We now have legitimacy for the "Ban Cars" movement

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit) 12/21/2015 at 13:00 • Filed to: commuter culture

3

42

This might very well be the most controversial on-topic post in Oppo’s entire history. But before you bring out the pitchforks here me out below. Let’s look at what Gizmodo’s trying to say and why we don’t really need cars where they might not best be anyway.

“Two-ton piloted missiles”

Just prior to midnight, when yesterday transitioned to today (12/21/15), an unidentified woman described as being “in her 20s” with a child in the backseat !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! through Las Vegas’ insanely busy “Strip” resulting in dozens seriously injured and at least one death so far. Investigators are still trying to discover a malicious motive or medical/drug-induced impairment as of this writing. The Strip is perhaps one of the most famous pedestrian traffic-heavy conduits in the United States, along with other tourist, recreation and retail mega-destinations as California’s Venice Beach - where on August 3, 2013, a 37-year-old man !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! with similar deadly results. Two months ago an intoxicated 25-year-old woman drove her car !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . In 2009 a car was used in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! - unlike similar terrorist attacks we’re more accustomed to hearing about in the Middle East, there were no explosives onboard the car to turn it into a ground-borne kamikazie missile. The car itself was the weapon.

Cars by their very nature are deadly weapons. The average midsize to large car weighs in at above 4,000 lbs - over two tons. A car a mere 500 lbs less is considered almost exceptionally light now. A bantam-weight two-seat roadster still clocks in at over 3,000 lbs. This is to say nothing of what’s become the primary staple on roadways, the SUV, where even “subcompact” unibody FWD SUVs weigh in the same as their midsize or larger compact sedan counterparts.

Cars and pedestrians don’t mix. That shouldn’t have to be said. Areas with high pedestrian traffic present a logistical nightmare for both pedestrian and automotive traffic. In order to accommodate the other, both are compromised in efficiency. It turns into an ugly mess that makes it less attractive for either driver or pedestrian to want to visit the destination. This is even when taking generous sidewalks into consideration - pedestrians still need to cross intersections, and road-bridging “skyways” are expensive and often require a localized infrustructural revamp, so they’re rarely bothered with. Pedestrian traffic can swell to where it spills into roadways. And this says nothing about what is illustrated above, deliberate or medically/drug-induced acts of mass vehiclular homicide.

There are just certain areas where cars are obscenely inappropriate. They do not result in faster personal transporation, instead being bogged down by each other and by pedestrian or other forms of non-automotive traffic. They interfere with these other forms of traffic, further bogging down personal and mass transit. They present a danger in these situations, to the drivers and to others. It’s time to ban cars from these areas.

Cars should be banned from the Strip. Cars should be banned from Venice Beach. Instead the roadways should be completely converted to pedestrian traffic, with public transit options to facilitate people to get to these locations. Accommodations should be made for people to not just walk, but make walking an enjoyable experience and part of the recreation activity itself.

In my hometown of Denver there’s an example of how this could happen. 16th Street used to be like any of the other inspirationally-numbered streets in LoDo, or any other city, with sidewaks and flat asphault overcrowded with parking and frustrated shoppers, and quickly turning into a retail dead space. Around the time the Colorado Rockies Major League Baseball club moved in to their brand new home of Coors Field, a major revitalization and gentrification effort was put in to match in order to give baseball fans a reason to stay before and after the game. This included a plethora of upscale, high-end bars to have them keep (safely) drinking away from the overpriced beer-slingers of Coors Field itself, public transportation options to safely deliver them home, and blocks and blocks of retail, dining and entertainment space including a full-blown mall known as Denver Pavillions. The centerpiece of this plan was to completely close down 16th Street and turn it into a pedestrian-only conduit - !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . It’s now the crown jewel of Denver’s Lower Downtown, a gorgeous space surrounded by Denver’s best arcitectural accomplishments including the famous !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! (the tallest building in the entire Rocky Mountain region north of Texas and Arizona), !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and capped by !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! at the southern end of the street and the historic !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! at its nothern end, revitalized and updated in its original mission to become a public transportation, commuter rail and long-distance rail hub. The sidewalks have been broadened greatly, and the only powered vehicle traffic allowed aside from emergency access, motorized rickshaw taxis and maintenance considerations is a “green” powered bus line that can shuttle weary shoppers or overly enthusiastic and drunk baseball fans either to Union Station or the many outdoor RTD LightRail stations that the 16th Street Mall connects to. The bus line is completely free and does not require tickets or tokens - just hop on as soon as the doors open and hop off when you reach your stop. Even patrolling cops usually do so on foot or on bike, although patrol cruisers are allowed when necessary.

