie; less stress because people can get around quicker.

Think of the benefits from less spending on roads and their overheads, not

to mention all the people not having to be looked after anymore by our

health system, from hardly any car accidents.



Is it cars per se that you object to--or the pollution they cause?

Both, there are too many of them now, it just isnt natural for human beings

to live in a heavily populated density, with millions of pollutant emitting

expensive machines that drive around at life threatening speeds by stressed

out people.

I think the solution is not to make everyone ride a stinky bus together, but to move toward cleaner transportation.

We need more than just a new cleaner public transport system, we need a

whole reorganising of society to adapt to the public transport as priority

over private, meaning alot more buses, taxis and trains, that can be easily

reached and quickly used, and see the costs of this in my previous answer.


4. Hours of operation: Would you require that people only travel in cities during the hours of operation of mass transit? Or would you require that mass transit run 24/7?

Tricky, Id be tempted to say 24/7 but the costs would be too high, like I

said, society would have to be totally reorganised for public transport, say

more buses, trains and taxis come on for two three hour periods, one, at six

to nine am, the other at 4-7 pm.

I just don't believe that 100% dependency on mass transit would be in keeping with the ideals of personal freedom. Now, if you want to live in a communist dictatorship, then this argument is moot.

I dont think you could compare this to communism. its more for the good of

society, than to benefit a dictatorship, sometimes your personal freedom

may have to give way for the greater good.


Alternative energy and clean-running vehicles is the solution, whether it's large buses or trains or personal cars.

Agreed except on the personal cars, unless your in a country area, and

those cars would be made cleaner, by using alternative energy.

Also slower, 60mph should be fast enough to get around your local area, if

you want to cover a greater distance, then use public transport.

I agree entirely. It would solve a whole host of problems, not the least of which is that people will walk more and not be so overweight.
Hey Will, I live in NYC. The people here are MUCH thinner than their more bucolic cousins. It is probably due to the fact that we already walk more than them.

BTW - we have a first class mass transit system that would make your head spin. But there is still a need for cars.

Yeah but the Government dosent have to allow cars to be used.
I do not think the government has a right to prohibit you from not owning a car.
If I remove the two negatives that might make some sense. Actually the government doesn't have the authority at all. It may regulate them. But to ban them outright would be impossible and would fail in court.

Only leg powered ones.

Motorbikes only in the country.
That will make grocery shopping interesting.

It really depends on personal need and stuff, but, if pollution and traffic congestion do get really high, then perhaps the authorities should clamp down on private ownership of vehicles...
That might work in Kaguya, Onogoro, Singapore.

It'll never float in America.

Ban private cars??

Smells Like Teen Socialism.

QUITE WHITTLED DOWN


The friend of my girlfriend's cousin's family once also suggested that- stick a toll on the road and any advantage to having a car is nullified. Of course, also improving public transit to the point where a car would not be needed would also be a good option, but that doesn't provide enough immediate cash, now does it?
Actually the EPA tried that in NYC and lost in court.

[QUOTE]

Of course, there would be an adjusting period when great change comes in,

there always is.




Or better still define how a city would become with the majority of

the population relying on public transport, or indeed the whole of civilisation.





This goes on to prove my previous point, citys were different before the

introduction of the private automobile, and will be different again after its

removal.





To solve these problems, I would see a return to smaller city states of

500,000 or less widley seperated from each other, and built around swift

public transportation.

Trains going at 5000 mph in especially sealed underground tunnels would go

between the citys for the public to use, thus you could live in one city, and

work in another a 2500 miles away if you liked.






Funding would be provided by the public, instead of spending over a 10,000

plus a year to keep a car running, they can instead pay less than half that

on public transport, as millions would be using it, in all its forms, you could

lower the personal cost for each person even further to say an $80 a week

ticket that will get you anywhere on anything within the country for that

period of time only.

Unemployed people, could be subsidised with a twenty dollar weekly ticket,

that would only get them around in the city they live in.

Pensioners can use it for free.



Yes, for the good of our population, I think this will soon be a neccessity.




The costs will even out in the end, and whether the government makes a

profit or not, it will still make a benefit for itself by benefitting the

community, ie; less stress because people can get around quicker.

