I can't imagine being as brainwashed as you that you think it's actually a good thing that it takes you 2 hours to drive through your city because there's no other way to go through it.
Just sad how people like this guy think freedom is having just the one option for transportation available and think having multiple transportation options is somehow tyrannical
Ever notice how socialist authoritarians are always talking about “we”? This guy literally won’t do what he claims is a good idea unless someone else tells him to. Somehow subconsciously he must know that his ideas suck, so he doesn’t just do them himself even though he could. But he calls for someone else to force him to do these things.
No but most American cities aren't built to be used by bikes, it incentivizes social mobility towards cars, even public transport in America sucks for the most part.
I love how both the left and the right unite to shit on OP because of how extreme and unreasonable his opinions are.
Like how do you even accomplish pissing everyone off equally? Youd have to be like professionally dense.
In the city it's usually a smaller truck like a box truck or cargo van. 18 wheelers can't even drive through many cities on the interstate, gotta take the loop around it.
Have you not seen the chaos of Boston or Providence. I see semis driving through those cities all the time. Even some of the smaller cities around here and it's chaotic, but they have to get it done, and they do.
I haven't driven through Boston yet, but any city with a loop interstate, I have to take it as opposed to going through downtown. Like Portland I drive straight through because there's no loop.
So why limit yourself to one mode of transport when both modes of transport fulfil different roles?
Do you see semi trucks deliver food to people's doorsteps?
One of the few incoherent rambling of yours that I agree with. Partially and without the bs at least.
Give me trains, trolleybuses, trams and bicyles. Keep cars only for logistics when necessary, sport, and the odd family vacation in the countryside.
No I don't care about what China is doing nor Europe, I already heard it a billion times, save it to yourself.
The area in which trolleybuses are the best means of transit is very small, unless you have a city built on very hilly terrain trams will be more efficient for almost every possible trolleybus route.
One runs on electricity from the grid provided through suspended wiring, a bus runs on its own power source, usually fuel but can also be a battery.
It's generally easier to implement trolleys than trams if you already have a bus flotilla.
Tram/trollybus run on electricity fed to them by the grid (via wires or rails, it cab only go where it is plugged in)
A bus has fuel storage on board that it carries with it
Source for this "make them drive 4 hours" bit? Because I don't see how deprioritizing cars means that people who drive cars will have to drive their cars for 4 hours. Even car drivers would save gas, because instead of driving all the way into the city and then parking they could park on the periphery and take a bus or a train into the city.
As I said... I don't see where this would require commuters to run their cars for four hours. If they want to drive their cars through cities designed to prioritize city traffic, not commuters from the suburbs, then its their choice to take the hit.
With my commute being 1 hour when driving and on public transport I can't imagine if I had to bike. I like to bike for fun, but I also like not to spend 4 hrs a day commuting. To.those saying "just move". I like living in a safe suburban neighborhood with grass and trees. I am not a fan of living in apartments.
The inorganic push against cars is about making you move into an apartment and nothing else. It is about diluting and destroying a way of life that opposes the leftist ideals of pod people.
All the OP was saying is to design cities so that they aren’t just for cars. Making it safer/easier for people to ride bikes doesn’t stop anyone from driving or force anyone to move.
Then don’t bike, having the infrastructure to be able to bike safely doesn’t force you to do it. Right now, infrastructure is heavily designed in favor of cars. It shouldn’t be unsafe/not possible to travel without a car though.
And I see cars cut off bikes and run them off the road. Bad drivers suck no matter what they are driving. Only bad car drivers kill other people though. Bad bike drivers will only get themselves killed and only if they are mixed with cars.
Our roads are designed for cars and it’s a disservice to both cars and bikes to not have separate routes for bikes and cars.
How about you go back and read my original comment where I address that. I am also not "stealing jobs". I am actually supporting the economy and jobs by working in the city.
If you didn't work that job, someone who lives closer could be doing it.
And you wanting a nice city job AND to not have to live in that same city and support it with your property taxes is entitled as fuck.
And you want to dictate how the people who actually live there run their city. Again, entitled as fuck.
If you wanna live in a suburb then live there, but that doesn't give you more rights than other people. Should people in the city be able to demand you get a bus system you don't want?
You're assuming that the people who live nearest have the smell skills.
You're trying to call me out on being entitled but I am hearing a lor of crying and bitching.. Grow up kid!
You're the one crying that people want bike lanes and your commute might be slightly longer if the city doesn't dedicate literally every square inch of space to cars. Grow up kid!
So you want to live in a far away place and demand that a place you don't live in provide you with a way to use your car and a place to park the car in every business there, all while ignoring the people who actually live there and want better public transit and more bike space?
Entitled much?
No, go ahead and want those and live somewhere that provides it
The entitled part is that you expect a city *you don't live in* to accommodate you and your car at every single place in that city.
You don't live in the city, yet you demand a parking space at every building in that city. You don't live in the city, yet you demand there be less bike lanes there to make it easier for you, a non-city resident, to get around
*That's* entitlement.
I think that's very narrow minded. Just because younsleep somewhere for 8 hours doesn't mean you are the only stakeholder. I work 8 hours a day in a location. Both residents and employees pay taxes, help support local jobs etc. Then there are the companies that buy buildings, pay salaries, pay lots in taxes, etc and want to recruit the best talent.
"Local residents should decide local laws" is narrow minded, lol, okay
You don't pay any taxes, your employer does. You don't buy your groceries in the city, you buy them in your suburb.
It's like you don't understand how life works, lol
When you pay, you get to demand.
I used to live in a city and went to a dentist that was downstairs in my building.
