/ban all cars/

>>1000731
"when" indeed... In your dreams perhaps?

>>1000731
No

We are already to far gone to be saved. The universe we inhabit is the one where we failed and everything ends up going to shit. It's not that bad though; it could be much worse but it is hopeless still to try and fix everything. Just ride it out and know that in some alternative universe it doesn't suck

>>1000731
>People that live in country/undeveloped areas aren't real: the ideology.
Same shit with self driving cars outlawing licensed drivers. You people with your crazy ideological fantasy worlds...

>>1000731

In time my friend. Its amazing to go from Scandinavia to Los Angeles and see the horrendous difference. The other day it took me 2 hours to drive five fucking miles.

File: cager.jpg (34KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1280x720px

But my 11 year old pickup truck with "nuke mecca" bumper stickers built everything known to modern civilization. Without this gas guzzling piece of garbage that, ironically, literally gives free money out of my wallet to middle eastern theocracies every week, we wouldn't have wheels, airplanes, electricity, or Duck Dynasty. I know this because I am completely unable to fathom how society might work if I couldn't live my abhorrent lifestyle.

If I can't wallow in a musty-smelling glass box with fast food wrappers heaped up on the floor for 40+ hours a week, billions of people will die in a global thermonuclear war.

Why do liberal college boys always want to shove they're lifestyles down our throats. I have no choice but to live 3 hours from my job opening boxes somewhere because I never thought about this much until just now. Muh freedom.
t.Cager

>>1000769
This tbqh

>>1000731
Cars are not a problem. The lack of mass transportation (who shouldn't be public, in the first place) is the problem.

USA had the same mileage of railways China has TODAY in 1900.
But then the government had to intervene and build highways everywhere, and all the railways stopped offering passenger services and cutting the interurban services.

Privatize highways and avenues is the only solution.

File: tumblr_ocq9hs1vcd1tdzt44o1_1280.jpg (196KB, 745x1075px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 745x1075px

cagers are literally the death of this planet and civilization

I confront this type often on various forums when the discussion turns to automobiles in the urban condition. This is for you, OP, and others who live in a fantasy where cars can somehow be banned entirely.

Cars can never truly be banned from cities.

While I do agree with practices such as congestion pricing, redesigning streets to put people first and discourage traffic, closing certain streets for pedestrianization, and banning the construction of surface parking lots, I do not agree with the idea of banning cars entirely. When you factor in emergency vehicles, service vehicles, taxis, and trucks loading goods into stores, you'll understand why motorized vehicles are here to stay. And lmao you really expect everyone in cities to use mass transit? The elite rich that live in those cities will still get around in their limousines and business executives using taxis when they don't want to mix in with the rest of us peons on the subway.

Even in the future when gasoline-powered vehicles virtually cease to exist and most cars become driverless electric cars, the cars, and even drivers (cagers, mind you) will still be around.

But what if someone wants to live out in the country? You really think mass transit can be built to serve areas where they may only be 5 people per square mile? There wouldn't be any mass transit, and options are limited to car, bicycle or foot.

>>1000751
This

File: Henry_Ford_wikicommons.jpg (102KB, 720x420px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 720x420px

>falling for the car meme

When Translink isn't a shit

fuck vancouver

>people unironically defend car meme

nice job falling for the 'freedom' propaganda

My ideal /n/ dreamworld:

>fast intercity railways (probably government subsidised to keep ticket prices low)
>suburban railways, metros and trams inside of cities, as well as cheap rental bikes a la London
>busses and trolly-cars in smaller towns
>cars only needed to travel to remote destinations, and are rented rather than bought

sadly entitled cagers will probably make this dream impossible

>>1000749
mostly this. How can we ban all cars? It's hopeless. We'd have to raze all the suburbs too. Not that I'm against that, it just seems to expensive and too much time.

>>1000917
We don't have to raze anything. Why would we have to do that? The lack of cages would fix the suburb problem without resorting to violence.

Although I consider myself a humanitarian and I would insist that the cagers be welded inside their cages and dumped into the sea to form environmentally sound coral reefs, to spare them the suffering of life in a world without the cage.

>>1000917
>mostly this. How can we ban all cars? It's hopeless. We'd have to raze all the suburbs too. Not that I'm against that, it just seems to expensive and too much time.
>lol why try

^your argument

>>1000769
saved

>>1000918
we would just leave millions of homes and kms of roads abandoned?
>>1000921
I don't know how it could be done but I would like it to happen

>>1000731
When it becomes faster and more reliable than cars.

>>1000921
>>lol why try
In Spain this is the national philosophy.

File: Quedlinburg_Altstadt.jpg (177KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x683px

>>1000731
It's just not something which will happen over night. And you don't need to ban all cars to get better mass transit. Just look at Japan to see how it is done right.

Do you honestly care if some red-neck is driving around with a pick-up in the middle of nowhere? I don't. Discourage car usage in cities is great. Banning all cars is nonsense.

>>1000865
All "car bans" include exceptions for service vehicles like police, fire, goods transport etc...

Obviously the main problem is personal use automobiles inside cities which is a totally bad idea

>>1000865
Uncle-Tomming will get you nowhere

Can we just ban commies instead?

We have people who voluntarily subject themselves to 3 hours daily of white knuckled driving in stressful, life threatening situations at ridiculous monetary cost, just to avoid taking the rail/bus with "the poors".

We have people who drive to the gym to ride an exercise bike.

Maybe if a plague purged the weak we could have nice things.

Ironically ISIS might save us. Now that they dropped gas prices enough to put all the brit and us companies out of business, they gained a monopoly and are gonna jack prices so high the cagers will be jumping off buildings and crashing their hummers off bridges. Our only hope is to hit cagers in the wallet.

>>1000766
>2 hours to drive five fucking miles.

Are your legs broken?

>>1000865
>But what if someone wants to live out in the country?

That's their choice and their problem. Taxing everyone to build cage infrastructure that benefits people who choose to live as retards is slavery to the trash dragging down our society. You want to live in the boons or burbs? Fine. Don't expect us to cater to you and pave a yellow brick road at our expense for your motorized throne. Find your own way to get by.

Personal choice, personal responsibility. You have the freedom to do whatever you want, and you have to take responsibility to provide for your fucking self under your own decisions. If someone wanted to live in maine and work in florida, would we subsidize a tax funded personal airport for that person? No.

Just another example of cager entitlement.

>>1001005
>Are your legs broken?

He probably wasn't expecting it to take that long friendo.

Also, fuck cages.

just imagine a world without cagers

a better world

Why are lycrafags such a bunch of self-entitled little shits?

>>1000731
>>1001509

>train guy wants to ban cars
>car guy blames cyclists
It's another 'jews did 911' episode!

>bulldoze the burbs
>build comfy apartment blocks outwards from downtown
>connect everything with light rail
>bus interconnection for gimps and old people who can't walk four blocks
>no more traffic in the city, no traffic fatalities from cageshits, no more pollution, heat island effect massively reduced
>air is fresher, pedestrians and cyclists no longer need fear for their lives at every moment
>massively more walkable, people can actually cross the street to get to one side of the shops to the other
>parking craters turned to apartments or shops
>everyone has more spare money because no cage sucking them dry
>able to give saudi arabia and opec the middle finger
>economy levels up
>start funding more science
>go to moon, establish mars colony, cure cancer, cure aging
>paradise

But instead we have stripmalls, cage chain pileups, pedestrian murders, sprawl, pollution, drive through fast food, and obesity. By choice.

>>1000800
>Privatize highways and avenues

I don't want a $5.00 toll to drive up the street. Public transportation is extremely expensive and impractical in rural, stead out areas. It's like fedex compared to thw USPS- it's generally faster and cheaper for most people, they have no monetary interest in providing universal service to bum-fuck nowheres because they are a business first

File: bielefeld_stadtbahn_autism.jpg (812KB, 823x1025px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 823x1025px

>>1000731
>>1000914
>>1001581
Can we share fantasy/autistic transport maps in order to discuss how to achieve a world with as little cars as possible?
Here's a map on what I would like to see for my city's light rail/tram network.
The three of the four existing lines got major extensions and I added the purple and orange lines.

>>1001005
For someone with fascist-level regulatory ideations, you sure do have a laissez-faire "not my problem, do it yourself you fucking weakling" attitude. For what purpose?

>>1001581
Welcome to capitalism shitlord, now stop being a NEET bloodsucker or pansy student and go get a real job, loser. :^)

>>1000731
Not where there is no public transportation. But the futurama tubes are cool tbqh famm

File: autism.png (74KB, 1259x442px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1259x442px

>>1001584

Downtowns should not allow personal vehicles. Take the rail or bike or walk. Emergency and delivery vehicles only.

Bulldoze nimby developments, build apartment towers. Convert stripmalls and department stores (and parking craters) to parks.

>>1001595
Good concept. Do you have any concrete maps?

File: bicycle taxi.jpg (116KB, 800x659px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x659px

>>1001595
>no personal vehicles
This is how I'll become a millionaire.

>>1001600

>doesn't pollute
>unlikely to kill someone

I'm fine with them desu. We could also have gimp vans for wheelchair folk. Speed limit 25 mph.

We can convert the current streets to patios and outdoor cafe seating, and current intracity highways to bike paths and tennis courts.

>>1001598

Nope. Just my idealism.

>>1001595
>Downtowns should not allow personal vehicles. Take the rail or bike or walk. Emergency and delivery vehicles only.
Quebec City and Montreal are like this. 10/10

>>1001606
You mean communism
kill yourself

>>1000914
Have you thought about car enthusiasts though? If you can't buy a car how are you going to modify it and enjoy driving it on the local Twisties?

>>1001841

>I think I have a right to shit up the place, pollute and murder as I please, and generally be a hazard and eyesore
>if you disagree you're a...a...a compfunist! hurrrr durrrrr

Let me guess, not being allowed to ride your cage on a sidewalk or do 70 through a schoolzone with little kids crossing the street all over is also communism? Eat ten dicks, which is only one more than your mother sucked off last night.

>>1001843

Sure, they can build their own roads. Buy a few acres out in the desert, pave a road and enjoy on your own private property.

File: DSC_5337.jpg (113KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 620x413px

>>1001595
many cities in Europe and Japan come close to your ideal.

>>1000731
No need to ban cars, just stop subsidizing fuel and make people pay the true cost of expensive cages and sprawl

>>1001997

Make cage prices include cost of termination. Stuff like gas stations and other hazards to clean up need to have money set aside to clean the site and remove its equipment. Build a price for recycling cost and the various oil and coolant wastes it will accumulate into the price of a car. Not just new, but used cars as well.

