If you ever wondered why the "old town" felt nicer somehow, here's why.Check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/adamsomethingJoin my Discord: https://di...
You see, progress comes with cost. But car infrastructure is so popular, because it is relatively cheap. It’s an economic problem, that has proven that the current situation is the most effective we currently have.
And in the end, some people want to drive cars in cities. Even people that live in cities want to do so.
So as the systems continues to work as it does, one has to expect, that the majority thinks the way I do. And that’s what we usually call swarm intelligence.
It’s cheap because it’s subsidised. Car users don’t pay all of the costs. And it’s popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren’t for driving, people will use other modes.
It’s cheap because it’s subsidised. Car users don’t pay all of the costs.
I already answered someone else about this topic. So I will mostly copy my comment:
“The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany.
Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.
So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.
Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs. “
And it’s popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren’t for driving, people will use other modes.
Yes and no. In Germany we have many options, but cars are still an important and often chosen mode of transport.
The infrastructure for other kind of transports exist. But they do not manage to compete with the flexibility of a car.
And I will paste another part of a comment to someone else:
“A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on.
And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever. “
It is not. Car infrastructure is some of the most expensive there is. It’s cheap because it’s heavily subsidized. It’s popular because car manufacturers made it popular, with propaganda and lobbying for making cars the default form of transportation.
If your opinion is the obviously correct one where driving is the only thing accomodated for, why does the actual data show that the model for walkable cities with good transit have happier, healthier, more comfortable people, and are economically stronger than car dependent cities?
It is not. Car infrastructure is some of the most expensive there is. It’s cheap because it’s heavily subsidized.
The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany.
Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.
So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.
Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs.
It’s popular because car manufacturers made it popular, with propaganda and lobbying for making cars the default form of transportation.
Nah, it rly. Railway companies had their chance. And they failed. Railway companies in the past were extremely rich, they had to capital, but Cars by themselves were at one point considered the better, more efficient, way of transport.
So we ended up in a situation, where worldwide rail infrastructure is only used for niche solutions. For example on extremely long trips, to replace planes. (Planes are indeed extremely subsidised which our much logic. But maybe I am just uninformed and kissing the point considering planes).
If your opinion is the obviously correct one where driving is the only thing accomodated for, why does the actual data show that the model for walkable cities with good transit have happier, healthier, more comfortable people, and are economically stronger than car dependent cities?
Now I am rly interested in the subject. Maybe you can tell me where you heard that, or maybe you even have a link?
Secondly: A city should accommodate all means of transport. A modern city also includes public transport, a few well placed trams, flexible bus lines, cycling infrastructure, and good pathways for pedestrians. But also parking space for cars.
A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on.
And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever.
You see, progress comes with cost. But car infrastructure is so popular, because it is relatively cheap. It’s an economic problem, that has proven that the current situation is the most effective we currently have.
And in the end, some people want to drive cars in cities. Even people that live in cities want to do so.
So as the systems continues to work as it does, one has to expect, that the majority thinks the way I do. And that’s what we usually call swarm intelligence.
It’s cheap because it’s subsidised. Car users don’t pay all of the costs. And it’s popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren’t for driving, people will use other modes.
I already answered someone else about this topic. So I will mostly copy my comment:
“The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany. Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.
So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.
Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs. “
Yes and no. In Germany we have many options, but cars are still an important and often chosen mode of transport. The infrastructure for other kind of transports exist. But they do not manage to compete with the flexibility of a car.
And I will paste another part of a comment to someone else:
“A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on. And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever. “
It is not. Car infrastructure is some of the most expensive there is. It’s cheap because it’s heavily subsidized. It’s popular because car manufacturers made it popular, with propaganda and lobbying for making cars the default form of transportation.
If your opinion is the obviously correct one where driving is the only thing accomodated for, why does the actual data show that the model for walkable cities with good transit have happier, healthier, more comfortable people, and are economically stronger than car dependent cities?
The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany. Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.
So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.
Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs.
Nah, it rly. Railway companies had their chance. And they failed. Railway companies in the past were extremely rich, they had to capital, but Cars by themselves were at one point considered the better, more efficient, way of transport. So we ended up in a situation, where worldwide rail infrastructure is only used for niche solutions. For example on extremely long trips, to replace planes. (Planes are indeed extremely subsidised which our much logic. But maybe I am just uninformed and kissing the point considering planes).
Now I am rly interested in the subject. Maybe you can tell me where you heard that, or maybe you even have a link? Secondly: A city should accommodate all means of transport. A modern city also includes public transport, a few well placed trams, flexible bus lines, cycling infrastructure, and good pathways for pedestrians. But also parking space for cars.
A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on.
And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever.
Economy is dependant on jobs and education.
@UserDoesNotExist @mondoman712
May I ask why you comment my username and someone else’s?
They are replying to you and the other person is OP.
How about responding to the stats?
I am involved in probably 10 separate discussions. And I’ve been asleep the last 9 hours. I cannot reply everyone so fast. But I will eventually.