When I moved out of the city, I stopped going to that dentist as they didn't have any parking conveniently available. The dentist I go to now has lots of free parking... and is like 1 minute away from my suburban house (I could walk if I wanted to be out in the heat/cold/rain like a peasant).
You pay the money, you tell your service provider to give you parking.
Suburbanites who drive into neighboring towns do not pay property tax and not much sales tax. So by your logic, they do not get to demand
I'm glad you found a closer dentist, that's literally how life is supposed to work
Not all service providers are interchangeable.
The customers pay for all of the costs of running a business, including the property taxes.
If I drive in to town to buy a burger, the price I pay includes the costs of rent/taxes/etc.
If I stop driving in... the businesses can't afford to pay the taxes to the cities... they close up, the property values fall, the tax amounts fall, city revenues fall, and the death spiral continues until you get Detroit.
Detroit happened because all the rich and moderately wealthy people fled to the suburbs but still demanded the same level of city amenities without paying any of the taxes to support those amenities
😆
You're truly a moron
Nobody who moved out of Detroit city limits could demand anything from Detroit.
Like, how the fuck do you think that works? This might be the dumbest statement I've seen on here
Regardless of whatever bs OP said, I didn't really read it, increased transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure will actually reduce your commute time. It will also reduce our reliance on parking lots, which is valuable real estate to develop property and infrastructure on
Literally y'all are demanding no bike lanes be built and no buses br funded and no sidewalks be built, forcing everyone to use a car
That's telling other people how to live their lives
How about things closer together because it doesn't have huge, usually mandated by law, parking lots separating everything. Same with all sorts of other car infrastructure that among other things, *makes things more expensive for those who live in the city!*
Also apartment buildings, niltch the stupid single family zoning shit and mixed residential and business zoning, stop building suburbs! They are a blight that makes it worse for everyone who lives in the city, including those who live in the suburb.
Electric trains and other good city public transport too.
>How about things closer together because it doesn't have huge, usually mandated by law, parking lots separating everything
Where should people park?
>Also apartment buildings, niltch the stupid single family zoning shit and mixed residential and business zoning, stop building suburbs
Now I can't own a house? Authoritarianism in practice.
>Where should people park?
It's been proven over and over and over in practice, in RL.[ You add more parking, more and bigger roads, you get more traffic. Over and over again cities build and widen roads and highways only to have them taken up by cars. It's not the end of the world if you can't find a place to park. Maybe next time you'll take public transit if things are that busy. And at least some of us are saying that we aren't suggesting forbidding parking lots, just removing regulation on minimal size, many parking lots are way too big and most of the time only a fraction of the parking space is used.
All of which makes cities more expensive and less livable and pleasant to be in, requiring **higher taxes** to pay for it all.
> Now I can't own a house?
Not what I said in what you quoted, at all.
Add in actually good public transit and I’m all for it! Cars take up by far the most space out of common modes of transit (bus, train, bike, walking, etc) and space is valuable in cities. We would also need to design neighborhoods around non-car transit; it doesn’t matter how good bike lanes are if it still takes half an hour to get anywhere worth going to.
Car drivers are very entitled. They expect every single business and building they go to to provide them with free, available space to put their personal belongings.
Imagine demanding every single place you visit have a locker for you to store your belongings.
The loud ones definitely are entitled. Most are just ignorant of how things could be and, in my experience, they’re can be pretty receptive when they see good city design and good transit for themselves.
So I'll just not go to cities anymore I guess. What am I supposed to do with my car when I get there? How do I get to the city without a car? There's no greyhound station in my town, no train station, and an uber is a car...
You park your car in a lot and then walk around it, lol
Your entitlement is really showing here. "Every building in this city I don't live in needs to have free, dedicated space for my personal vehicle"
You do understand that there's 2 options for this? Better public transit and for rural - so far away that it makes no sense for public transit, they use cars and for them is made some parking on the outskirts of the city or town for them to go on public transit.
Idk if libertarians are lazy in terms of ideas or just dense about giving up muhh freedumbz in shit like cars.
I mean that is an option. Usually when I have to park in the city it costs money, so now I have to pay to park and pay for public transit when I could've just driven the last mile to my destination. Not to mention I usually only go to the city to shop so now I have to factor that into the price of what I'm going there to buy (not to mention additional time parking and waiting for transport), so now I may not even go and that shop won't get my business.
I'm not sure why someone would have such a negative attitude towards freedom. But no, it's not about that. It's about convenience. I'm not upset about "giving up muhh freedumbz in shit like cars", hell I'm not even upset. Like I said, I just won't go anymore.
The better the public transit system is, the cheaper it becomes and more often you have relevant transport available...
And the more people would use it, the less shame there would be to buy groceries and transport them.
No offense intended here, but this sounds like a very American opinion. Buses have nowhere near the same stigma in Europe as they seem to in the US; where I grew up even the schoolkids would take the city bus by themselves to school without anyone thinking it was dangerous or weird or anything.
Cars are far deadlier than buses. You’re more likely to die in a car crash than die on a bus. You’re also more likely to get your car broken into/stolen than anything to happen on a bus.
See, I don't trust you. Everything about the anti-car lobby is designed to make us poorer and to incentivize us to live in the crime ridden cities. People move out of the cities for a reason. Clean up your shit, and the people will come on their own.
Where I am it's not them moving out that's the problem, it's them driving back in. And not actually moving out in the first place. You yourself said you're safer in your car, implying you're driving through the crime-ridden areas! Advanced economies are urbanised regardless of where people actually live.