Think of the benefits from less spending on roads and their overheads, not

to mention all the people not having to be looked after anymore by our

health system, from hardly any car accidents.




Both, there are too many of them now, it just isnt natural for human beings

to live in a heavily populated density, with millions of pollutant emitting

expensive machines that drive around at life threatening speeds by stressed

out people.



We need more than just a new cleaner public transport system, we need a

whole reorganising of society to adapt to the public transport as priority

over private, meaning alot more buses, taxis and trains, that can be easily

reached and quickly used, and see the costs of this in my previous answer.




Tricky, Id be tempted to say 24/7 but the costs would be too high, like I

said, society would have to be totally reorganised for public transport, say

more buses, trains and taxis come on for two three hour periods, one, at six

to nine am, the other at 4-7 pm.



I dont think you could compare this to communism. its more for the good of

society, than to benefit a dictatorship, sometimes your personal freedom

may have to give way for the greater good.




Agreed except on the personal cars, unless your in a country area, and

those cars would be made cleaner, by using alternative energy.

Also slower, 60mph should be fast enough to get around your local area, if

you want to cover a greater distance, then use public transport.


Son, put down the crack pipe.

I live in a suburb of Wellington, New Zealand and have to get out to Petone, a few kms away on a state highway each day.

To make it by public transport I would have to catch a bus into the central city, a train from the central city to Petone and then walk from the train station. Can't bike it, can't walk it and you'd be out of your mind to spend $60 a day on cabs.

We do have a pretty good bus service, quite often if I'm going into town I'll catch the bus, as it comes every 10 minutes.

But take an hour and $7 to do what I could do with 15 minutes and a few bucks of gas? Nah.


Craig

You don't actually have to go through the city for that anyway.

Son, put down the crack pipe.

lol who do you think you are?

I come up with a great plan to fix up society, and all you can give as a

contribution to it, is a negative and patronising comment.

Shame on you.

:(

That will make grocery shopping interesting.

So use a sidecar.

not every city has public transportation or widespread public transportation, and cities are big

Citys will have to downsize, anything beyond 500,000 is a joke anyway.

I live in a city of 80,000 - although it's an outer suburb of NYC.

Let's take this hypothetical scenario. I need to get a few things at the local Wal-Mart or Stop n' Shop (grocery store). Both stores are a mile and a half down one of the busiest, congested, commercial strip roads in the city.

By car: about 10 minutes. One eigth of a gallon of gas, cost to me: a quarter - and that's probably too high

By bus: about 35 minutes. Switch buses downtown - one mile in the opposite direction. Then go another mile out of your way before you're finally on the right track. Cost: $1.25 per way, $2.50 total.

And on a side note, there was another bus route which directly served my location to another Wal-Mart and Stop N' Shop - 15 miles away - in almost the same amount of time as going to the one in town - walking or by bus.

By taxi: by the time these idiots find you, it's already close to an hour after you called them. Then it's about $5-6 per way. If they don't decide to wait up for you, hello more waiting time.

In a case like that I'd just walk it. If it's less than a half hour walk I see no point for me to take the bus.

Actually the EPA tried that in NYC and lost in court.

One of the few cases where I'd agree with the EPA.

have you ever heard of a thing called 'winter' ... sliding down the street on a bike is not that much fun... i used to live in a city with trams, and winter was horrible, because you kept causing accidents when you tried crossing frozen tramrails... :(
(yes, please... pity me... ;))

Heard of winter?!! God's man! I'm a Montrealer!!

have you ever heard of a thing called 'winter' ... sliding down the street on a bike is not that much fun... i used to live in a city with trams, and winter was horrible, because you kept causing accidents when you tried crossing frozen tramrails... :(
(yes, please... pity me... ;))
hehe, it's fun :)
Hey I live in Finland, we have snow from late November til April. And I use my bike all year through. When it's -20 or more I walk. It's not fun to scratch the ice from the car windows either. And it can take up to 15 minutes. And of course there's sometimes so much snow that you have to clear the way from the yard to the road which can take a lot longer...

I live in a city of 80,000 - although it's an outer suburb of NYC.

Let's take this hypothetical scenario. I need to get a few things at the local Wal-Mart or Stop n' Shop (grocery store). Both stores are a mile and a half down one of the busiest, congested, commercial strip roads in the city.