I’ve been through the 16th Street Mall myself many times - up to about two years ago or less, on a near-daily basis. It’s the only part of what I quite frankly consider to be a bland, soul-crushing and soot-strewn city (a city !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! when it was thought driving would supplant nearly all other forms of personal transit, including walking) to be worthy of a destination in its own right. To me, it does show that replacing swaths of city into pedestrian-friendly revenue-generating destinations is possible anywhere. The problem isn’t transporting yourself when you get there - your own two feet are adequete for that, and if not there are bus, rickshaw and mobility assistance services available. The problem is transporting yourself to there in the first place - despite the 16th Street Mall’s almost ridiculous abundance of commuter rail stops, these rail lines go to few destinations centered around actual urban or suburban living, and even then these housing districts are only capable of being home to a very fractional percentage of Denver’s population. Most commuter rail passengers’ desintations are “park-and-rides” so they can commute to their commute - !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . It’s an ugly reminder of Denver’s legacy of poor transit infrustructure and not an outright disregard but almost deliberate malice towards thought of public transportation when it seemed firebreathing V8s were the future of literally everything and the atmosphere too big to smog over and roads too big to overcrowd.

Banning cars doesn’t mean “banning cars”

Personal transportation isn’t just a necessity, it’s an outright basic right, even outlined as such by the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . I don’t agree with Alissa Walker’s statement that humanity will look upon this “100 year blip and shake their heads in shame” - that’s an outright ridiculous statement full of enough hubris to power a Tesla S P85D past a Challenger Hellcat. There will be some form of personal transport, in the form of a vehicle that is designed to carry one or a small number of associated passengers to singular destinations, whether that vehicle looks like our conventional conception of a car all the way up to, even more exciting, personal flying machines of some sort. Whether these machines will be piloted by their occupants or, more likely, by computers. Even if it takes the form of automated ride sharing, vehicular-based transportation will still resemble personal transportation for populations that especially live in the suburbs and rural areas. This means point-to-point on-demand transit from anywhere, to anywhere instead of sharing space with other commuters and the route being dependent on multiple shared destinations along a defined route. It may even mean individual car ownership remain a thing.

But what it also means is that a lot of the routes cars currently travel along within dense urban areas will simply no longer exist. Like Denver’s 16th Street Mall, they will be !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Cars will likely not even be banned, because they simply cannot go where they physically cannot go in the first place anyway.

This is not a paradigm shift in personal transportation, or where people are allowed to go, or whether or not people can own cars and an Orwellian redefinition of property ownership. It’s a paradigm shift of urban planning and urban engineering and where to lay roads down on a very densly congested and crowded map. In some cases it’s relatively simple - not outright simple per se, but in comparison to the benefits it reaps to its population and guiding consumers to destinations where they would wish to dispose of their money, and even hopefully make that very transit experience an act of recreation itself. Other areas may require a deep rethink of infrastructure - in ultra-sprawled out urban centers like Los Angeles, Denver, and parts of China, deliberately engineered to make the car king of all personal movement, it may involve tearing down everything and starting over.

