For the significantly fewer in society who aren’t at all negatively affected by the vast majority benefiting by the elimination of car infrastructure and building of walkable cities and public transportation?
Literally nothing, aside from now also having trains to the bigger cities and busses in their smaller towns.
For the significantly fewer in society who aren’t at all negatively affected by the vast majority benefiting by the elimination of car infrastructure and building of walkable cities and public transportation?
The majority of the people already live outside the mayor cities (and in my opinion even more people will leave the cities).
Having a walkable city with a good transportation system is useless for who live outside.
That Milano is walkable and have a subway train every 3 minutes is useless for me if I live outside and need 1 hour to travel the 20 km distance from where I live using a train.
Literally nothing, aside from now also having trains to the bigger cities and busses in their smaller towns.
Train to bigger cities where never the real problem, they were always present. Sometimes they have margings to be way better, but they exist.
What do not exist, and never will, is your busses in the small cities. Small cities have not a critical mass to make a public transportation viable, both inside the small town and to link nearby towns, without going to the big city of the area.
Is it still the “norm” when it concerns less than 20% of the people that make up society? They didn’t say cars shouldn’t exist at all, just that they shouldn’t be the norm.
Not to mention they wrote “busses, trains” before talking about something exclusive to cities.
I did not said that.
My “people who don’t live in cities” means “for people who don’t live in the city and don’t need to go in the city”, not everyone need a city in their lives.
And in this case, train and bus are not an option for most of the times.
Nobody is saying you can’t have a car as a person not living in a city, we are talking about how cities don’t need to be filled with cars if cities were filled with decent public infrastructure.
And if you don’t live in a city and don’t plan on going to a city why does it even concern you if cars get banned from cities?
And if you don’t live in a city and don’t plan on going to a city why does it even concern you if cars get banned from cities?
Because mayor cities are not an entity that live in a isolated system.
I may not need to go to the city every day, but maybe I need to go every now and then. If you ban cars in a city, I am hit too the moment I could need to go to the city for whatever reason (parents, medics, whatever)
What they are usually doing though, it is not banning the cars from the cities but simply banning the car from outside entering the city, without improving the public transportation system (sometimes making it worse).
So we agree banning cars from.cities is good when the public infrastructure is put in place. Also it’s not like all cars have to be banned fully, make a toll for cars to enter or limit where they can go.
So we agree banning cars from.cities is good when the public infrastructure is put in place.
No, we do not agree. A ban is stupid even when there is a decent public infrastructure.
What is needed is to have a public transportation system so good that people do not want to use the car.
Also it’s not like all cars have to be banned fully, make a toll for cars to enter or limit where they can go.
Here they did it.
There are just two results: the problem just moved to the suburbs since the public transportation still cannot replace the private cars and people just changed their habits so they enter the city before the toll’s time start and exit after the toll’s time end.
Both for a number of reasons but principally because if you need to move around outside rush hours the car is still the best choice, time wyse.
And for people who don’t live in cities ?
For the significantly fewer in society who aren’t at all negatively affected by the vast majority benefiting by the elimination of car infrastructure and building of walkable cities and public transportation?
Literally nothing, aside from now also having trains to the bigger cities and busses in their smaller towns.
The majority of the people already live outside the mayor cities (and in my opinion even more people will leave the cities).
Having a walkable city with a good transportation system is useless for who live outside.
That Milano is walkable and have a subway train every 3 minutes is useless for me if I live outside and need 1 hour to travel the 20 km distance from where I live using a train.
Train to bigger cities where never the real problem, they were always present. Sometimes they have margings to be way better, but they exist.
What do not exist, and never will, is your busses in the small cities. Small cities have not a critical mass to make a public transportation viable, both inside the small town and to link nearby towns, without going to the big city of the area.
Is it still the “norm” when it concerns less than 20% of the people that make up society? They didn’t say cars shouldn’t exist at all, just that they shouldn’t be the norm.
Not to mention they wrote “busses, trains” before talking about something exclusive to cities.
If you need to go to the city you drive your car and then when you’re on the outskirts you can get a bus or a train in?
I did not said that.
My “people who don’t live in cities” means “for people who don’t live in the city and don’t need to go in the city”, not everyone need a city in their lives.
And in this case, train and bus are not an option for most of the times.
Nobody is saying you can’t have a car as a person not living in a city, we are talking about how cities don’t need to be filled with cars if cities were filled with decent public infrastructure.
And if you don’t live in a city and don’t plan on going to a city why does it even concern you if cars get banned from cities?
Because mayor cities are not an entity that live in a isolated system.
I may not need to go to the city every day, but maybe I need to go every now and then. If you ban cars in a city, I am hit too the moment I could need to go to the city for whatever reason (parents, medics, whatever)
What they are usually doing though, it is not banning the cars from the cities but simply banning the car from outside entering the city, without improving the public transportation system (sometimes making it worse).
So we agree banning cars from.cities is good when the public infrastructure is put in place. Also it’s not like all cars have to be banned fully, make a toll for cars to enter or limit where they can go.
No, we do not agree. A ban is stupid even when there is a decent public infrastructure.
What is needed is to have a public transportation system so good that people do not want to use the car.
Here they did it.
There are just two results: the problem just moved to the suburbs since the public transportation still cannot replace the private cars and people just changed their habits so they enter the city before the toll’s time start and exit after the toll’s time end.
Both for a number of reasons but principally because if you need to move around outside rush hours the car is still the best choice, time wyse.