Maybe a cager tax, or at least a cyclist tax cut.

>>1000731
Individual car transport will merge/absorb public transport within 2-3 decades. There will be no difference. Transportation will become a service, you will only choose your vendor.

>>1001595
>Downtowns should not allow personal vehicles.
Welp guess the very rich won't be able to live downtown then and use their limos. There goes a job-creating tax base. Strong cities have to allow for a healthy mix of income levels, including the filthy rich. If you try to ban their private transportation and force them to mingle with the commoners on a subway train, they'll just take their money into another city to invest in.

>>1002477
What if it is that way in all cities?

>>1002481
Then it's out to the country I suppose. Or the rich get together and build their own city.

>>1002483
I live in one of those cities where the rich transplanted themselves away from cities. OC, CA grew out of that basically

>>1002477
>implying that couldn't be loopholed with chauffeurs
Some sort of taxi system is useful even in a city where private cars are banned. The filthy rich can use that and use their personal cars as taxis with a chauffeur driving them around. The roads are still needed for emergency and delivery vehicles.

>>1002477
But rich people shouldn't exist, idiot.

>>1002522
Getting a little communist here, huh? I remember when I was in high school and college.

What's the point of working if you can't elevate yourself above others? I don't put in the amount of work I do just to live as equally as a parasite that refuses to make any sort of contribution to society and who just wants to be hand-fed by others, fuck that.

>>1002526
>What's the point of working if you can't elevate yourself above others?
Contributing your part to society and thus earning your fair share and the services that others provide for you with their work.

>>1002533
"Society" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist outside of your mind. It's also a spook.

>>1002534
fuk man /his/ is leaking

>>1002534
What if I told you, that you are a spook?

Really makes you think.

File: 92786505.jpg (46KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x360px

If you remove all financial issues with making that happen in the US, the #1 problem with removing cars is that a lot of places outside major cities are spread too far apart for walking to be practical (because most places where people live built within the last century are designed to be reached by cars only). A big reason for the success of rail in Europe is that your final destination is within short walking distance from the train station from which you disembark and most of the US cannot say that.

>>1002694
You used way too many words to say that Europe has a much, much higher population density (double, in fact) than the US.

>>1002477
>a job-creating tax base

pft. heh. hahahahaah! Nah you ritsy nimby cuntwads can fuck off. The cities should be for the middle class. Ghettos can move to the burbs and richfucks can build mansions in the countryside and commute the fuck in.

>admitting rich folk think they're too good to use public transit

Take your money and shove it up your ass.

oy vey, are you telling me I don't have the right to shit the place up for everyone with my private megahummerlimo while I drive drinking champagne with one hand and texting on my iphone with the other? you're telling me to obey the same laws everyone else is subjected to? it's addudah shoah, oy so much persecution.

>>1002694

No one said it would apply to Bumfuck, Utah. For the cities and even towns there is NO REASON this cannot be implemented. And for the record most small towns and communities, and I am talking everything from 10k to two hundred, is perfectly walkable or cyclable. I've been to a lot of places, I've seen it first hand, it can be done.

>>1002753
>there is NO REASON this cannot be implemented
How about "basic freedom and civil liberty"?

>tfw Paris has a car free day coming up
>tfw Paris has banned cars older than 1997 during daytime
When is Paris going to ban all personal cars?

>>1002705
Not when you only look at populated areas and ignore the flyover wasteland in between cities. No one is seriously arguing that all cars should be banned everywhere. Cars are good at some things. Moving people in cities isn't one of them.

>>1002755

>don't have the freedom to paint your house whatever color you like or keep chickens in the backyard
>want the freedom to pollute the nation and destroy lives by making everyone cater to cars while neglecting peds/cyclists/transit users in favor of your motorized armchair lifestyle preference
>simultaneously shitting the nation up with sprawl, unnecessary infrastructure maintenance costs, toxic fluids, metal cage remains in a landfill, and the destruction of main street

Yeah. freedumbs.

>>1002764

This.

>>1002771
Yeah, you're too far gone.
Please kill yourself. Commies are not welcome here.

>>1002773

>mfw facist

Hoooooooly shit you faget, yeah everything you don't like is a commie, I see you got your education from cold war pop media.

I am talking about taking away inefficiency and having the state mandate a more efficient model of transport and infrastructure organization, what part of that equates to dirty hippies who don't want to work a real job?

File: U bahn.png (928KB, 1876x1002px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1876x1002px

>>1001584
Current network + additions.

On the right the red lines would have a 15 minute minimum all day headway, and the black would have 60 minute all day headways.

File: phl.png (573KB, 1104x975px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1104x975px

>>1001584
Philadelphia, still a work in progress (need to determine Regional Rail service patterns)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1IhDV40uEc23QUdE2jwkriVPpwM0

>>1003112
how do you make those circles? In My Maps i can only make lines and markers

Are cars the root cause of most of the problems plaguing society?

>>1000769
10/10 would pasta again

>>1000865
>he thinks anyone wants to seriously prohibit _all_ cars and not just put strict limitations on them which is essentially the same as banning them for most people
laughingrednecks.tif

>>1002764
Even metro areas in Europe are much denser than metro areas in the US. Stop being wrong.

>>1002771
It's your fault you live under an HOA.

>>1003202
Those are created with "add marker", replacing icon with small dot icon. Add and sort by description to apply style and color by line.

>>1000914
>probably government subsidised to keep ticket prices low
Why not just let the people who use the service pay upfront for it without forcing cost onto the rest of society?

>>1002526
>implying I'm a communist instead of an anarchist
Oh wait! I forgot for a moment: anarchism and communism are the same thing!

>>1003232
Because it will benifit everyone, regardless of everyone uses it?
Let's avoid slippery slope arguments, but I'm one of these fucks that thinks there are some things like this.

>>1003227
Thanks, also Phillys existing rapid transit seems awful, Toronto tier bad.

>2 line cross

It's like you're some irrelevant Chinese or Russian city in bumfuck nowhere

>>1002477
I wouldn't be opposed to a fleet of self driving cars for hire patrolling the city. Along with delivery and emergency vehicles there would be traffic on the streets but zero congestion. Also segregated bike lanes and underground metro would be in the ideal transport in a dense CBD.

>>1003224
Depends entirely on the city. And American cities are still dense enough to effectively utilise public transportation, cycling and walking instead of personal cars. And the cities that aren't dense now wouldn't take longer than 10 years to completely transform if personal cars were banned.

>>1003249
On the whole the rail coverage is not lacking. Half of the region's commuter rail mileage lies within the city, going where the subways don't to the southwest, northwest, and northeast; the relationship is a bit like Berlin's U-Bahn and S-Bahn. The problem is that although the system is geographically ideal for an S-bahn and has the electrified, through-running infrastructure to match, there has never been enough funding to run more frequent all-day service inside city limits, beyond 1-2 trains/hour. It's not surprising because even now across North America, SEPTA runs among the most number of daily commuter trains outside New York. OTOH, most of the subways on my proposed map are completely unjustifiable today, and it represents a full TOD buildout scenario with 2.5 million population, sometime around 2050.

File: mfl.png (401KB, 1137x783px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1137x783px

>>1003099
>>1003275
I also made a Montreal rail transit plan, which includes full through-running on AMT and a version of the REM main line. (The actual proposed REM light rail is genuinely terrible and will set back AMT improvements by decades. Just use mainline European EMUs goddamnit)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1oyn49EhgfjrIJOUYLsNSPGUR204

File: map1.jpg (240KB, 1058x662px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1058x662px

>>1001584
Autism thread? Count me in!

Here's my map of how I'd like our subway and tram system to look like. Turquoise is tram lines, the others are subways. My additions are all those that are obviously done in paint. The subway extensions and the diagonal tram line are actual projects.

File: map2.jpg (291KB, 1100x652px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1100x652px

>>1003323
detail of the city center

File: map3.jpg (197KB, 1076x657px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1076x657px

>>1003329
part 1 of satellite tram network (connects and overlaps with main network) for nearby towns (barcelona is to the upper right)

File: map4.jpg (144KB, 1098x588px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1098x588px

>>1003341
part 2 of said network. for the "main line" there's a BRT in project, although it's not really a BRT just a bus lane and supposedly it'll get double-articulated buses (it won't I'm sure).

>>1003278
Some critiques from a native:

-The alignment of the northern end of the silver line is really bad and follows a highway, park and rides would be necessary for it to even achieve 10k ridership per day and even that is an optimistic estimate. Just because the REM has the same alignment doesn't mean it's even the ballpark of a good idea.

-The southern extension of the yellow line into the south shore suburbs is a terribly cost inefficient effort. Boucherville is a sleeper community and deserves at best a commuter rail line using existing track infrastructure.

-The northern extension of yellow line is poorly executed, its better poised to loop west and connect to McGill and the S-Bahn network, or travel north along Parc avenue and provide relief for the saturated segment of the orange line between Jean-Talon and Berri-UQAM. Better idea for rapid transit service into Montreal-Nord would be a north-south metro line under Pie-IX boulevard. We're currently building a BRT that will run 24/7 along Pie-IX.

-The western terminus of the blue line is being extended into single family low density residential areas (Cote-St-Luc) instead of the rapid transit starved NDG (80k pop) which is served by two 10 minute max bus lines with 20k+ daily ridership. They both terminate at Montreal-Ouest commuter station which would be a much more logical terminus for the blue line.

-The green line doesn't need attention, at all desu.

Cars are cancer to the transportation world. It's a shame they were ever invented.

File: cagerland.jpg (215KB, 940x626px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 940x626px

>>1003390
I wish we could back to 1945 and plan our cities from that point on, before this, and the degradation of the American inner city.

>>1003275
Sounds like you need to drop a couple of billion into getting 30m headways on branches and ideally 10m or less on the trunk lines. That would make taking the commute rail viable to everyone and not just peak commuters.

so do /n/ people really despise cars and those that drive them that much? that's insane

>>1003451
>>1003451
>do /n/ people really despise cars and those that drive them
Keep in mind the ease of expressing extreme opinions on the internet... Personally I think cars, as technology, are really cool and I try not to hate anybody - but I do hate our cultural dependency on cars, because of the negative impacts it has on cities and citizens.

>>1003451
If I grew up in an area with big box retail stores, strip malls, 6 boulevards, zero high density developments and only the occasional bus as public transport i'd have probably committed suicide before i moved out.

>>1003451
I drive 30 minutes each way to get to school every day just to get 12 miles. In my area, that's a short commute. Every single day, I face traffic that is caused solely by bad drivers being selfish fuckups. Each passing day I get angrier at how much time I spend wasting time at a red light or in traffic.