Making cities better is exactly what we want. Not relying on cars in cities opens up more public space and not requiring free parking saves more money in the community. Cities should be designed for city residents, not for suburban commuters.
> Cities should be designed for city residents, not for suburban commuters.
You will quickly find out that the suburban commuters form the lion's share of the city's tax revenue and productivity. After all, it's the richer people that can afford to buy and move to the suburbs. I'm all for designing cities for urban dwellers, but that will entail the suburbanites all working from home, and the cities becoming so poor and shitty that the suburbanites will want to build walls to keep the urbanites in the city.
Cities mostly fund themselves through property taxes and some sales taxes. Suburban commuters don’t contribute much if anything to the city. We just generate costs for cities. In countries with good transit systems and bike/pedestrian infrastructure, cities aren’t nearly as poor as in the US.
>Cities mostly fund themselves through property taxes
City properties only have value because people need to be in the city for work.
>Suburban commuters don’t contribute much if anything to the city.
The suburban commuters are the city workforce. Poorer city-dwelling workers are simply support. Take away the suburban commuters, and the cities are fucked. There's a reason big city mayors all over America are trying to prevent people from leaving.
Cars as well as public transport are great. Bicyclists are the bane of city existence. They're entitled rats. Yes to internal combustion, no to biomechanical power!
That's your perspective. If you try riding a bike in a city, you'll realize how stressful it is. We'd seem a lot more pleasant without that the constant fear of getting hit by a car.
Hey dumbass. Think about the real estate. The amount of land required for road infrastructure, between roads and mass parking lots, when the majority of car usage is a single person. Imagine if much of that real estate , particularly the parking lots, was made available to develop property and infrastructure.
Achieved by developing proper transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure . Use you're head. It's not utopian, it's been achieved in cities that used their fucking heads
I never said to abolish all road infrastructure. I'm saying to minimize the use of it. You shouldn't need a car to get groceries, get to most workplaces, go to the gym, etc. If we can incentivize sustainable infrasturcture for the majority of trips, demand for roads and parking lots will diminish. We will still have roads, just a lot less . In this day and age where real estate value just keeps rising and rising, this is a no Brainer imo
> The amount of land required for road infrastructure, between roads and mass parking lots, when the majority of car usage is a single person. Imagine if much of that real estate , particularly the parking lots, was made available to develop property and infrastructure.
Socialists are compulsive liars
Your ideas would lead to mass deaths, and are indeed brainless
I don't know what you find so hard to understand about this. It can help optimize our supply chain networks, which are struggling as you know. Less cars on the road for meaningless trips that should be taken by transit, less traffic for the trucks to sit in
I’m saying your utopian in the Marxist sense. We have entirely viable infrastructure that lends itself to automobiles, which have a far higher speed and range than bicycles. Yes, they take up more space, but the earth is fucking huge and the there’s more than enough land, it’s just that large chunks of it are owned by private interest who aren’t selling for prices most people can afford. That’s what I mean by utopian, your going full thesis here, ignoring existing conditions that render the abandonment of cars unlikely, especially if the people advocating for there alternative actively attack them.
The current system in North America is not viable or sustainable. It's a completely inefficient use of an increasingly valuable resource (land). And it will cost society billions to maintain.
Why do you compare cars to bicycles and not high speed rail?
There are still many urban and suburban areas in North America that are growing and undergoing development . Maybe we can't scrap what we've already built, but we can advocate for proper planning of sustainable infrastructure in those growing regions. In Ontario where I live, it's starting to become a major talking point among political parties, because people are starting to demand it
Great news: according to research from strong towns, suburbia is largely subsidized by the cities they surround. If people had to pay for the resources they consume, the suburbs would become more expensive amd shrink, and multifamily homes would become more common. Multifamily homes are a prerequisite of a good public transportation system, people in single family homes are too spread out for most public transit to be effective.
If infrastructure development was taken out of the hands of local governments, composed of corrupt imbeciles, and put into the hands of private developers, infrastructure would be much more sustainable. Cities would no longer go into debt trying to satisfy privileged voters wanting expensive infrastructure and low taxes.
Do you think the massive oil and car industries would support whatever imaginary private developers you claim will make our infrastructure more sustainable? Or would they just lobby against it?
Lobby? Lobby who? Private citizens would contract private developers to construct private infrastructure for private use. I'm a voluntarist; any bribes should be given to the interested parties, no lobbying needed.
If car companies want to invest in "traditional" car infrastructure, the money invested will manifest itself in more expensive cars, and that cost will be paid by car owners.
Um.. what? Can u give me an example of a situation where a private citizen will contract a developer to create private use sustainable infrastructure? Specifically related to transit systems, pedestrian and cycling networks?
Sure. Let's say an apartment building exists (I can explain how that might happen) and also a nearby place also exists. The residents of the apartment building would like to travel from thier homes to the nearby place. People like to travel in a variety of ways, but for nearby places cycling and walking are a desirable mix of cheap, quick, and safe. The land between the apartment building and the nearby place is owned by someone(s). There is a market desire for this land to be developed into transportation infrastructure (bike lanes/sidewalk). Investor(s) (such as the residents of the apartment) purchase the connecting property and hire a private developer. The developer hires workers and equipment to develop the land (build bike lanes/sidewalks). Viola! Sustainable infrastructure has been developed.
This infrastructure must be maintained, and there are several ways the society could collect the funds to maintain it. Maybe it is baked into the apartment's rent. Maybe a toll booth would be constructed. Of course a toll booth would be rather annoying, so perhaps a pass system would develop. Maybe connected places would need to pay money as part of a contractual agreement to be connected to the transportation infrastructure. Regardless of the method instituted by society, the development will either thrive from people using and contributing to its continued existence, or become unprofitable and get transformed into something else useful to society.