By car: about 10 minutes. One eigth of a gallon of gas, cost to me: a quarter - and that's probably too high

By bus: about 35 minutes. Switch buses downtown - one mile in the opposite direction. Then go another mile out of your way before you're finally on the right track. Cost: $1.25 per way, $2.50 total.

And on a side note, there was another bus route which directly served my location to another Wal-Mart and Stop N' Shop - 15 miles away - in almost the same amount of time as going to the one in town - walking or by bus.

By taxi: by the time these idiots find you, it's already close to an hour after you called them. Then it's about $5-6 per way. If they don't decide to wait up for you, hello more waiting time.

Walk? I go to the nearest supermarket by foot, but hey it's only a mile and a quarter (?) away.

What we need is more MagLev trains. I :fluffle: MagLev.

Ban cars? Let me tell you somthing, i live in england/wallasey and since my dad is working i am forced to get the bus 5 days a week. The 211/311 is monsterus, they always carry double their capacity

Its like a sardeen can.

They are always 10-15 or so minutes late or early never on time and if its like this with the tax the govement gets from cars and fule ide hate to see it without the funding!

Motorcycles are not an option. They are about the most dangerous mode of transport. Total useless in the winter or heavy rain. Do you really thing your sick old granny can jump on a bike to go to the Doctors?

The bus is sometimes an option. Depends where you live. However if you have small kids of lots of groceries, its not practical.

Cabs are an option, if your very wealthy and like waiting 30 minuets for someone to come and pick you up.

Trains are rarely an option. I use the train sometimes but not if I have anything to take with me (like boxes with product samples or lots of books).

Adding a tax just rises to cost of living and increases the weight of the government on our shoulders and wont solve the problem. The rich don’t care, they will still drive. It will be the single mothers, the elderly, or disabled who will suffer. Public transport is not easy for someone who has bad health.

Mostly I walk because I live in a very compact town and there are not parking spaces. We drive into town and then walk everywhere. My father-in-law can’t walk very far because of his health so he has to drive. Different needs require different solutions.

All that is needed is more efficient cars that are lighter and smaller (two person cars are great for many people). Alternative energy sources like Natural Gas and Hydrogen show a lot of promise. As for traffic jams, that’s mostly because of stupid drivers not just volume of traffic and unfortunately no one has found a way to outlaw stupidity yet.

Ban cars? Let me tell you somthing, i live in england/wallasey and since my dad is working i am forced to get the bus 5 days a week. The 211/311 is monsterus, they always carry double their capacity

Its like a sardeen can.

They are always 10-15 or so minutes late or early never on time and if its like this with the tax the govement gets from cars and fule ide hate to see it without the funding!

Look, thats the current situation with public transport, because its a system

that is placed of secondary importance to private transport.

If you take a look at my previous post not far back on how this would

change, if public transport was made the number one priority.

Especially look at the funding.

[QUOTE=The Royal Revoys]Motorcycles are not an option. They are about the most dangerous mode of transport. Total useless in the winter or heavy rain. Do you really thing your sick old granny can jump on a bike to go to the Doctors?

No, thats what home visits are for.


The bus is sometimes an option. Depends where you live. However if you have small kids of lots of groceries, its not practical.

Never was, which is why I believe in internet shopping, you dont get the

grocerys they come to you, if you take a look at my public transport as

number one priority, you will see Goods and services are allowed to use the

road, your food will come to you in vans.


Cabs are an option, if your very wealthy and like waiting 30 minuets for someone to come and pick you up.

Yeah well I cant solve everything.


Adding a tax just rises to cost of living and increases the weight of the government on our shoulders and wont solve the problem. The rich don’t care, they will still drive. It will be the single mothers, the elderly, or disabled who will suffer. Public transport is not easy for someone who has bad health.

Thats the public transport your used to, my vision of public transport in

future is a lot nicer.


All that is needed is more efficient cars that are lighter and smaller (two person cars are great for many people). Alternative energy sources like Natural Gas and Hydrogen show a lot of promise. As for traffic jams, that’s mostly because of stupid drivers not just volume of traffic and unfortunately no one has found a way to outlaw stupidity yet.


Its volume of traffic really, and 8 out of 10 cars have usually only one person

in them, thats why private transport for the masses in citys has to go.