>>1003477
I ride 30 minutes each way to get to work every day just to get 10 miles. In my area that's a long commute. Every single day, I see traffic that is caused solely by bad drivers being selfish fuckups. Each passing day I get happier at how much easier it is to ride on empty bike and multi use paths instead of wasting time at a red light or traffic.

>>1003099
>>1003112
>>1003278
>>1003323
>>1003343
Nice, thanks for the input. I'd love to see some before/after pics just so I know the amount of foamer autism I'm dealing with.
I updated my original map with present-day endpoints. Line 4 (red) is the one that ends in the city center. Lines 5 and 6 (purple and orange) are entirely new.

File: bielefeld_stadtbahn_autism2.jpg (410KB, 823x1025px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 823x1025px

>>1003503
forgot file

>>1002755
You personally aren't being prevented from moving around. Just driving your murdercage around wherever you want. Roads are supposed to be useful to society in general, not just for your inefficient murdermobile.

File: second.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>1003455
>Personally I think cars, as technology, are really cool and I try not to hate anybody - but I do hate our cultural dependency on cars, because of the negative impacts it has on cities and citizens.

File: bikeFAG.jpg (87KB, 650x408px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 650x408px

>>1003483
>bike
pic related it's you

File: map_before.png (338KB, 980x666px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 980x666px

>>1003503
Here's the before pic for >>1003323

there's no point in a before pic for the satellite tram network I proposed, because there's literally no high-capacity urban public transit in that area, even though those four towns together have over 250k inhabitants. There's only buses and the commuter rail line that passes through there.

File: L13_PDI.png (743KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 992x558px

>>1003539
Interestingly though, there is a project for a subway line which would cover the burb-towns I propose to cover with tram lines. It was a gianormous project that was eventually mothballed because it's completely non-viable on an economic level, since it would require over 22km of rail tunnel, all the while we have an unfinished subway line missing it's central section, and various other subway line extension projects.

However, despite this, there's almost no interest in considering a tram system which would cost a fraction of that subway line, have better coverage, and double as a feeder to the commuter rail line, as well as an urban transport toward the city, while the subway line would only work as an urban transport, also stopping short before the city center (the idea was that it would be eventually extended into the city, as if 22km of rail tunnel weren't enough).

The irony is that these towns are always like
>HURR we're cities and not suburbs
and yet they prefer a subway line which would make them seem even more like burbs belonging to the city, rather than a tram which would actually be centered on them and behave like an urban transport for these cities, and not so much an extension of Barcelona's public transit.

Gotta love how this country full of idiots with small dicks that can only accept extremes: either a full-on subway costing gorillions, or nothing at all. Just nuke this fucking place already.

>>1003537
You're mistaken. My handlebar tape is pink, not my hair.

>>1003561
Oh man I'm jealous
I bought red bar tape recently but I only just now realized that pink tape would be fly as fuck

File: angry_pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>>1003617
>>1003561
FUCK OFF BIKECAGERS REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1000936
Japan only accomplished that due to the fact that they are a mono-racial country.

>>1003705
>it's another "because they're homogenous" meme

would you stop

File: 567890-=0987.png (529KB, 1276x291px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1276x291px

>>1003706
nah it's cause they're homogeneous.
Japan is the best because they're homogeneous.
If the West became homogeneous we could beat them in a year.
We could wake up tomorrow and be homogeneous(better) why don't you want that?
Why put yourself(and others) through the agony of multiculturalism?
Japan is the model for the World.
The hope for the West.

File: 1472506738962.jpg (81KB, 379x364px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 379x364px

>>1003706
>one of the very few homogeneous places in the world
>one of the nicest/safest/most peaceful places in the world
>this doesn't correlate because muh feelz/muh equal E.T.
don't be delusional

File: birch-bark-canoes.jpg (840KB, 1105x1106px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 1105x1106px

>>1003705
Yeah, Columbus fucked it up by discovering America.
America would have god tier transport. You would only see native American faces. No African Americans and no fat and ugly European immigrants. Sounds great.

>>1003617
It's fucking gorgeous. Especially with the glossy white bars that I have.

File: bostonsubway2.png (267KB, 655x462px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 655x462px

>>1001584
This is my autistic plan to convert the underground sections of 93 and replace them with a new subway line

>>1004130
Before/After pic?

>>1001581
We need to make an /n/ equivalent to doom paul. THE END IS COMING, WE CHOSE THIS FUTURE. THE CAGES WILL KILL US ALL. EVEN OUR SOULS ARE CAGED.

File: Screenshot_20160910-073903.jpg (1MB, 1440x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1788px

>>1004344
Not that poster, but the yellow line is new, the rest of it looks like how it is now.

>>1003713
Multiculturalism doesnt work

Multi-ethnic societies do.

As long as everyone subscribes to common values that take precedent over their other belief systems then society can work even if people have different skin colours

File: AMT+Metro.png (447KB, 2138x1688px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 2138x1688px

>>1003503
Coloured lines are commuter rail. Terrible outside of rush hour in peak direction.
Grey lines are urban metro. Never wait more than 12 minutes for a train, and peak is every 2m. Operates from 5am to midnight, 1:30am weekends.

>>1004361
>Being so beta that you can't even make your own memes
/n/ is truly the most cancerous board on 4chan.

File: environmentally friendly coral reef production initiated.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>Attention all citizens
>Please drive to your nearest FEMA aid point and report for DMV roll call
>You will receive further instructions upon arrival

>>1004441
You're not gonna get the militia types and their hoards of military-style assault cages with that.

But it's a good start.

>>1004344
This is Boston now

File: bostonnow.png (800KB, 1132x756px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1132x756px

>>1004537

File: bostonnewsubway.png (724KB, 1135x772px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1135x772px

and my extended boston

do you feel bad for the immense amount of cager deaths, /n/?

File: sky-train.jpg (84KB, 584x389px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 584x389px

>>1000731
no

>pic

Lets make this a SkyTrain thread

File: skytrain.jpg (487KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 768x768px

>>1004732

>>1004789
he said skytrain not mantrain you fudgepacker

File: wasted_space.jpg (529KB, 1792x1200px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1792x1200px

Guys, let's face it. Bikefags are the new cagers. They're just as entitled and self-centered as cars. Sure, they don't pollute and don't make any noise, but other than that they're pretty much the same
>individual vehicle because HURR MUH FREEDUM
>needs parking space
>uses road space inefficiently
>is not an option for everyone like public transit is (in this case the impediment isn't economic but physical)
>inb4 HURR DURR THERE'S 80 YEAR OLDS ON A BYCICLE
yeah but I just don't feel like getting everywhere drenched in sweat, or having to push my bike up the steep hills in my city

I can agree bikes are a step up from cars, but that's like saying that a solid piece of shit for lunch is a step up from diarrhea soup, I'm still not having shit for dinner.

Notice that bikefags only care for "bikeable" cities because it's in their personal interest, just like cagers, while those of us who care for trains and public transit know that it's useful and positive for everyone and not just for us.

Personally, I could perfectly well drive a car, I just don't do so because I live in a big city and it would negatively affect people around me, so I do my little part and use transit, and better transit is good for everyone, especially those that don't have an option, like old people and cripples. Bikefags are incapable of thinking about other people. Their response to everything is always
>hurr just take a bike like I do

The worst part is that while in progressive cities cars are starting to be seen as the nuisance they are, it's somehow fine to pander to bikes, and that in turn becomes the excuse to stop giving a shit about transit.
In my city they're spending gorillions on new bike lanes, all the while there hasn't been even one new bus lane, or any other facility for public transit. Even our previous mayer who was totally pro-cagers had the decency of doing a bit for transit.

>bikes = cars
>deal with it bikefags, you such just as bad as the people you claim to hate.

>>1004814
>cycling when the ground is dry
>public transport when its snowing/raining

master race combination

>>1004814
We can share this board my foaming friend.
Know your place though...

>>1004814
you might not be aware, but this is at a train station

>>1004854
>Know your place
>being this arrogant
typical ciclist sense of superiority. Thanks for proving my point.

>>1004895
so it's a park and ride? As is said, bikes=cars.

cager holocaust WHEN?!??!?!?

>>1000731
I had to be at work at 3 AM Sunday (today), 30 minutes (in light traffic) by car from where I live. How2Make public transport get me there on time?

>>1004956
In my city night buses run every 20 minutes on all urban lines every single day of the year. There's a few places where the daytime bus line has lower frequency than the night bus. Interurban bus lines run mostly parallel to the main commuter rail/bus lines, these run every hour, or a few times over the whole night (between 11pm and 5am usually, so it comes down to around every 2 hours in the worst case scenario).
Urban night buses cover the whole city, the only weak point is that they all run in a radial pattern to/from the main central square, the point being that you can go from anywhere to anywhere with just one line change, even though you may take a detour, since there's no traffic but low frequency it's better to take a detour but only change lines once, except for a more direct route with several changes as you'd do with the subway or daytime bus lines, also all interurban bus lines end at that same central square.

tl:dr it usually doesn't take me longer to get places during the night than during the day, at most maybe 50% longer journey time, not more.

File: hqdefault.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>1004948

>>1004969
>except for
*instead of

can't into engrish

>>1000731
Singapore has all but done this. They have a world-class public transportation system and extremely high taxes on cars.

File: z55_01.jpg (159KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 800x600px

>>1004943
>>>1004895
>so it's a park and ride?

It's rail station in Niigata City. Similar bike parking lots are quite common near train stations in any country with well developed public transport. You can see this in Europe as well. Rail and bike just belong together.

>>1004943
>foamers advocating rail lines everywhere so that you can always walk from your station to the destination
No one else is this delusional. You can't have rails everywhere and something is needed for the last mile service. Bikes are ideal for that.

>>1005140
So it's a park and ride. Got it.
bikes = cars.

>>1005164
>what are buses
confirmed for mouthbreather

File: trainstation_and_bus.jpg (444KB, 1024x618px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1024x618px

>>1005140
>Similar bike parking lots are quite common near train stations in any country with well developed public transport.
That's simply not true. Switzerland doesn't have this, and Switzerland has by far the best public transport in all of Europe, and the second best in the world after Japan. Instead there's urban and interurban feeder buses at every major train station, which either have urban-tier frequency, or run in sync with the train. This requires a fraction of the space of your bike park-and-ride, and offers an infinitely better service than
>HURR just sort it out for yourself with a bike

you fucking bikefags have to make up bullshit arguments that are simply not true to justify your stupid hobby most people abhor, but obviously you don't give two shits about other people, that's what defines you as cyclists.