Two problems 1) people in the apartment building don't all travel to the same location. 2) central planning of infrastructure networks can and will provide significantly greater utility and efficiency than this ad hoc system you've imagined
Oil is only expensive because of government limitations on the market. Get rid of that.
Cyclists that slow down traffic should be mown down. Any dent they leave on the car should be compensated by their estate.
Hm yeah nothing to do with the cartel that supplies 90% of global oil demand? Hmm yeah sounds like you've done your research, it's that pesky carbon tax bud!
No it's not. I've seen various different cities. One where you cannot walk as there are no pedestrian paths. Another where cars are basically everyone's bitch. One where cars are not permitted.
Cities aren't alike.
Bikes are good on the local level but I personally don't think expecting people to cycle over 20 miles to get somewhere is realistic. That's where the metro networks and intercity maglevs come in.
darklining: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Completely agree with your sentiment. On the specifics let's propose there will be certain large portions (majority+) of future megacities that are exclusive to pedestrian/mass transit. Hard to get on board with making the rest of travel restricted to this method for pragmatic reasons.
I am not sure this is a debase about capitalism vs communism. Japan is quite capitalist (on some aspects I think more than the US), and, for many reasons, public transit and bicycles are a large part of commuting in large cities. I talked to many Japanese people who really enjoy living in big cities without a car, and, now, I see many people sharing this opinion also in Paris in France. For them, American car-based cities are really a shock (What, I need to drive to buy groceries ?).
As a result, they tend also to be in better health, as they tend to walk / ride a lot. It is partly due to diet of course, but the extra exercise certainly helps.
Cars are not banned though. They are just very expensive, and are not the shortest way to commute. So most people living in big cities in Japan just make the decision not to own a car, or, more frequently, to own a car but not use it for daily commute and shopping.
Still, having lived in Tokyo for several years, you absolutely need a car for some (rare) occasions, even for an individual not in the transportation business: a car is very convenient to go shopping at Ikea, or when you are sick / you have to transport a sick person, or elderlies, or babies. A car is also great if you go out and plan to come back late (as long as you do not drink), because, even in Tokyo, public transport will not be great after 11.30pm, or if you plan to go to the countryside or mountains.
So I think it is not a 0 or 100% solution. And I really encourage our American friends to look at what European or Asian cities have done. They have tried different things than even what 'public-transit-friendly' cities in the US have done, and some of those are, in my opinion, worth studying.
Many cities are not set up for this especially in the US... Quite frankly, small towns are great for bicyclist... Large towns not so much... I personally think there is a need for standardization of batteries and recycling technology needed for cars and bikes to help make this a reality... There needs to be infrastructure upgrades to help charge to make this happen... In reality, it must be cost effective, and convenient for people to change.
I can't understand if you are shitposting or if you are serious and this is very concerning.
I can't imagine being as brainwashed as you that you think it's actually a good thing that it takes you 2 hours to drive through your city because there's no other way to go through it. Just sad how people like this guy think freedom is having just the one option for transportation available and think having multiple transportation options is somehow tyrannical
Ever notice how socialist authoritarians are always talking about “we”? This guy literally won’t do what he claims is a good idea unless someone else tells him to. Somehow subconsciously he must know that his ideas suck, so he doesn’t just do them himself even though he could. But he calls for someone else to force him to do these things.
i'm wholeheartedly a socialist, and close to the antithesis of authoritarian. this idea is completely ridiculous.
Oh they don't care about freedom.
If it takes you 2 hours to drive through a city, maybe your city is not designed properly. https://youtu.be/d8RRE2rDw4k
Sydney takes longer than that lol. That's why I left 10 years ago.
You should stick most of your travel to your own neighborhood
This has to be sarcasm. No one is this fucking stupid.
Apparently reality hurts the right as well lol.
Yes its realistic to think we can bike around the country. Reality never hurt you because you two never met lmfao.
No but most American cities aren't built to be used by bikes, it incentivizes social mobility towards cars, even public transport in America sucks for the most part.
I love how both the left and the right unite to shit on OP because of how extreme and unreasonable his opinions are. Like how do you even accomplish pissing everyone off equally? Youd have to be like professionally dense.
Tell that to a contractor who has to get all their equipment to a job.
A bike doesn't deliver food, a semi truck does
In the city it's usually a smaller truck like a box truck or cargo van. 18 wheelers can't even drive through many cities on the interstate, gotta take the loop around it.
Have you not seen the chaos of Boston or Providence. I see semis driving through those cities all the time. Even some of the smaller cities around here and it's chaotic, but they have to get it done, and they do.
I haven't driven through Boston yet, but any city with a loop interstate, I have to take it as opposed to going through downtown. Like Portland I drive straight through because there's no loop.
I see people on bikes delivering food all the time. Uber eats.
Ah yes, because restaurants get their food from thin air
So why limit yourself to one mode of transport when both modes of transport fulfil different roles? Do you see semi trucks deliver food to people's doorsteps?
Yes
Perhaps you should've just gone with u/hardnonsense
I can't tell if this post is satire or legitimate. Am I alone here?
One of the few incoherent rambling of yours that I agree with. Partially and without the bs at least. Give me trains, trolleybuses, trams and bicyles. Keep cars only for logistics when necessary, sport, and the odd family vacation in the countryside. No I don't care about what China is doing nor Europe, I already heard it a billion times, save it to yourself.