China very clearly has a transit problem ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ). So does LA, San Francisco and California at large, with BART being the butt of jokes throughout the 80s and 90s. LA has become the Beijing-like poster child of the necessity of smog control in the U.S. It’s a major sticking point in both !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Electric cars aren’t totally green, but they do reduce air pollutant emissions significantly. Even coal-fueled power plants powering electric cars result in fewer air pollutants than internal combution engined-cars of the same number as those electric cars; that energy is still produced more efficiently through a consolidated source, and the technology to “scrub” the exhaust of coal plants has grown through leaps and bounds. That says nothing about replacing these coal plants with !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that are leaps and bounds more efficient on top of coal-fed turbines, have already been powering cities for at least half a century, and can be powered from a variety of more eco-friendly sources including waste gas and other material sourced from landfills, farms and sewage treatment plants; or of solar power and other “guilt-free” power generation technologies. None of that will solve the underlying, bigger problem - it just means commuters will actually have clean air to breathe in as they’re still stuck in their cars on the I-405 parking lot.

To solve this issue, we can’t rethink the car, we need to rethink the city those cars drive in. This means !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Building high-density, livable highrises consolidates land - that alone relieves major sections of transportation infrustructure. More importantly, these buildings can be planned and laid out intelligently to facilitate short commutes from life-to-work and back so that the average urban dweller needs only to spend 20 minutes or less one-way walking , within the comfort of fully enclosed skyways that bridge one highrise to the other, along a network of such routes that connect an urban hub with itself mirroring the street pattern below. To ensure that urban dwellers actually are able to live near where they work, cities should consider ways to incentivize companies to headquarter within these highrises as well and either prioritize hiring from the local work pool or provide assistance for employees to co-relocate.

Open balconies and promenades can provide “hanging gardens” and other beautification opportunities to bring more of the open suburban experience to these dense urban centers. I’m sure the Biblical references aren’t going to be lost on readers, but people should also be reminded that God has yet to strike down !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Parks and open spaces can also be placed directly on top of highrises.

And now for the unfortunate implications

Like it or not, cars and personal ownership may simply become unavoidably obsolete. Given how irresponsibly we’ve proven ourselves to be in guiding two-ton missiles verses the precision of a computer mind, self-driving cars may one day become highly restricted or even outright criminalized - in effect, grouping self-driving, personalized cars in the same category as deadly firearms. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , back when GM was still hot under fire with their badly engineered ignition systems.

I’m not going to debate the merits or responsibility of either car or gun ownership, but I will at least ask for your consideration the possibility of greater freedom the future may bring for personal car owners. If the government can be convinced of the hobby merits of personal car ownership, it means virtually unrestricted road use for those “hobbyists” (within conventional traffic laws, of course) along byways and interstates now largely emptied. Amateur race events such as track days will likely not become effected either.

Regardless, there will be ways for Jalops to express their hobbies, through organized racing events or other activites. Or, perhaps, time to shift focus and pick up a new hobby - like exercising, or activities that actually better oneself, rather than be merely an outword expression of oneself. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! did not do himself any favors by suggesting that gun hobbyists might best simply find a new hobby, but it may be an unavoidable future for car hobbyists too.

Sam > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:10

10

I’m more a fan of “put the stupid plebs in self driving cars”. Then we don’t have to worry about them.

Wheelerguy > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:12

3

How about developing rail transport side by side with robo-cars? Trains and trams and buses for the masses, and auto-pods for richer folk.

Problem is that I am a boss-man in the Albanian mafia and still want a human chauffeur.

Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:14

2

Well written.

Gizmodo’s biggest problem, after Sploid, is their overconfidence in autonomous cars.

Sneaky Pete > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:14

8

This will work just as well as gun-free zones.

Punishing all for the actions of a few is idiotic.

CalzoneGolem > Wheelerguy 12/21/2015 at 13:15

2

For your Bentley?

Party-vi > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:16

6

“Like it or not, cars and personal ownership may simply become unavoidably obsolete.”

LOL.

“I’m not going to debate the merits or responsibility of either car or gun ownership”

You cannot compare the merits of owning a personal vehicle to gun ownership until you can use your gun to commute to work or your car to practice target shooting.

A pogo-stick, obviously. > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:18

1

TL;DR

You can have my guns before I give up my cars.

[/maybesarcasmmaybenot]

Richtofen, Baron von Pickup > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:20

6

Suddenly we have legitimacy on this topic because people are misusing a common object?