>>1004542
you're going to need something going southeast from South Station with all that development happening. and also harpoon

>>1005195
despite what you may have heard, bikes are, in fact, not cars

File: 1005x280_velostationen_teaser.jpg (78KB, 1005x280px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1005x280px

>>1005199
>Switzerland doesn't have this

Switzerland got something better. Bikes are stored safe and dry indoors. It's called Velostation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ax5LRc75Ts

>>1004956
share cab

>>1000800
>the government did all the bad things, the free market wouldn't have allowed it!!

Very good goy

>>1005277
that is the most swiss thing I've ever seen

>>1000731
Is the Canada Line aesthetic?

File: tumblr_niurl0jC1e1u9p025o9_500.jpg (16KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x322px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

>stop the child murder
>call for safer streets

hear that you fucking cagers? you're literally worse than serial killers

File: download (39).jpg (12KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 290x174px

>>1000731

File: 1369770457374.gif (2MB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x288px

>>1004814
Are all these bikes just standing there, not locked to any rail or anything?

>>1002755
The freedom to destroy the world? To murder? To use up Earth's finite resources? To pollute? Fuck cagers.

>>1000731
you must be a Democrat

File: Bike_O_Lock_Japan.jpg (388KB, 2332x1968px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 2332x1968px

>>1006339
In the civilized world all you need is a simple wheel lock.

>>1006394
>you must be a Democrat
>people outside of the US must hold the same political leanings as those in the US

>>1006427
I'm pleasantly surprised that anon didn't call you a communist

>>1006412
>tfw can't leave my bike out of my sight for more than 30 seconds if it doesnt have a abus + cable and the hand pump, lights, saddle bag and water bottle have been removed

feels bat man

>>1006394
/thread


>>1000731
>when
When you own all the land and the contracts people sign to lease from you prohibit personal transportation.

But I'm guessing you don't believe in property rights...
So for you the answer is once you manage get a large enough totalitarian government to kill anyone who refuses to submit to your will.

>>1000769
What if you own a company that uses trucks to carry stuff and public transpo doesn't work? Cool? Okay with you boss?

>>1001005
So you're the guy in the obama admin helping Isis and this is why. To stop people from driving cars. Makes sense now.

>>1001595
And how much are you going to cost to own delivery vehicles? Our price the standard goyim huh

>>1002798
People who didn't want to become dirty hippies and not have jobs will become that. You guys want what suits YOU not suits the world. If it works better to do it your way then find a place where they voluntarily do that becuase it's working and then go live there and kick our ass; show us your way is better.

>>1003233
Two temporary systems that just change in to something else quickly whenever they are tried.
But not before killing a bunch of people. 16 year old detected.

>>1010602
well north american cities are pretty fucking shit to be honest, they're not human scaled

>>1000731
When best korea take over the world

>>1010604
>system that changes into something else quickly whenever it is tried
>anarchism
>what is switzerland
dumb schmuck I bet you think anarchism = anarchy

>>1001581
>>1001584

I'm too lazy to draw it, but once I was bored at home and started to think about cities planned in a dystopian future by a dictatorship in a world whose oil reserves were depleted. Hydrocarbons are made at a high cost, and its production is mainly for plastics/chemicals production plus service vehicles and mass transportation.

> City is a regular octagon, 20 km wide, totally plain for the sake of simplicity. Area = 350 km2.

> A high-capacity BRT line composes a regular square, 10 km wide.
Subways are too energy-intensive for such scenario - lighting and excavation. Everyone live less than 5 km from mass transit anyway.

> People bike, like the Chinese in the 70's.
Riches spend unbelievable amounts to obtain a driver license - it is more costly than buying a car. In fact, buying a car and paying its taxes is even more costly than in places like Brazil and Singapore. Gov't overtax anything related to driving in order to subsidize bike sharing and van transportation for elder/disabled people.

>>1000731
Only in an ideal world

Instead we should increase public transport infrastructure like trump proposes

File: death 2.gif (321KB, 987x1522px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 987x1522px

>one bridge in
>one bridge out
>bike/ped passages are crumbling or full of drug users (violent kind)
>only one way to get to most places
>no boats or trains
>only buses and in bad quality and under numbered
This is what happens when you let portushits """""""""design"""""" a city

>>1012637
would be no problem with trains

>>1006394
No im a far right nationalist
>muh two party system

>>1001595
Hong Kong?

>>1001645
>Montreal
Literally fucking where? Some tiny portions of streets during a handful of weeks in the year? Place des Arts, which isn't all of downtown? I mean fuck, even Old Port has cars.

>>1003383
>The northern extension of the yellow line is poorly executed
I agree. And anyway, isn't the yellow planned to extend to McGill and add a stop between Berri-UQAM and Jean Drapeau? Would also be nice if it were to head north along Parc and terminate at Parc or De Castelnau.

>The green line doesn't need attention
Angrignon to YUL rapit transit when

>>1001583
If public transport is expensive then your country did it wrong

>>1016101
>far right
>in favor of public transit over cars
Good to see that not all right wingers fall for the car meme. Switzerland also is a country where people are predominantly right-wing and that nevertheless cares a lot for public transit. But that's definitely not the norm. That's usually my main beef with the right.

>>1005195
>Bus service to sparsely populated faraway region
who'd pay for that

>>1000769
Truck = car ?

>>1017611
The ((GOP)) are cancer amd its sad lots of conservative people (even /pol/) follow them on every issue blindly instead of taking only the useful parts of their ideology.

File: damn-poor-people.png (10KB, 409x152px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 409x152px

Too many people thinking like this

>>1017614
There's villages in Switzerland with less than 100 inhabitants which get around 6-8 buses per day, usually around every 2 hours.

>>1018129
But is the village located at somewhere near the bus would pass through even if they bypass the village?

File: linthal_postauto.png (718KB, 1300x580px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1300x580px

>>1018241
What an absurd thing to ask. I really don't know what to answer. Of course the village doesn't mean a detour for the bus, otherwise it would be a silly bus line that makes people from other places lose a lot of time with detours. The line is designed to cover a sparsely populated area, so it runs between two villages on either end that have 10k and 1k inhabitants respectively, and it covers all villages in between along the road. Is this concept so hard to grasp?

>>1017611
as much as I am not a right winger, neoconservatism does not represent all of the right

didn't trump talk about wanting high speed rail for the us? I don't think he would do anything about it, but its interesting to hear from him

>>1017611
I cant stand mainstream republicans. If Trumo wasnt running i would protest vote Jill stein

>>1018270
>as much as I am not a right winger, neoconservatism does not represent all of the right
But I see almost no right wingers ever be in favor of public transit, and I don't even live in burgerland.

>didn't trump talk about wanting high speed rail for the us?
I don't think HSR can be considered "public transit" in the traditional sense, since it's usually a commercial (even if state-run) operation that isn't directly subsidized, like regular public transit would be.

>>1018263
Then it's not that 'faraway'

>>1000865
>But what if someone wants to live out in the country?

Guess they'll have to learn how people lived in the country before cars existed. If they're so keen to get away from the modern world, then they can learn to bear with walking places and not spacing communities out ridiculously far. Horses are still a thing and people still ride them. How do you think the Amish manage?

>>1018358
>Faraway is a scientific unit measuring precisely 62.948 km or 39.11407381 miles
dumbass

>>1018380
'that'

I feel like cars need to exist but only for entertainment and extreme luxury. If people are willing to pay for it cars wont hurt the environment they'll help it, the problem right now is how cheap they are and who profits.

I love subways and trains and can't wait for a civ based around transit. I still have a dream of owning an old Toyota and doing maintenance in my free time, replacing old parts, and taking it out for rides in the countryside. Just like other dreams like owning a yacht, i'm ok if this dream is expensive

>>1000914
> City has a fixed amount of cars
> base rental cost based on carbon offset + logistics + tax
> every day if all cars are rented, price of car goes up $1
> if there are any free cars price goes down $1 (never below base)

>>1001590
If cagers had to pay their own way instead of leeching off of society, then far fewer people would be cagers.

>>1018670
Might be if city center = car free zone it'd be better

File: IMG_2539.jpg (664KB, 988x636px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 988x636px

>implying that riding a train is better than driving a personal car
>muh environment
stay poor nignogs

>>1018702
End vehicular welfare now.

>>1003533
> murdercage
my car has caused 0 premeditated killings, and in fact 0 deaths of any kind.

> inefficient

compared to what?

>>1006372
why do /n/-posters not understand what the word murder means

>>1003541
I would LOVE TO nuke Spain.

>>1003713
Japan is also gonna die out by the end of the century but yeah hurr durr hoep 4 teh West

Make cagers pay for the crimes they commit.

>http://www.startribune.com/probation-and-four-days-in-jail-for-texting-driver-who-killed-new-prague-school-bus-driver/397338931/

>a Le Sueur County judge sentenced a New Prague woman to community service, probation and four days in jail in the death a year ago of a 79-year-old school bus driver.
>Susan Ann Russo, 48, struck and killed Tikalsky on Oct. 28 as he collected his morning newspaper from a box on the road in front of his home. Tikalsky was wearing a reflective jacket at the time and was on break from his work as a school bus driver, a job he didn't need but continued because he loved being with kids.
>Russo told officers at the scene of the crash that she was reading a text before the crash and preparing to send one.

Worse yet she almost gets away with nothing.
>But after she entered her plea in August, a forensic investigation found no activity or texts on her phone.
>Based on the forensics results, she attempted Monday to withdraw her plea.

>>1005277
Well, Belgium (and probably other places) has this too.

>>1018798
>my car has caused...0 deaths of any kind.
People may have died producing the fuel that powers your car, people may have died in the mining of the metal used to construct your car, or in the construction of the plant that builds a part for your car, people may have died en route to hospital due to traffic congestion contributed to by your car. Not to mention environment/weather related deaths to which the emissions from your car (or the plants that make your car, or the fuel for your car) may have contributed.

You can deny any one of those factors, or insist that they are all insignificant, but on a purely statistical basis your car is in part responsible for at least some small fraction of a death--your car has caused 0.001 deaths or something (I'm not about to quote a bunch of statistics at you that you will immediately deny anyway), but whatever it is, it is surely greater than 0.

>>1018833
Actually, I only buy cars second hand.
But even so, considering the amount of manufactured goods that i've bought in the rest of the my life, the construction of the car IS utterly insignificant. That goes for you as well.

>>1018849
>I only buy cars second hand.
Like I said, you can dismiss some but not all of the charges. There's still some damage that has been done associated with the use of the car.
>considering the amount of manufactured goods that i've bought in the rest of the my life
I'm glad that you agree many of the practices of modern living are harmful.