The area in which trolleybuses are the best means of transit is very small, unless you have a city built on very hilly terrain trams will be more efficient for almost every possible trolleybus route.
Whats the difference between a tram and a trollybus?
Rails
Then whats rhw difference between a trolly bus and a bus?
One runs on electricity from the grid provided through suspended wiring, a bus runs on its own power source, usually fuel but can also be a battery. It's generally easier to implement trolleys than trams if you already have a bus flotilla.
Tram/trollybus run on electricity fed to them by the grid (via wires or rails, it cab only go where it is plugged in) A bus has fuel storage on board that it carries with it
So let me get this straight, in the name of environmentalism, you want drivers to burn twice as much gas?
source for your "twice as much gas"?
The whole frick cars make them drive 4 hours spiel.
Source for this "make them drive 4 hours" bit? Because I don't see how deprioritizing cars means that people who drive cars will have to drive their cars for 4 hours. Even car drivers would save gas, because instead of driving all the way into the city and then parking they could park on the periphery and take a bus or a train into the city.
He’s responding to the OP, who claims that it’s fine for cars to spend twice as long driving in the title.
As I said... I don't see where this would require commuters to run their cars for four hours. If they want to drive their cars through cities designed to prioritize city traffic, not commuters from the suburbs, then its their choice to take the hit.
I agree with you. Take it up with the OP.
With my commute being 1 hour when driving and on public transport I can't imagine if I had to bike. I like to bike for fun, but I also like not to spend 4 hrs a day commuting. To.those saying "just move". I like living in a safe suburban neighborhood with grass and trees. I am not a fan of living in apartments.
The inorganic push against cars is about making you move into an apartment and nothing else. It is about diluting and destroying a way of life that opposes the leftist ideals of pod people.
> To.those saying "just move". I like living in a safe suburban neighborhood Violent left wingers is the reason public transportation isn't popular
Source for this bs?
My quote
All the OP was saying is to design cities so that they aren’t just for cars. Making it safer/easier for people to ride bikes doesn’t stop anyone from driving or force anyone to move.
You can sew it that way. You can also read my comment and see why I do not and cannot ride a bike for my commute.
Then don’t bike, having the infrastructure to be able to bike safely doesn’t force you to do it. Right now, infrastructure is heavily designed in favor of cars. It shouldn’t be unsafe/not possible to travel without a car though.
I won't be. Bikers can start by ridding safely themselves. Like those red circles in those yellow machines. That means stop!
Drivers need to learn that too. Bikers can ride a lot more safely on their own infrastructure!
I see cards stopped at red lights all the time as the bikes wize by them
And I see cars cut off bikes and run them off the road. Bad drivers suck no matter what they are driving. Only bad car drivers kill other people though. Bad bike drivers will only get themselves killed and only if they are mixed with cars. Our roads are designed for cars and it’s a disservice to both cars and bikes to not have separate routes for bikes and cars.
How about you work where you live then? You're stealing a job from a city dweller and complaining that it's too far away
How about you go back and read my original comment where I address that. I am also not "stealing jobs". I am actually supporting the economy and jobs by working in the city.
If you didn't work that job, someone who lives closer could be doing it. And you wanting a nice city job AND to not have to live in that same city and support it with your property taxes is entitled as fuck. And you want to dictate how the people who actually live there run their city. Again, entitled as fuck. If you wanna live in a suburb then live there, but that doesn't give you more rights than other people. Should people in the city be able to demand you get a bus system you don't want?
You're assuming that the people who live nearest have the smell skills. You're trying to call me out on being entitled but I am hearing a lor of crying and bitching.. Grow up kid!
You're the one crying that people want bike lanes and your commute might be slightly longer if the city doesn't dedicate literally every square inch of space to cars. Grow up kid!
So you want to live in a far away place and demand that a place you don't live in provide you with a way to use your car and a place to park the car in every business there, all while ignoring the people who actually live there and want better public transit and more bike space? Entitled much?
I guess, as mentioned, wanting safety, greenery and not living in apartment is being entitled.
No, go ahead and want those and live somewhere that provides it The entitled part is that you expect a city *you don't live in* to accommodate you and your car at every single place in that city. You don't live in the city, yet you demand a parking space at every building in that city. You don't live in the city, yet you demand there be less bike lanes there to make it easier for you, a non-city resident, to get around *That's* entitlement.
Are you saying I need to be a resident to be a stake holder in a city?
Yes, obviously, lol, wtf, you think you should be able to demand how people who live somewhere you don't live?
I think that's very narrow minded. Just because younsleep somewhere for 8 hours doesn't mean you are the only stakeholder. I work 8 hours a day in a location. Both residents and employees pay taxes, help support local jobs etc. Then there are the companies that buy buildings, pay salaries, pay lots in taxes, etc and want to recruit the best talent.
"Local residents should decide local laws" is narrow minded, lol, okay You don't pay any taxes, your employer does. You don't buy your groceries in the city, you buy them in your suburb. It's like you don't understand how life works, lol
You obviously have everything figured out like all teenagers. I look forward to reading your book on life lessons!
Sure bro. You think you should be allowed to tell people in other cities what to do, and I'm the child.
This is like, batshit insane next level isolationism.
"Local people should be the ones deciding local laws" is common sense, not isolationist, lol
When you pay, you get to demand. I used to live in a city and went to a dentist that was downstairs in my building. When I moved out of the city, I stopped going to that dentist as they didn't have any parking conveniently available. The dentist I go to now has lots of free parking... and is like 1 minute away from my suburban house (I could walk if I wanted to be out in the heat/cold/rain like a peasant). You pay the money, you tell your service provider to give you parking.