I don’t know what’s being passed around, but I refuse to smoke it.

Life is dangerous. We’re born headed for the grave. Live smart and stay alert; safety is never guaranteed, nor should it be.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:20

2

I agree with you that cars are inappropriate in some places, however simply banning them isn’t possible, at all.

1st: The main issue is that the alternative always provided is that a majority of people will take public transportation. To get to the point where our public transportation system could handle that many people would take at minimum many years and probably billions of dollars. All the while removing a massive source of funding.

2nd: I, and many others, value personal ownership. When I want to go to the store I value the convience of getting in a car and going. Not having to wait, and not having to go with a stranger.

3rd: Public Transportation sucks, I take every day when I’m at school. It’s dirty, crowded, and during peak times I only get a seat if I push enough people out of the way. If I could afford to drive every day I would.

And all this before getting into the debate of comparing them guns and all that.

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:20

2

Denver’s 16th Street is awesome (although I’ve almost been run over by a bus more times than I care to count). (And if you think it’s ugly, come to Philadelphia)

But banning cars from the Las Vegas strip...yeah, no. One casino may be a mile wide; it takes a long time to simply walk around there. Plus the side streets are woefully inadequate for the amount of traffic if LV Blvd is closed.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready 12/21/2015 at 13:23

3

Seriously though. I would be shocked if mass produced autonomous cars were common place prior to 2050.

Wheelerguy > CalzoneGolem 12/21/2015 at 13:28

0

Eh, I’ve never been sold on cars from Crewe.

Gaydon’s better, but if Chrysler makes a 300 SRT Hellcat, I’ll take it. With DU armor and a pair of concealable, belt-fed grenade launchers.

Fleetwood T. Brougham > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:30

2

16th street mall is not an example of anything good. It’s a magnet for aggressive panhandlers and a mecca for chain food restaurant lovers everywhere. On top of that, it’s one of the most dangerous “pedestrian only” areas I’ve ever experienced. Monster buses zipping through the middle of it at almost 40 mph, inches from walkers on the sidewalk, without ever slowing down for those crossing the street? No thanks—-there’s little that’s “pedestrian friendly” about it.

Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 12/21/2015 at 13:33

0

They will be reasonably common in North America by 2050, though that won’t happen until much closer to then than now.

BigBlock440 > Party-vi 12/21/2015 at 13:40

2

You can’t use your car t practice target shooting? Well, shit.

Berang > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 13:43

0

Yeah, I’ll just sneak a car in under my coat...

CalzoneGolem > Wheelerguy 12/21/2015 at 13:43

0

I prefer gas to grenades. Less chance of making your escape route filled with rubble.

Party-vi > BigBlock440 12/21/2015 at 13:44

4

Listen here you little shit.

Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 12/21/2015 at 13:44

1

Regarding your 1st and 3rd points: It’s definitely true that massive investment and increase in public transit would be needed, no one is disputing that. However, that’s not as impractical as it might seem.

Public Transportation only sucks in most of North America, and it doesn’t need to. Western Europe and Japan are full of very good systems which the US could learn from.

JGrabowMSt > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:45

7

Cars by their very nature are deadly weapons.

You lost my attention, and some respect with this one. I’ve walked away from T-boning a full sized pickup truck. I’ve been through more than one deer strike.

Cars do not have nature. Cars are not animals. Cars are machines. Cars are extensions of ourselves. Cars do what we tell them to do.

The gun argument is not related in some “guilt by association” sort of twist. The arguments are the same. Guns require input. Vehicles require input. They cannot act on their own in any way shape or form.

A weapon is something that “is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.” A car can be a weapon when the given input is for that, but “by nature?” No. Not even a little bit.

Knives, guns and other “weapons” were not designed for any reason other than to aid and assist in the “hunting and gathering” and putting food on the table, so to speak.

People who need help should not feel alienated or discouraged for doing so. This weapon argument needs to stop. Sure, register guns, but trust me, it’s not going to change things. The people who buy guns illegally aren’t going to change their minds because of this...