In the end the responsibility of any one person is indeed small, of course.

>>1018860
I mean sure, and I'm probably gonna start riding a motorcycle for most of the things I use a car for soon, but considering that I live in the bay area, nothing I do could possibly make a difference anyway.

Biking is ok but some things are just not within range, public transit is subpar, and driving isn't really much better.

>>1003713
>>1003756
Weebs truly are the worst

>>1000769
>wrong they're
triggered

>>1000731
when i won't be forced to share air with hobos and stoners

Cagers are quite literally the most dangerous people in the developed world

They are reponsible for tens of millions of death and counting

Why is /n/ full of bus riders and pushbike faggots?

Get a motorbike.

/o/ here FUCK YOU

>>1018104

This I'm in the south, and just bringing up Bernie Sanders's name in a conversation tends to trigger 5 minute long rants about "socialism" and "giving my hard-earned dollars to welfare recipients who just play video games all day."

Nobody likes taxes but god damn some people really get triggered.

>>1000854

>those undeveloped leg muscles

disgusting whore

>>1022561
>I'm a cocksucking faggot
you sure are!

>>1018777
>being so poor as to have to operate your own transportation
blue collar as fuck

>>1022561
cager pls leave

File: 1433668250980.png (4KB, 426x364px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 426x364px

it's still halloween in this thread.
cool

>>1003792
also my native and dutch ancestors wouldnt have met, thus destroying me and most many people around the world,
but a modern non colonized society would probably be an asia 2

>>1004814
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcZSU40RBrg
japan already fixed this

>>1004814
Train + folding bike master race. I hate bike lanes, if there were no cars, there would be no need for them so more money could go to public transport.
Fuck buses though.

>>1026097
>I hate bike lanes, if there were no cars, there would be no need for them
spoken like a true 12 year old

I'd love to have the option of taking trains around. I've loved it in Europe and Asia. However, what nobody's pointed out is that there are many people in the world, myself included, whose careers and hobbies require that we carry around more stuff than is feasible on a train or bicycle, or that we travel to faraway places where public transit and biking aren't practical. I'm a /p/ro and regularly haul a full carload of gear out to some remote location in the mountains or desert of whatever.

>>1004130

Dude, just do the North-South Rail Link and massively expand the Green Line streecar network into Cambridge, Watertown, and South Boston. All these people screaming 'muh subways' are idiots.

Short of tearing down a bunch of houses and building horizontally around city centres US has no public transit fix for its fucked up country. Best no to dwell on it desu

File: BTTGqreaQYJLxqjh1.jpg (3MB, 1950x2187px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1950x2187px

>>1001584
;-;7

>>1026228
Make the ban apply only to city
exempt vehicles owned by companies

>>1026228
Nobody is saying that cars have to be completely banned from cities. There's obviously work and services that have to be done that require people to use their own vehicle. However, within all of the people that move around those are just a small part. Most people don't carry more stuff than they can take on any public transit, nor are they moving to or from sparsely populated areas (that's why they're sparsely populated, duh).
The more you reduce road space traffic starts clearing up against what one would expect, so long of course that there's a reasonably convenient public transit infrastructure in place. This is also why trams/LRT have become popular again, since they do both things at the same time while being a cheaper option to grade-separated heavy rail.
London has a congestion charge, some cities are looking into this, maybe applying exemptions like vehicles for professional use or whatever. But mostly making it really inconvenient to drive in cities is what ought to be done. Which means you will take your car despite this, because you really need to and lose some time (which before you lost in traffic anyway), while commuters will say fuck it and use transit.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD REEEEEEEEE

>>1026104
You still need roads for emergency vehicles and transportation for old and infirm. They are normally used by cyclists and if an emergency vehicle comes near cyclists get off the road.

>>1022592
>This I'm in the south, and just bringing up Bernie Sanders's name in a conversation tends to trigger 5 minute long rants about "socialism" and "giving my hard-earned dollars to welfare recipients who just play video games all day."
Do you really know so many wealthy people? Most of the society benefits from social welfare if done right, only the rich lose out (bigger taxes).

>>1027225

Yep, I go to a religious private school in the suburbs. It used to be a rich persons school, but its a bit better nowadays than I've heard in the past.

Stuff that happens/used to happen at this school:

>people's first cars being lambos, students crashing it, parents buying another lambo to replace it, this happened like 2 or 3 times.
>giant mansions, gated communities, yada yada (a teacher once confused a kid's backyard for a park)
>this year has been the most racially diverse ever, our grade is only 92% white this year.
>and more, I can't remember any off the top of my head

lambos and outrageous stories kinda died off 3-4 years ago, doesn't mean that everyone here isn't conservative or still pretty fucking rich.

I'm looking forward to getting out of this echo chamber :D

>>1027231
Cool, I thought they were retards disliking something they would benefit from.

On another note, are you Bernie's supporter? People don't care too much about American politics in my country so I don't know much about it, but he always seemed the least morally corrupt of the bunch.

>>1027233

Eh, I took a political test and scored 100% socialism, I'm known as a liberal in our gov class (we joke about politics a lot), there are only 3-4 in our grade afaik, might be more. Apparently I side with Jill Stein, but she's pretty dumb on a lot of issues.

>>1002771
Wait, you DO have the right to paint your house any color you want. In Seattle at least, you can keep chickens in your yard, as well as ducks, goats, and pigs. I don't know why you hate freedom lol.

My convenience and individualism > your ideals

>>1028150
>he brought into the general motors propaganda
Dumb cagecuck. Having infastructure where you need a car to go amywhere os the opposite of freedom

>>1004789
heh

Side note, my girlfriend's parents are good friends with Ian Boswell.

File: 1416839218241.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>1004789
paid riders that let you suck their wheel to go from point a to point b by bike

>>1000962
>personal use automobiles inside cities

How can you tell the difference between an actual carpenter and some guy who just drives a big-ass truck around by himself?

>>1001005
>Taxing everyone to build cage infrastructure

I suggest you do some research and find out how much of that cycling infrastructure depends on gas taxes and car licensing fees.

>>1032444
Whether the car is registered to an individual or a company and require sticking an NFC tag on the front window of eligible vehicles

>>1022592
>>1027231
You have to be 18 to post here

>>1032505
>Whether the car is registered to an individual or a company

I have a business and already license my vehicles through it for tax purposes. You just don't understand how easy it is to set up a shell company to get existing privileges. This will be just one more reason to do so.

Now you are back to a system where rich people can drive and poor folks have to take the bus.

>>1027223
>>if an emergency vehicle comes near cyclists get off the road.
>cyclist
>obeying rules of the road

... Please come back to the real world.


The cyclist would insist that he is not a vehicle and doesn't have to pull over to make room, and then after the emergency vehicle had passed would insist he is a vehicle and that he is somehow permitted to 'drive' 30 mph below the speed limit.

File: download.jpg (13KB, 307x144px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 307x144px

>>1000731
Gas the bikes, holy race car now.

>>1000731
>when
When you own your own city.
But something tells me you're a leftist/statist/faggot who doesn't believe in property rights for anyone other than yourself...

File: n.jpg (406KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1000x1000px

>>1034039
pic related is /n/ in a nutshell, emphases on the no respect for property rights part

>>1034039
Eat shit ancap. Your ideology is destroying the earth

>>1034072
Really?
Because the only thing that can save the earth is robust property rights.

The only thing we need to do is to limit annual energy expenditure such that it is less than the average annual energy absorbed from the sun.
And property rights could handle that fairly easily. If you ignore sentiments of fairness and equal distribution, then you simply deal in joules.
A fairly finite quantity of energy is received annually, therefore you don't need to worry about inflation/deflation.

The commie faggots and eco-terrorists are free to try to buy energy-deeds and just sit on them. But no one would care because energy not being consumed doesn't meaningfully impact them.


We accept that property rights for land are legitimate because it is beneficial, and land is finite.
I see no reason why wouldn't accept that property rights for energy is beneficial, and energy is finite.


.
But yeah, you're probably right. Viable solutions to market failures based on property rights are just stupid. Gosh by golly I hate freedom and personal responsibility, and sure do love bicycles.

>>1034148
go back to /pol/ you worthless sack of cow shit

Sorry foamers, it's too late.

In the decades it would take to build out comprehensive mass transit anywhere, we're going to see a takeover of autonomous vehicles to the extent that accident deaths and road traffic will become non-issues.

Most vehicles will probably be electric, though, so there's that.

The only open question is the extent to which autonomous cabs/uber/whatever will replace private vehicle ownership.

>>1034168
>he makes an argument I can't refute
>better call him a sack of shit

>>1034182
Autonomic vehicles won't help with traffic but make it worse. When people don't have to drive it doesn't matter as much for them how long it takes. And there will be empty cars on the roads only making the traffic worse.

What would help with traffic is improving public transportation and massively restricting the size of personal vehicles.

>>1034206
>will make it worse
But that's wrong.
Self Driving cars are being pursued because they are far less likely to get into an accident. Have a quicker reaction time. And they can interface with the other cars on the road. They can go much faster than non self driving car.

>>1034206
>when the entire city transport system is overseen by software designed to optimise efficiency, the result will somehow be LESS efficient than everybody owning and driving their own cars whenever they feel like it

Try again. Urban transportation in 10-20 years will be a thing of beauty. Car, bus, rail and tube networks will be seamlessly integrated; you tell your phone where you want to go and you're directed to the optimal method of getting there, taking into account personal desire for comfort, privacy, speed, and so on.

>>1034182
>Most vehicles will probably be electric, though, so there's that.
Please research memes first...
Electric vehicles are inherently flawed.


Most vehicles will be extended range electric, not electric. The difference between the two is massive.

File: autonomous_traffic_jam.jpg (620KB, 1160x768px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1160x768px

>>1034220
>They can go much faster than non self driving car.
Wrong. Despite the reaction time and whatnot, they still need to brake, and they can't brake faster than regular cars, except for the small difference in reaction time. An autonomous car driving at 50 km/h or faster through neighbourhoods is still dangerous if a child shows up out of nowhere. Speed limits won't rise inside cities. Maybe for highways.

>>1034245
That wouldn't make automobiles less inefficient, and city transportation has such high demand levels that a generalized use of automobiles, be they human-operated or autonomous is simply unsustainable.
The slight gain in efficiency for automous cars would be instantly offset by the induced demand of automobiles without driver getting to/from pickup spots and more people driving because of more commodity. Traffic levels will again level out when they reach the maximum capacity of any roadway, and automobile use will be just as (in)convenient as it is now.