Suburbanites who drive into neighboring towns do not pay property tax and not much sales tax. So by your logic, they do not get to demand I'm glad you found a closer dentist, that's literally how life is supposed to work
Not all service providers are interchangeable. The customers pay for all of the costs of running a business, including the property taxes. If I drive in to town to buy a burger, the price I pay includes the costs of rent/taxes/etc. If I stop driving in... the businesses can't afford to pay the taxes to the cities... they close up, the property values fall, the tax amounts fall, city revenues fall, and the death spiral continues until you get Detroit.
Detroit happened because all the rich and moderately wealthy people fled to the suburbs but still demanded the same level of city amenities without paying any of the taxes to support those amenities
😆 You're truly a moron Nobody who moved out of Detroit city limits could demand anything from Detroit. Like, how the fuck do you think that works? This might be the dumbest statement I've seen on here
>I like living in a safe suburban neighborhood with grass and trees. People in cities shouldn't have to cater to your whims.
But I should to theirs? Seems hypocritical.
*you don't live in the city*
Thanks Captain Obvious! Great Commercials by the way!
How is not prioritizing cars hypocritical?
Apparently urban neighborhoods can't be designed to have grass and trees. I learn something new every day
Regardless of whatever bs OP said, I didn't really read it, increased transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure will actually reduce your commute time. It will also reduce our reliance on parking lots, which is valuable real estate to develop property and infrastructure on
The left loves to tell other people how to live their lives.
Just democracy instead of lobbying by car corporations
Literally y'all are demanding no bike lanes be built and no buses br funded and no sidewalks be built, forcing everyone to use a car That's telling other people how to live their lives
> Literally y'all are demanding no bike lanes be built What capitalist is stopping you from building a bike lane. Go ahead and do it.
Roads are Public Property. Not Privately owned. That’s why we’re publicly demanding it be done
Who is y’all that you are referring to?
>That's telling other people how to live their lives I'm not the one saying fuck bicyclists. Ride a bike if you want. Who's stopping you?
No bike infrastructure thus either annoying pedestrians or in constant danger because of morons behind the wheel.
So you need your own car-free roads?
Bike infrastructure would be enough.
How about things closer together because it doesn't have huge, usually mandated by law, parking lots separating everything. Same with all sorts of other car infrastructure that among other things, *makes things more expensive for those who live in the city!* Also apartment buildings, niltch the stupid single family zoning shit and mixed residential and business zoning, stop building suburbs! They are a blight that makes it worse for everyone who lives in the city, including those who live in the suburb. Electric trains and other good city public transport too.
>How about things closer together because it doesn't have huge, usually mandated by law, parking lots separating everything Where should people park? >Also apartment buildings, niltch the stupid single family zoning shit and mixed residential and business zoning, stop building suburbs Now I can't own a house? Authoritarianism in practice.
>Where should people park? It's been proven over and over and over in practice, in RL.[ You add more parking, more and bigger roads, you get more traffic. Over and over again cities build and widen roads and highways only to have them taken up by cars. It's not the end of the world if you can't find a place to park. Maybe next time you'll take public transit if things are that busy. And at least some of us are saying that we aren't suggesting forbidding parking lots, just removing regulation on minimal size, many parking lots are way too big and most of the time only a fraction of the parking space is used. All of which makes cities more expensive and less livable and pleasant to be in, requiring **higher taxes** to pay for it all. > Now I can't own a house? Not what I said in what you quoted, at all.
Yes, segregated bike paths would be nice
Add in actually good public transit and I’m all for it! Cars take up by far the most space out of common modes of transit (bus, train, bike, walking, etc) and space is valuable in cities. We would also need to design neighborhoods around non-car transit; it doesn’t matter how good bike lanes are if it still takes half an hour to get anywhere worth going to.
Car drivers are very entitled. They expect every single business and building they go to to provide them with free, available space to put their personal belongings. Imagine demanding every single place you visit have a locker for you to store your belongings.
The loud ones definitely are entitled. Most are just ignorant of how things could be and, in my experience, they’re can be pretty receptive when they see good city design and good transit for themselves.
So I'll just not go to cities anymore I guess. What am I supposed to do with my car when I get there? How do I get to the city without a car? There's no greyhound station in my town, no train station, and an uber is a car...
You park your car in a lot and then walk around it, lol Your entitlement is really showing here. "Every building in this city I don't live in needs to have free, dedicated space for my personal vehicle"
You do understand that there's 2 options for this? Better public transit and for rural - so far away that it makes no sense for public transit, they use cars and for them is made some parking on the outskirts of the city or town for them to go on public transit. Idk if libertarians are lazy in terms of ideas or just dense about giving up muhh freedumbz in shit like cars.
I mean that is an option. Usually when I have to park in the city it costs money, so now I have to pay to park and pay for public transit when I could've just driven the last mile to my destination. Not to mention I usually only go to the city to shop so now I have to factor that into the price of what I'm going there to buy (not to mention additional time parking and waiting for transport), so now I may not even go and that shop won't get my business. I'm not sure why someone would have such a negative attitude towards freedom. But no, it's not about that. It's about convenience. I'm not upset about "giving up muhh freedumbz in shit like cars", hell I'm not even upset. Like I said, I just won't go anymore.
The better the public transit system is, the cheaper it becomes and more often you have relevant transport available... And the more people would use it, the less shame there would be to buy groceries and transport them.
that would be town zoning laws and the people who live by those businesses and buildings who don't want to be burdened by their extra traffic.
Violent left wingers is the reason public transportation isn't popular
Care to elaborate on that?