Berang > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 13:47

1

TBH, cars don’t really belong in SOME parts of cities. I know this seems wacky to people who think not being allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere, whenever they like is total bullshit because their “rights” precede any practical considerations - but there are parts of cities where it’s obvious cars are just a problem and not a convenience.

In the busiest parts of cities for instance it may be better to keep cars off the street, put in a people mover or streetcar, and leave the rest to pedestrians. You put the space to more efficient use that way.

DoYouEvenShift > Party-vi 12/21/2015 at 13:48

4

One day...sigh...

Sneaky Pete > Berang 12/21/2015 at 13:49

0

About as easy as sneaking an assault rifle, body armor, and pipe bombs under a coat.

Berang > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 13:53

0

Well maybe if you’re trying to sneak 3,500 lbs of rifles, body armor, and pipe bombs.

Sneaky Pete > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 13:54

0

Wanted to edit but it’s been too long and kinja won’t allow me to, so here’s case in point that not allowing vehicle traffic works as well as gun free zones-

https:// en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Farmers_Market_crash

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready 12/21/2015 at 13:57

1

Yeah, but how are you going to pitch it people. We cant get the average person to say yes to adequately fund something like education, how can we convince them to fund public transportation.

One of the best examples I can speak of personally is the M-1 rail going up in Detroit right now. The original idea of the rail was to stretch end to end on Woodward avenue. However Oakland County, the one on the wealthy side of 8 mile, said to both assisting in funding it, but also to allowing it to be built at all. The general consensus was that people were concerned that all it would do would bring people into the Suburbs that would only want to commit crime. All I’m saying is that its going to be a tough sell to those that actually go out and vote.

To your other point, I dont have much hope in large scale improvement to thing like cleanliness on public transportation, but thats just my negativity speaking.

Sneaky Pete > Berang 12/21/2015 at 14:05

0

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not stupid and you’re making emotional responses.

I believe we both want gun reform, but I don’t want some idiotic, knee-jerk piece of legislation pushed through that won’t prevent these things from happening again.

RallyWrench > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 14:10

2

I’m ok with the idea of less or no cars in urban centers, actually. It’s the self-righteous tone almost invariably taken by the people who write such articles that is upsetting.

Berang > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 14:12

0

The only one making an appeal to emotion here is you.

“ Car free zones will never work because senior citizens will still have accidents!!! ”

“ Boats will never work because the Titanic sank!!!! ”

And so on.

You’ve also loaded the statement by implying car free zones are “punishment” for drivers, which is frankly stupid.

Sneaky Pete > Berang 12/21/2015 at 14:15

0

Thanks for the fabricated quotes and jumping to false conclusions.

Off you go.

Berang > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 14:23

0

LOL Thanks for the red herring then. ~(~)

“...here’s case in point that not allowing vehicle traffic works as well as gun free zones-” *links to article about freak accident to prove ridiculous claim*

Tekamul > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 14:37

3

You’re going about this all wrong.

It’s far less expensive and more practical to ban pedestrians . Elevate the walkways in dense urban areas, it requires far less engineering feats than improving public transit under and around an existing city. Allow only drop off points and plentifal public elevators to get peope away from streets made for cars. Imagine how smooth traffic flow could be with no sidewalks, no crosswalks, no bicycles. Nirvana.

I’ve never understood why someone would walk along a giant slab of pavement if they had another option.

Berang > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 14:48

1

I’ll have to comment on Denver’s public transport situation: It is actually really good compared to most U.S. cities.

People have a hard time understanding that light rail is not intended to serve the purpose of buses. It doesn’t really exist to take people to their destination. Instead it allows a large number of people to be moved quickly, over a long distance, over a private right of way. Then you get on a bus and continue to whatever more specific stop suits you.

Before light rail, I had a friend who used the buses. They had to transfer fours time to get home. After light rail they only had to transfer twice, and it took about half as much time to boot. As long as you’re going generally, where most other people are going, light rail is very practical and efficient. And the before and after in Denver was plain as day to anybody who relied on the buses.