There's absolutely no argument to defend that autonomous cars will change our mobility habits in any significant way, except for the last step of distribution (as in to/from train stations and the like, in low-density areas, as an on-demand substitute for light traffic bus lines). The main problem with cars (apart from the ones that would be solved with electric and autonomous vehicles) is their excessive use of space. In my city we have 60% of urban space dedicated to about 20% of all trips which are made by automobile. And this isn't even one of the most progressive cities, transport wise, we have about 25% of trips done by car, and 30% of trips by public transit, the rest is by foot mostly, and by bike. My guess is that american-type cities dedicate even more urban space to automobiles, and still no city is able to fully deal with traffic problems by expanding highways. As I said, autonomous vehicles will not have big enough influence to really resolve this.

>>1018366
>Guess they'll have to learn how people lived in the country before cars existed.

We farmed. And we ate. Come and get it, city boy. Soups on.

>>1034205
kill yourself you worthless fascist fuckface donkey

>>1034206
Better-behaved autonomous vehicles will maximize the throughput of existing highways, to the point that traffic won't increase trip times as it does currently.

Empty vehicles will be an issue that will likely be addressed early on. Minor infrastructure investment can mitigate a lot of it. Urban centers will install central parking lots that cars can self-park in after dropping passengers off, reducing unnecessary "empty" travel and the need for long-term parking near every destination.

Autonomous ride-sharing fleets will also reduce the volume of vehicles on the road and in parking lots, and increase the viability of rail for inter-city travel and major intra-city routes.

>>1034257
Extended range will exist for people who need to make long, uninterrupted drives. Regular electric will be sufficient for commuters, especially when the car is able to drive off and find a charging station by itself when its owner is at work or whatever.

>>1034266
Even if you end up spending time in traffic, it's a game changer if commuters don't have to actively operate the conveyance. Autonomous driving brings one of the major advantages of public transit to private transit, without the extra walking, route navigation, waiting for a bus/train, and extra stops.

From a consumer standpoint, self-driving vehicles promise to make the convenience advantage of automobiles even greater than it already is. THAT is why autos will win out in the end.

>>1034148
your plan will blow up in your face and mega corporations will hoard the energy

im going to be sitting pretty in socialist quebec, with my water and nationalised hydroelectric resources while you americans in california die like flies

fuck you

File: retard_alert.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>1034285
>Better-behaved autonomous vehicles will maximize the throughput of existing highways, to the point that traffic won't increase trip times as it does currently.
>implying this won't generate an increase in car usage which would offset this maximized capacity
>what is induced demand

>Even if you end up spending time in traffic, it's a game changer if commuters don't have to actively operate the conveyance.
>"I spend two hours in traffic which would take me half an hour by public transit, but it's ok because I'm not driving"

>>1034220
Not in cities as anon already pointed out. Besides self driving cars don't remove the number one reason for traffic which is that cars are really fucking big for transporting one person.

>>1034322
>implying this won't generate an increase in car usage which would offset this maximized capacity
Demand is inherently finite, there is an upper limit to demand. Places with the worst traffic are already car-dominated, there's only so much more usage that can happen.

Traffic happens because bad driving and human reaction delays bog down crowded roads. With those two issues mitigated, even crowded roads can move along at speed.

>"I spend two hours in traffic which would take me half an hour by public transit"
HAHAHAHA

Okay, maybe that can happen in the real world if your origin and destination both happen to be across the street from a train station, on opposite sides of a river or something. Odds are, though, a trip that takes two hours by car is going to take even longer on public transit.

For example, my old commute on the famously bad 405 freeway in Los Angeles would take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on traffic. Sure, it was a drag, but public transit would have taken four hours each way. Amusingly, I was able to make the trip on a bicycle in just three hours.

Traffic is a nuisance, not a scourge. It must take some real cognitive dissonance for the public transit wonks to believe that people will go to such lengths to inconvenience themselves just for the sake of avoiding a minor irritation.

>>1034357
>using public transit in the Mexican shantytown of Los Angeles as a proof that it isn't efficient or fast

Traffic doesn't happen because of human errors or bad driving. It happens because roads have a maximum capacity they can support. If you go over that capacity it will slow down because everyone can't fit in. Either on that road or on the roads leading to that road, which in turn will cause slowed down traffic on the roads further down the chain. Automatic cars can increase the maximum capacity of roads a bit but it isn't a magical cure.

File: China car smog.jpg (3MB, 3103x2068px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3103x2068px

>>1034266
>The slight gain in efficiency for automous cars would be instantly offset by the induced demand of automobiles without driver getting to/from pickup spots and more people driving because of more commodity

The only reason cars are so popular right now is that we have a '''''free market''''' solution which has trapped us in a positive feedback loop. Car ownership -> more car infrastructure -> more car ownership -> repeat ad nauseum. Once cars become automated and interlinked, they'll be subject to intelligent urban planning just like the rest of public transport, and the % of transport funds invest in cars will nosedive. I take it I don't have to argue the case to you that cars are less efficient than trains, trams and buses. Hence these methods of transport will prosper at the expense of cars.

People who live in rural areas will still need to own cars, but if you offer free (or at least subsidised) parking on the city outskirts and connect the public transport system directly to the car parks, people will soon learn to leave their cars outside the city center. Especially as parking spaces become less common and streets become pedestrianised.

>>1000731
Never.
Grow up, little boy.

>>1034363
>Traffic doesn't happen because of human errors or bad driving. It happens because roads have a maximum capacity they can support

If this was true then freeway traffic would be impossible, because the freeway's throughput dwarfs that of the streets that feed into the freeway.

Freeways can be crowded and still move at speed. This breaks down either because lanes get blocked by accidents, or because people being rude and/or inattentive creates backwards "ripples" of slowing and stopping traffic, causing jams. This has been studied. Improved driving and reduced reaction times should correct both issues.

Los Angeles obviously isn't proof that public transit can't work anywhere, but it's a great example of a place where implementation of comprehensive public transit is pretty much impossible. They're trying, as they should, and hopefully we will have rail coverage along more of the major corridors over the next few decades.

However, it's never going to be perfect for everyone, or even most people. That isn't the fault of the cagers, or the city government- it's the simple reality of a massive sprawl like LA. Effectively connecting the many-to-many sets of origins and destinations along fixed routes just isn't achievable without absurd travel times. Sure, it's poor urban planning, but pointing it out doesn't help- it's inevitable, this area was once several distinct municipalities that spread into one another.

No one is going to agree to raze the second-largest city in the US just because you want to see more trains.

>>1034341
>self driving cars don't remove the number one reason for traffic which is that cars are really fucking big for transporting one person.

What if they did?

I don't think it'd be so far-fetched for a family of four to have four single-person vehicles instead of, say, two cars that can each seat 4-5... particularly if collisions become a non-issue. Maybe some kind of modular "pods" that can travel together or separately?

>>1034413
>if you offer free (or at least subsidised) parking on the city outskirts and connect the public transport system directly to the car parks, people will soon learn to leave their cars outside the city center.
This approach makes sense for a medium-sized, hub-shaped city, but fails completely in large sprawls, which may not even have a clear "center" or "outskirts" that aren't dozens of miles away from the densest areas.

>>1034486
Tell me what happens when the freeway is full of cars moving at the speed limit and someone wants to join that freeway. Either they can't get in causing jams in the feeding roads or cars in the freeway have to give way or slow down causing slower traffic in the freeway. Or what happens when the road someone wants to get into from the freeway is jammed, that's gonna lead to the freeway getting jammed as the cars have nowhere to go. Yes autonomous cars improve the throughput of roads but it doesn't make it infinite. There is still finite space available in the road that the cars can use, and if there are more cars than space it's going to slow the fuck down.

As for what comes to smaller cars it's not gonna happen without massive incentives from the government. People have gotten used to massive cars already.

>>1034413
car ownership isn't free market, it is in every way subsidized by government

File: 347092_v1.jpg (183KB, 550x360px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 550x360px

>>1034285
>to the point that traffic won't increase trip times as it does currently.
If more people than its capacity are trying to use a road, not everyone will be able to fit. Bad drivers can sometimes make it worse, but they're not what's causing it.
>Urban centers will install central parking lots that cars can self-park in after dropping passengers off, reducing unnecessary "empty" travel
Why can't we do that now? That has absolutely nothing to do with who's driving. And having them all in a central lot would mean more empty driving because it's farther away.
>Autonomous ride-sharing fleets will also reduce the volume of vehicles on the road and in parking lots, and increase the viability of rail for inter-city travel and major intra-city routes.
It'll make driving easier, and for some reason you think that will make people want to drive less?
>Extended range will exist for people who need to make long, uninterrupted drives. Regular electric will be sufficient for commuters
So they have to buy a second car if they ever want to go more than a few miles away? Why not just get the extended range one from the beginning? What if there's heavy traffic or a snow storm or detour and they need to spend more time driving than they were expecting?
>Autonomous driving brings one of the major advantages of public transit to private transit, without the extra walking, route navigation, waiting for a bus/train, and extra stops.
So no one will use public transit any more, making the traffic worse and people who can't afford a car won't be able to go anywhere (or get a job somewhere other than their neighborhood which everyone else will be trying to work in too so they can earn the money to buy one)

Do you have some sort of brain damage? Nothing you said makes any sense and all your points support the other side. You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>1034357
>Demand is inherently finite, there is an upper limit to demand. Places with the worst traffic are already car-dominated, there's only so much more usage that can happen.
Yeah, that's been the dominant mentality since the 50's. Back than it was "demand is finite, if we build highways, traffic will be gone". Then it was "if we build this 12-lane super highway traffic will be gone". And now it's "if we have autonomous cars traffic will be gone". You tell me how often you want to make the same mistake.

>Traffic happens because bad driving
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MY FUCKING SIDES HOW CAN ONE PERSON BE THIS DELUDED HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you fucking dumbass, we can make traffic simulations on a computer with no human error, and the result is still traffic. If what you said were true, any traffic simulation where you take out human error would show no traffic, and it's not fucking happening.

>Okay, maybe that can happen in the real world if your origin and destination both happen to be across the street from a train station, on opposite sides of a river or something. Odds are, though, a trip that takes two hours by car is going to take even longer on public transit.
This is already the case in many european cities you ignoramus.