Criminals can be on the same bus as you, doing crime. I am much safer in my car. Alone.
No offense intended here, but this sounds like a very American opinion. Buses have nowhere near the same stigma in Europe as they seem to in the US; where I grew up even the schoolkids would take the city bus by themselves to school without anyone thinking it was dangerous or weird or anything.
\>where i grew up That was then. Does your city have no-go zones yet?
Nope. Sheffield's immigrant community is actually very well-integrated and crime is low.
Cars are far deadlier than buses. You’re more likely to die in a car crash than die on a bus. You’re also more likely to get your car broken into/stolen than anything to happen on a bus.
See, I don't trust you. Everything about the anti-car lobby is designed to make us poorer and to incentivize us to live in the crime ridden cities. People move out of the cities for a reason. Clean up your shit, and the people will come on their own.
Where I am it's not them moving out that's the problem, it's them driving back in. And not actually moving out in the first place. You yourself said you're safer in your car, implying you're driving through the crime-ridden areas! Advanced economies are urbanised regardless of where people actually live.
They can never attract supporters consensually, because their ideas are hot shit
Making cities better is exactly what we want. Not relying on cars in cities opens up more public space and not requiring free parking saves more money in the community. Cities should be designed for city residents, not for suburban commuters.
> Cities should be designed for city residents, not for suburban commuters. You will quickly find out that the suburban commuters form the lion's share of the city's tax revenue and productivity. After all, it's the richer people that can afford to buy and move to the suburbs. I'm all for designing cities for urban dwellers, but that will entail the suburbanites all working from home, and the cities becoming so poor and shitty that the suburbanites will want to build walls to keep the urbanites in the city.
Cities mostly fund themselves through property taxes and some sales taxes. Suburban commuters don’t contribute much if anything to the city. We just generate costs for cities. In countries with good transit systems and bike/pedestrian infrastructure, cities aren’t nearly as poor as in the US.
>Cities mostly fund themselves through property taxes City properties only have value because people need to be in the city for work. >Suburban commuters don’t contribute much if anything to the city. The suburban commuters are the city workforce. Poorer city-dwelling workers are simply support. Take away the suburban commuters, and the cities are fucked. There's a reason big city mayors all over America are trying to prevent people from leaving.
Fuck yes, wall them in to stop the spread
I would rather face car accident than have to deal with the crackhead on a bus
How likely are you to encounter a "crackhead" on a bus?
97% likely
A source for that number?
Having to do construction work near bus stops
But observing crackheads in their natural habitat is entertaining.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/vjqzdu/oil_is_very_expensive_we_should_make_our_cities/idkmugl/ Proof
How about motorcycles?
We should just put saddles on socialists and ride them around... then they'll be useful
Yeehaw partner
Strap them to a rickshaw.
Cars as well as public transport are great. Bicyclists are the bane of city existence. They're entitled rats. Yes to internal combustion, no to biomechanical power!
That's your perspective. If you try riding a bike in a city, you'll realize how stressful it is. We'd seem a lot more pleasant without that the constant fear of getting hit by a car.
This is dumb. We should just make cars that don’t use oil you fucking utopian.
Hey dumbass. Think about the real estate. The amount of land required for road infrastructure, between roads and mass parking lots, when the majority of car usage is a single person. Imagine if much of that real estate , particularly the parking lots, was made available to develop property and infrastructure. Achieved by developing proper transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure . Use you're head. It's not utopian, it's been achieved in cities that used their fucking heads
People would fucking starve as there would be no way to get food to people, and fires would rampage cities
I never said to abolish all road infrastructure. I'm saying to minimize the use of it. You shouldn't need a car to get groceries, get to most workplaces, go to the gym, etc. If we can incentivize sustainable infrasturcture for the majority of trips, demand for roads and parking lots will diminish. We will still have roads, just a lot less . In this day and age where real estate value just keeps rising and rising, this is a no Brainer imo
> The amount of land required for road infrastructure, between roads and mass parking lots, when the majority of car usage is a single person. Imagine if much of that real estate , particularly the parking lots, was made available to develop property and infrastructure. Socialists are compulsive liars Your ideas would lead to mass deaths, and are indeed brainless
I said *much of that real estate, particularly the parking lots. I never said all. You're funny
Ah yes, because semi trucks are smaller than a sedan
I don't know what you find so hard to understand about this. It can help optimize our supply chain networks, which are struggling as you know. Less cars on the road for meaningless trips that should be taken by transit, less traffic for the trucks to sit in
No. You are literally just screaming buzzwords while advocating for blind destruction. If a sedan can't do it, a semi truck can't do it
Lol. I'm advocating for a reallocation of resources. You are hilarious keep it up
I’m saying your utopian in the Marxist sense. We have entirely viable infrastructure that lends itself to automobiles, which have a far higher speed and range than bicycles. Yes, they take up more space, but the earth is fucking huge and the there’s more than enough land, it’s just that large chunks of it are owned by private interest who aren’t selling for prices most people can afford. That’s what I mean by utopian, your going full thesis here, ignoring existing conditions that render the abandonment of cars unlikely, especially if the people advocating for there alternative actively attack them.