Sneaky Pete > Berang 12/21/2015 at 14:55

0

There are plenty of car into crowd instances other than the Vegas Strip or Farmer’s Market.

I’m not going to waste any more of my time with presenting facts as you seem quite committed to your ignorance. Good luck in life!

Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 14:57

1

You know, I could almost see some instances where this might make sense. The problem is, most infrastructure sucks. And getting the public to pay for this infrastructure is highly unlikely. So, we’ll still bitch about the lousy infrastructure instead of paying to fix it.

Also, this idea really doesn’t work in the majority of the US. In certain heavy metropolitan areas I can see it, but those are few and far between. Part of the reason we drive so much in this country is that we really have no choice if we want to get anywhere. Public transportation is woefully inadequate.

While I agree that pedestrian only areas can make sense, I think to NYC. While there's congestion, cars and people seem to co-exist there. And if they can co-exist there, they can pretty much co-exist anywhere. Take the idiot from behind the wheel, not the car away.

Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 12/21/2015 at 15:03

1

As usual, it’s going to be—and is—the upperclass/upper-middle class, white, usually suburban, usually conservative American who keep improvements from happening.

B Reynolds > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 15:06

1

Some good points for sure, some I don’t really agree with as well.

I truly believe humans are capable and responsible enough to use cars properly. Vehicular assault is a byproduct of mental illness, road rage, drugs, brainwashing (terrorists), crime and so on. These are all things our society needs to improve on, banning vehicles is not a solution. That lady in Vegas could have used any number of weapons or other “tools” to do what she did. I can see people wanting to draw parallels to the gun control discussion but if you really think about the 2 situations, they are simply not comparable. Cars were invented and manufactured to transport people and goods, guns were designed to kill people and animals, the intention of the 2 products differs so greatly, the conversation comparing the 2 is ridiculous.

There is no doubt urbanization is reducing the need for car ownership in large cities. However there are still countries, mine included (oh Canada) were only a handful of cities are like this. The GTA is so greatly different than the rest of Canada it’s unbelievable. I do see the limiting or banning of vehicle traffic in the heart of urban centers making a lot of sense as cities continue to grow.

Maybe someday we will see “recreational” roads where you can ride your motorcycle or operate that old classic car that still has a steering wheel. But that day is likley generations away.

Sustainable energy and EVs solve a huge environmental issue. Combine that with car free zones and big investments in public transportation to manage congestion and I think we will be in a very good place both environmentally and for urban quality of life.

Tekamul > Tekamul 12/21/2015 at 15:11

1

Back to say : Sorry about the typos, I’m not really that dumb, I promise.

gmctavish needs more space > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 15:30

1

Nicely done, I need to think about it for while to really form my opinion, but it’s interesting as a Canadian, where we really only have three or four cities with congestion problems, and such vast unpopulated areas that really necessitate personal vehicles for some people. I live in one of the very congested cities, and I think making the downtown a predominantly pedestrian area is a fantastic idea. I mean I drive everywhere, except downtown. I take the bus, and then walk around. If the population grows to the point that it’s unreasonable to drive where I live in a suburb, I’d be fine with it. I’m not attached to commuting in a car, I just love it as an object and an experience, plus I need it for highway drives going where transit is unacceptable. There are so many hopeful ideas for our future, I hope at least some of them are realized.

wiffleballtony > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/21/2015 at 17:12

1

I’ll make my two quick points. Just because a handful of nut jobs found a way to hurt a lot of people doesn’t mean that we all can’t be trusted. This isn’t kindergarten and safety scissors.

Banning cars even in pedestrian cities still doesn’t work, I would be willing to bet that most people running tourist shops or hotels still drive and park to work.

wiffleballtony > Party-vi 12/21/2015 at 17:14

0

A10 warthog, very definition of traveling on a gun. Also, there’s the other constitutional differences.

Berang > Sneaky Pete 12/21/2015 at 19:02

0

LMFAO.

You cherry pick facts like you’re getting paid to create propaganda.