>For example, my old commute on the famously bad 405 freeway in Los Angeles would take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on traffic. Sure, it was a drag, but public transit would have taken four hours each way. Amusingly, I was able to make the trip on a bicycle in just three hours.
>Using LA as an example of public transit usage
kill yourself

>Traffic is a nuisance, not a scourge. It must take some real cognitive dissonance for the public transit wonks to believe that people will go to such lengths to inconvenience themselves just for the sake of avoiding a minor irritation.
>projecting your shitty burgerland planning this much
drink bleach.

>>1034296
>im going to be sitting pretty in socialist quebec,
:wink:
>with my water and nationalised hydroelectric resources
nationalized is spelled with a z.

>while you americans in california die like flies
I approve of this.
If we didn't have commie faggot regulations/welfare and water was priced as it should be, we wouldn't have a water shortage and everything would be fine.


>your plan will blow up in your face and mega corporations will hoard the energy
Explain how. Why would a corporation hoard energy?
Yes, there would be energy holding corporations that lease energy, because energy demand isn't always static. And there are things called temporary projects. If the energy deed isn't being used or leased, then it's lost profit opportunity.
Besides, the average corporation would be best suited to actually using the energy that they own. They would have an incentive to lease any excess that they own. So the only entities that would hoard energy deeds would be eco-terrorists and celebrities.

And besides you commie faggot, if you have a problem with it then just buy energy deeds yourself and distribute them to the people free of charge.
But you don't want to do that because work is hard and you would rather steal.

>>1034616
>>1034296
Furthermore, if you can buy a house, land, or car, you would be able to buy energy deeds in equal to your projected needs.
If you rented, then as with utilities it would be up to the renter to deal wit the energy deeds.

The people that already can't afford assets/durable goods wouldn't be able to afford the associated energy deed cost, and nothing would change.

The people that already can afford assets/durable goods would be able to afford the associated energy deed cost, and nothing would change.

>>1034530
>>1034578
If cars on a road are traveling at half the speed limit, the throughput of that road is reduced by half. Perfect or near-perfect road use won't make infinite capacity, but it will increase the effective throughput to a degree that we've never seen before- literally multiples at the heaviest times. Demand isn't going to immediately increase in kind because there just aren't enough people or vehicles to make that happen.

Yes, any road can be flooded out if you throw enough vehicles at it, and thoroughfares will still need to be optimized for whatever volume they see over time, but we're still looking at unprecedented yields from the highway system.

>Why can't we do that now? That has absolutely nothing to do with who's driving.
This does happen on a small scale for well-planned developments, but there's a limit to how far people are willing to walk from parking to wherever they're going. Also, with larger parking structures you start to run into increasing lengths of time needed to navigate and park within the structure- an irritating waste of time for a person, but a non-issue for a car that parks itself.

>And having them all in a central lot would mean more empty driving because it's farther away.
Farther away than on-site parking, but a hell of a lot closer than ordering your car to go park itself back at home and come back again in 8 hours. Beyond that, it's mostly an optimization problem- trading off total volume of parking and land use for street-level traffic and strategic parking placement.

Places that have attempted to discourage driving by limiting parking are going to get screwed, though.

>>1034530
>It'll make driving easier, and for some reason you think that will make people want to drive less?
Ride-sharing is a matter of economics, not ease. Buying a ride is cheaper than buying a car, at least in the short term.

>So they have to buy a second car if they ever want to go more than a few miles away? Why not just get the extended range one from the beginning? What if there's heavy traffic or a snow storm or detour and they need to spend more time driving than they were expecting?
Range extenders don't need to be integral to the vehicle, and state of the art electric range is hundreds of miles.

Even if people buy extended-range vehicles "just in case", does it really make any difference if they almost never use the combustion engine? I don't see gas/diesel becoming cheaper than electricity anytime soon.

>So no one will use public transit any more, making the traffic worse and people who can't afford a car won't be able to go anywhere (or get a job somewhere other than their neighborhood which everyone else will be trying to work in too so they can earn the money to buy one)
People will always use public transit, but the advantage will be more about cost than ease. Inter-city travel, popular city corridors- same as before, trains and buses are well-suited to most kinds of well-traveled routes. Low-hanging fruit.

>>1034661
>Yes, any road can be flooded out if you throw enough vehicles at it, and thoroughfares will still need to be optimized for whatever volume they see over time, but we're still looking at unprecedented yields from the highway system.

How do you solve weather? (inb4 covered/raised roads)

>Also, with larger parking structures you start to run into increasing lengths of time needed to navigate and park within the structure- an irritating waste of time for a person, but a non-issue for a car that parks itself.
Very good point.


.

>>1034662
>Range extenders don't need to be integral to the vehicle
For them to not be annoying they do.

>state of the art electric range is hundreds of miles.
Yes, but an extended range electric vehicle with equivalent range is lighter and more efficient.

>Even if people buy extended-range vehicles "just in case", does it really make any difference if they almost never use the combustion engine?
In order for an extended range electric to be most efficient the generator must be in constant use...

The concepts are simple:
Balance (read: customize according to projected need) charge rate, average discharge rate, battery mass/capacity, and range.
Engines have efficiency curves, and if you always run the engine at the most efficient rpm, then you can have a lighter engine and more efficient vehicle.
The end result is that instead of trading the mass of engine block for a nearly equivalent mass of batteries and decreased energy supply and efficiency, you have a lighter and more efficient vehicle with all the energy supply of a conventional vehicle.

tl;dr
a small mass of batteries and small engine always running at peak efficiency is superior to pure electric, combustion, or hybrid drive vehicles.
(there is a reason why diesel locomotives exist)

File: 1424823452410.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>vancouver """"""""""""""""""""public transit""""""""""""""""""""

>>1034661
>If cars on a road are traveling at half the speed limit, the throughput of that road is reduced by half. Perfect or near-perfect road use won't make infinite capacity, but it will increase the effective throughput to a degree that we've never seen before- literally multiples at the heaviest times
Where are those cars supposed to go? As soon as they get into the city road capacity barely would increase from currently because you still need traffic lights at intersections, varying traffic flows according to demand... it's not the highways that are the problem you dunce, it's the cities.

traffic isn't generated in the highways, it's generated at their exits which are the true bottlenecks as they eventually have to reach traffic light territory.

ok maybe in horrible shitholes like LA this isn't a problem because you've already ruined your cities ripping it up to lay down a highway, but in europe we kinda don't like to fill up our cities with huge roadways stinking the place up even more than it already is.

in Europe many cities are removing highways within the city and converting them to avenues which have less traffic capacity and, again, traffic lights

in cities with 1st world public transit, traffic is capped at the point where the city itself can't handle it anymore, so traffic on highways doesn't really get worse at some point because more people start taking the train

optimizing highway throughput wouldn't change anything. the effective entry/exit volume would be the same as it is now
traffic jams would be the same, and if more people used the car they would just get longer

>>1034670
>How do you solve weather? (inb4 covered/raised roads)
Interesting question, I suppose it depends on how well autonomous vehicles are able to operate in averse conditions- still an open question as far as I know. Had an amusing mental image of someone getting into their auto-car during a snowstorm only to have it go "NOPE" and refuse to go anywhere.

>For them to not be annoying they do.
People always think of trailers for this, which admittedly does seem stupid. I would think that a small generator could be configured to lock in place in the "frunk" of an electric car, or maybe on one side of the trunk, without too much hassle.

>In order for an extended range electric to be most efficient the generator must be in constant use...
It need only be continuous when used. I'm seeing extended range operating in a manner similar to "plug-in hybrids", i.e. starting the generator once the electric-only range is nearly depleted.

If you can go ~80 miles on electricity alone (not particularly impressive by modern standards), and you only drive more than that a couple times a year, you're not using much diesel even if you have the running gear for it.

In the end, I think the issue will be decided by economic factors rather than technical merit. If the price of petroleum crashes from shrinking demand, we'll be burning oil that much longer. Otherwise it will probably be batteries, weight be damned.

>>1034721
>Where are those cars supposed to go? As soon as they get into the city road capacity barely would increase from currently because you still need traffic lights at intersections,
Because every car is going to the exact same place, and taking the exact same ramp/street?

Surface street traffic is small potatoes, almost a given. it's something you get through on your way to the main road or highway, a tiny factor in trip time unless you're in some horribly-planned shithole that traps traffic downtown. (NYC comes to mind)

I can see the rationale for removing highways from city centers, as there would be a desire to route through traffic around the city rather than through it. Even with the capacity lowered on the new avenue, there should be a reduction in traffic. American cities do the same thing by threading interstate "bypasses" around cities, although decades on the cities will sometimes expand outward past them.

Though, instead of completely removing urban highways, I like the idea of converting them into one-way "exit routes" to help cars get out of the city and onto the peripheral highways.

While not as important or as dramatic as highway improvement, I do see increased utilization of surface roads from autonomous driving. Along with small stuff like fewer accidents, there are a lot of low-tech techniques like one-way streets and strategically-placed traffic circles that could help. Also, load-sensitive routing is already becoming a big deal for naviagtion (apps like Waze).

Traffic engineering is amazing stuff, you really learn to appreciate it when something fucks it up. (Locally, the Presidential motorcade is good at that)

File: into_the_trash_it_goes.png (142KB, 350x227px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 350x227px

>>1035050
>Because every car is going to the exact same place, and taking the exact same ramp/street?
Uhm that's pretty much the reason why traffic exists in the first place you idiot.

also
>admits that surface street traffic will remain
>but somehow this will not generate highway traffic

>Traffic engineering is amazing stuff
yes it is, you should look into it because clearly you're talking out your ass

Netherlands already passed legislation banning combustion engine vehicles after a certain date. So in like a decade, Netherlands will have only bicycles, electric cars, trains etc

>>1035051
>Uhm that's pretty much the reason why traffic exists in the first place you idiot.
I'm not sure if "highway" means something different where you live, but here highways go to more than one place. No single exit or area is taking the entire freeway throughput into its surface streets, nor is it trying to put that kind of volume onto the highway. Surface streets don't carry as many vehicles because they don't need to.

I'm starting to think you've never been in a car, much less a major city.

>>1035046
>People always think of trailers for this, which admittedly does seem stupid. I would think that a small generator could be configured to lock in place in the "frunk" of an electric car, or maybe on one side of the trunk, without too much hassle.
>frunk
It will always be called an engine bay.
The only lasting contribution of tesla will be using batteries for a floorpan, and decent displays instead of 640x400 stamps.

I foresee a fairly simple winch mechanism that will remove and replace the contents of the engine bay. (cars can park themselves, therefore they can position themselves perfectly for such a mechanism)
If you want a pitiful excuse for a vehicle (or live off-grid), then you can put in a battery assembly for pure electric.
If you want an enclosed golfcart for a large grocery run, then you can put in a hard condom to turn the engine bay into a secondary trunk and run only on an integral overflow bank.
If you want a viable product, then you can have a generator.
If you only care about energy supply and not efficiency, then you can put in a sterling generator.