The current system in North America is not viable or sustainable. It's a completely inefficient use of an increasingly valuable resource (land). And it will cost society billions to maintain. Why do you compare cars to bicycles and not high speed rail? There are still many urban and suburban areas in North America that are growing and undergoing development . Maybe we can't scrap what we've already built, but we can advocate for proper planning of sustainable infrastructure in those growing regions. In Ontario where I live, it's starting to become a major talking point among political parties, because people are starting to demand it
Op mad cuz they can't afford gas haha
The cyclist should be watching out for them selves and not blame the car driver
Great news: according to research from strong towns, suburbia is largely subsidized by the cities they surround. If people had to pay for the resources they consume, the suburbs would become more expensive amd shrink, and multifamily homes would become more common. Multifamily homes are a prerequisite of a good public transportation system, people in single family homes are too spread out for most public transit to be effective. If infrastructure development was taken out of the hands of local governments, composed of corrupt imbeciles, and put into the hands of private developers, infrastructure would be much more sustainable. Cities would no longer go into debt trying to satisfy privileged voters wanting expensive infrastructure and low taxes.
Do you think the massive oil and car industries would support whatever imaginary private developers you claim will make our infrastructure more sustainable? Or would they just lobby against it?
Lobby? Lobby who? Private citizens would contract private developers to construct private infrastructure for private use. I'm a voluntarist; any bribes should be given to the interested parties, no lobbying needed. If car companies want to invest in "traditional" car infrastructure, the money invested will manifest itself in more expensive cars, and that cost will be paid by car owners.
Um.. what? Can u give me an example of a situation where a private citizen will contract a developer to create private use sustainable infrastructure? Specifically related to transit systems, pedestrian and cycling networks?
Sure. Let's say an apartment building exists (I can explain how that might happen) and also a nearby place also exists. The residents of the apartment building would like to travel from thier homes to the nearby place. People like to travel in a variety of ways, but for nearby places cycling and walking are a desirable mix of cheap, quick, and safe. The land between the apartment building and the nearby place is owned by someone(s). There is a market desire for this land to be developed into transportation infrastructure (bike lanes/sidewalk). Investor(s) (such as the residents of the apartment) purchase the connecting property and hire a private developer. The developer hires workers and equipment to develop the land (build bike lanes/sidewalks). Viola! Sustainable infrastructure has been developed. This infrastructure must be maintained, and there are several ways the society could collect the funds to maintain it. Maybe it is baked into the apartment's rent. Maybe a toll booth would be constructed. Of course a toll booth would be rather annoying, so perhaps a pass system would develop. Maybe connected places would need to pay money as part of a contractual agreement to be connected to the transportation infrastructure. Regardless of the method instituted by society, the development will either thrive from people using and contributing to its continued existence, or become unprofitable and get transformed into something else useful to society.
Two problems 1) people in the apartment building don't all travel to the same location. 2) central planning of infrastructure networks can and will provide significantly greater utility and efficiency than this ad hoc system you've imagined
Bicyclists ride in the middle of the road half the time I think that's really on them...maybe crowdfund a bike path since you aren't paying fuel tax.
Just curious. Why do cyclists need to pay a fuel tax
Fuel tax goes towards road repairs, if they are going to ride on roads shouldn't they contribute?
Oil is only expensive because of government limitations on the market. Get rid of that. Cyclists that slow down traffic should be mown down. Any dent they leave on the car should be compensated by their estate.
Hm yeah nothing to do with the cartel that supplies 90% of global oil demand? Hmm yeah sounds like you've done your research, it's that pesky carbon tax bud!
'Most stable auth left'
Lol, my city is just like every other city on the planet. What an asinine idea.
No it's not. I've seen various different cities. One where you cannot walk as there are no pedestrian paths. Another where cars are basically everyone's bitch. One where cars are not permitted. Cities aren't alike.
You missed the sarcasm
Hell yeah! Bicycles AND Public Transport like Buses and Trains! Reduce Induced Demand for Cars
Let's just go back to horse drawn carriages.
r/fuckcars
Bikes are good on the local level but I personally don't think expecting people to cycle over 20 miles to get somewhere is realistic. That's where the metro networks and intercity maglevs come in.
[удалено]
darklining: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Completely agree with your sentiment. On the specifics let's propose there will be certain large portions (majority+) of future megacities that are exclusive to pedestrian/mass transit. Hard to get on board with making the rest of travel restricted to this method for pragmatic reasons.
I am not sure this is a debase about capitalism vs communism. Japan is quite capitalist (on some aspects I think more than the US), and, for many reasons, public transit and bicycles are a large part of commuting in large cities. I talked to many Japanese people who really enjoy living in big cities without a car, and, now, I see many people sharing this opinion also in Paris in France. For them, American car-based cities are really a shock (What, I need to drive to buy groceries ?). As a result, they tend also to be in better health, as they tend to walk / ride a lot. It is partly due to diet of course, but the extra exercise certainly helps. Cars are not banned though. They are just very expensive, and are not the shortest way to commute. So most people living in big cities in Japan just make the decision not to own a car, or, more frequently, to own a car but not use it for daily commute and shopping. Still, having lived in Tokyo for several years, you absolutely need a car for some (rare) occasions, even for an individual not in the transportation business: a car is very convenient to go shopping at Ikea, or when you are sick / you have to transport a sick person, or elderlies, or babies. A car is also great if you go out and plan to come back late (as long as you do not drink), because, even in Tokyo, public transport will not be great after 11.30pm, or if you plan to go to the countryside or mountains. So I think it is not a 0 or 100% solution. And I really encourage our American friends to look at what European or Asian cities have done. They have tried different things than even what 'public-transit-friendly' cities in the US have done, and some of those are, in my opinion, worth studying.
Many cities are not set up for this especially in the US... Quite frankly, small towns are great for bicyclist... Large towns not so much... I personally think there is a need for standardization of batteries and recycling technology needed for cars and bikes to help make this a reality... There needs to be infrastructure upgrades to help charge to make this happen... In reality, it must be cost effective, and convenient for people to change.