>without too much hassle
Anything light enough to be done by hand would be fairly trash.


>It need only be continuous when used.
Exactly.

>starting the generator once the electric-only range is nearly depleted.
That is a viable method if you are going a short distance or less than the total range of the bank. Or you have a 'free' method of energy generation.
Otherwise, energy efficiency is maximized if the generator is in constant use, with the rate of power produced being the same or slightly less than the average power draw.
Think in terms of flow rates, kinematics, work, and joules. (there is more min-maxing that can be done, but its impact is negligible in comparison)

Cont...

>>1035046
>>1035119
>If you can go ~80 miles on electricity alone (not particularly impressive by modern standards), and you only drive more than that a couple times a year, you're not using much diesel even if you have the running gear for it.

Or you can use the most energy efficient method for personal travel, and then use 'free' energy like solar to produce biodiesel.
Electricity is fleeting. Chemical energy storage is the best method for portable power generation.

>In the end, I think the issue will be decided by economic factors rather than technical merit.
I both agree and disagree. The difference in price between the most economical and most energy efficient should be less than a few dollars a month, however my rough headmath says that both are cheaper than conventional petrol transport.
I think think that people's sense of moral responsibility is worth more than saving negligibly more money each month.

>>1035097
Not everyone goes to the same place but around major cities majority of the traffic will be in/out of the city when people get to/leave work.

>>1035119
>>1035123
Even when ran at optimal efficiency ICEs aren't particularly great. I'll admit that using the ICE as a generator for an electric motor is better than using it to power the car alone. However with your suggested system one of the major problems of ICEs still remains and that is pollution. Biodiesel is great but burning shit still produces all kinds of nasty compounds that you don't want to be breathing.

Extended range vehicles should first deplete their battery packs, which would mean most people would almost never need the ICE as they charge at home/work and drive on the stored energy. If they're going somewhere further away then the ICE can work as a generator providing energy for the electric motors.

Now the electricity still has to be produced somewhere. However it can be done much more efficiently in bulk and with much cleaner methods. Nuclear energy is extremely clean and doesn't provide much pollution or waste when properly used. The one massive advantage this provides is that cities would for the first time in decades have clean air. The only places the extended range ICEs would be used would be highways between cities that don't have as much traffic or people breathing products of that engine.

>>1035144
>Extended range vehicles should first deplete their battery packs, which would mean most people would almost never need the ICE as they charge at home/work and drive on the stored energy. If they're going somewhere further away then the ICE can work as a generator providing energy for the electric motors.
But that would require a larger (heavier) and less efficient generator. The whole point is to move less mass. With that solution you might as well just have a pure electric vehicle.

I misspoke in earlier posts. You want a generator that produces less than the power draw such that the battery bank is projected to last X distance, and you want it to be equal to or slightly less than the average power draw for long range driving.
And the way to adjust how much power is produced with maximum efficiency is with different sized generators.


>However with your suggested system one of the major problems of ICEs still remains and that is pollution.
Yes and no.
Artificial hydrocarbons are the cleanest sustainable fuel source possible.
And if it were not for the actions of man, eventually the free carbon would have reduced to such a degree that intelligent life couldn't exist.

>Biodiesel is great but burning shit still produces all kinds of nasty compounds that you don't want to be breathing.
Like carbon dioxide and water, the stuff we already breath... Sulfates and nitrogen oxides aren't really a thing with biodisel.
People don't complain about evaporation because they know about the water cycle.
People complain about (clean) combustion because they don't make the connection to the carbon cycle.

>Now the electricity still has to be produced somewhere.
Yes.


>The one massive advantage this provides is that cities would for the first time in decades have clean air.
>people breathing products of that engine.
People are combustion engines...
If vehicles only used clean artificial fuels, then cities would be as clean as if they didn't have vehicles.

Cont...

>>1035150
>>1035144
>However it can be done much more efficiently in bulk and with much cleaner methods.
It can not.
You are confusing economies of scale with energy efficiency. Square cube law.

>Now the electricity still has to be produced somewhere.
Exactomundo.
And energy generation is most efficient(in terms of dollars and joules) when the demand is fairly regular. Adding vehicles to the grid is basically the same as adding an air conditioner or three to every house.

However if you have artificial fuel production with a constant energy requirement, then you don't have that problem.

>>1034661
>Demand isn't going to immediately increase
Your grandma without license will be able to use a car.
Your mum with license, but that was always afraid to drive, so never sit in front of a wheel, will be able to use a car.
Your kids too young to drive, will go to school in separate car, at slightly different hour than parents, because of convenience.
Your generic public transit user will prefer using a car, that doesn't make him dependant on train timetable, so he can travel at any time. At the same time, he will use the very same car at the destination, because it will be convenient.
The demand would skyrocket.

>Perfect or near-perfect road
Everyone here seems to forget, that many many people do not, and will not, have a self driving car, for a very long time. In the end making such transit as effective as non-grade separated public transit. Minus capacity and space efficiency, obviously.

>>1035198
>Your grandma without license will be able to use a car.
>Your mum with license, but that was always afraid to drive, so never sit in front of a wheel, will be able to use a car.
>Your kids too young to drive, will go to school in separate car, at slightly different hour than parents, because of convenience.
>Your generic public transit user will prefer using a car, that doesn't make him dependant on train timetable, so he can travel at any time. At the same time, he will use the very same car at the destination, because it will be convenient.
>The demand would skyrocket.

your cat would use a car, drive around for fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGI8Od22WM4

>>1022646
she's a goddess m9

still dream about when I went to one of her concerts in 08

>>1035093
>So in like a decade, Netherlands will have only bicycles,

They'll be under water before then.

File: y.gif (4MB, 581x327px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 581x327px

>>1000731
>ban all cars

>>1034616
Fucking ancap retard if it wasn't for government building and zoning laws along with subsidies and tax breaks for auto-centric suburban development you wouldn't have your precious shitty sprawl where you're forced to have a car to get anywhere.

Being able to get anywhere in a city with just your feet is inherently more free than being forced to buy and maintain a car to get anywhere.

But go ahead and keep believing in your stupid meme image of suburbia, that doesn't reflect reality in the slightest.

>>1037291
Lurk more, and take the urban planning red pill

>>1037328
wtf?

>>1000731
Not sitting next to some smelly nigger thank you

>>1034616
>>1034618
without regulation free markets become monopolies

you're an acolyte of the invisible hand, kill yourself

File: dd7b7f99-5871-4778-ac94-bcbc12033239.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>1037291
He was molested in a car.

>>1034616
>nationalized is spelled with a z.
Burger with hubris detected. Stop molesting my language, you illiterate twat.

>>1034616
Purer Words have never been spoken anon

>>1037352
>implying the state is not a monopoly itself
KYS

Greetings from the 2017!

>>1037291
>>1037331
Your being a newfag is showing.

How cucked are people to think that privatizing mass transportation is the way to go?
Public ownership the fuck out of it, you dingus.

I'm amazed that you people actually like public transportation. Humiliating, intrusive, bombarded with loud speaker announcements, filled with police, loud people, memorizing schedules, keeping an eye on your stuff, everything at the lowest common denominator. It's a nuisance. It's like traveling with your family of 8 that also has a retarded brother all the damn time.

I've been on public transportation in New York for long stretches at a time, and it is no faster and hardly any cheaper than a car. First, catching a bus to your subway station takes 10 minutes because you have to walk & wait for the bus, then for everyone to pay, then wait for them to lock down the retard in a wheelchair. Then some tourist needs directions, so the driver has to sit and talk to them. Each bus ride is like $2.

Finally at the subway station, you gotta walk through the maze of steps and wait for the subways while standing uncomfortably in a dank dungeon smelling of piss where rats roam freely. Get on the train and shuffle and nudge past people to find a spot. Door start closing but somebody stops them at the last minute. Repeat this dance at every stop along the route. 10 minutes. $2.

Get to your stop now walk up 3 flights of stairs to the top. Now your city blocks from your destination. Walk in the cold and rain to your destination. 8 minutes.

So in all, your out $4 and 30 minutes just to get somewhere and all the while constantly uncomfortable. Just to do the same trip back is another $4. Going someplace else to run an errand via subway only is another $2. So at the end of your day you've spent $10 for just two destinations in complete discomfort. It's a shitty lifestyle.

In California $40 gives me a tank of gas and complete privacy and comfort where i can go from the beach, the mountains, the city, my house, all while holding my gear for TWO WEEKS per fill up. It's just such a better lifestyle. So much better.

>>1037720
That's because you've only used shitty american public transit. Here in europe it's more like

>take the car
>it's parked like two blocks away
>or you pay more rent because of parking garage
>pay toll on the highway
>lots of traffic to enter city
>sitting in my cage breathing the stink of other cars
>in the city constant traffic lights that take ages
>can't find parking space
>if I can there's parking meter
>otherwise have to use parking garage which is expensive as fuck

vs

>short walk to bus stop / train station
>service is frequent
>sit on comfy bus/train, can read, play vidya, surf internet on phone, have breakfast, whatever
>don't be bothered because most people on transit are white and decent, bums and junkies are the exception and they avoid transit during rush hours to avoid trouble (unlike burgerland where mostly bums and poor people use public transit)
>fly past traffic
>don't need time buffer because train is rarely late
>in the city convenient interchange to local transport
>service is even more frequent
>local transport leaves me at the door to work/leisure/shopping
>can walk around and take transit to go back, don't have to backtrack to where I parked car
>have monthly pass that costs 50 eurogibs (and that's somewhat expensive)

hate the players not the game, Korben my man.

>>1037740
What city do you live in?

>>1037758
Barcelona. Our public transport is pretty meh, suburban transport pretty much sucks, and within the city it depends on where you're going, can be good can be kinda shit, too.

My city is far from the best example tho because there's a lot of burgerland-tier transit planning. And yet public transit is still more popular than cars. There's other cities where people will literally laugh at you if you drive a car because it's so pointless.

>>1001005
>voluntarily subject themselves to 3 hours daily of white knuckled driving in stressful, life threatening situations

you just might be the biggest pussy I've seen today.

>>1037352
>implying monopolies aren't a paper tiger.
Finish middle school faggot.

>>1000731
No. Public transport sucks, it costs money and I don't want to sit next to a bunch of sick, sweaty and smelly fatasses.

I don't even have a car, but if I had to pick between sitting in public transport for 1 hour or cycling for 3, I will pick cycling every single time.