[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 22 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 23452354234325.png (1.12 MB, 873x580)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB PNG
What would happen if seattle decided to just turn I5 into a giant canal+bikeways/trams/public transportation on the sides? Maybe build more buildings or some shit, and have more evergreens and vegetation. The highway is wide as fuck and makes the city look like shit. It also makes the entire southern end of seattle just a drive-by town
>>
File: 1669857173338.jpg (118 KB, 780x551)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
Yes, THAT is why Seattle looks like shit. An interstate.
>>
File: 1674385088317.jpg (177 KB, 678x381)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>1884280
>CAGE CAGE CAGE REEEEEEE
>>
File: 52452542455245.jpg (63 KB, 768x511)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>1884319
would you rather have one more underground train or one more building demolished for a shitty lane leglet
>>
>>1884320
Cars equal freedom, why are you anti freedom?
>>
>>1884321
Because your freedom is trampling on my freedom.
>>
>>1884364
Wrong. I pay for my freedom, you demand without contribution. It is socialists like you who trample on the freedom of the people.
>>
>>1884365
>I pay for my freedom
no you don't, taxes don't cover the majority of the actual costs of car infrastructure, as shown by toll roads still going for multiple decades longer than predicted because maintenance is so expensive.
>>
>>1884388
Remind me, what percentage of public transportation and cyclist infrastructure is covered by the tax payer.
>>
>>1884393
a decent amount of it, but it's a net gain for society and deals with transportation demand in a far more efficient manner (and leads to city design that isn't a slop of parking lots and huge roads)
>>
>>1884395
>a decent amount of it,
So it doesn't pay for itself either

>but it's a net gain for society
According to me
>far more efficient manner
In my opinion
>and leads to city design that isn't a slop of parking lots and huge roads
Source: me
>>
File: file.png (2.29 MB, 1200x1200)
2.29 MB
2.29 MB PNG
>>1884396
>In my opinion
you can do this in your head with no graphs or studies anon, it's not hard. a car transports, on average 1.5 persons per vehicle, with a max of like 5 for the average car. in the space of 4-8 cars you can have a train that moves easily over 300 people, potentially at higher speeds as well, on it's own dedicated infrastructure with little traffic.
>According to me
and according to most studies on that matter with economic development following high quality transit infrastructure
>Source: me
source: pic related
>>
>>1884395
So it's socialism as neither public transportation users nor cyclists contribute like car owners do, got it.
>>
>>1884398
great argument friend. back to walmart on your mobility scooter.
>>
>>1884397
And these 300 people now need to go to 300 distinct destinations across the city.
You see, public transportation is a pipe dream.

>>1884399
>MUTT MUTT MUTT
I'm European with healthy BMI, faggot.
>>
>>1884400
>I'm European with healthy BMI, faggot.
no you aren't. if you can't imagine walking from a metro station to somewhere in a city you are not european and are definitely obese.
>>
File: 1673467842945941.webm (1005 KB, 406x720)
1005 KB
1005 KB WEBM
>>1884401
Yes, I am. COPE more you obsessed retard.
Metro is overcrowded with niggers, doesn't go everywhere, I can't transport anything and I'm bound to timetables.
Public transportation is for the poor.
>>
>>1884404
>Metro is overcrowded with niggers, I can't transport anything and I'm bound to timetables, Public transportation is for the poor.
absolutely an american opinion, try again.
>>
>>1884405
COPE more faggot retard.
Only the poor and seething like (You) prefer public transportation over private car mobility.
>>
>>1884397
>you can do this in your head
Yeah, I can tell you've done that
>>
File: file.png (142 KB, 821x820)
142 KB
142 KB PNG
>>1884408
OK here you go
>>
>>1884411
Behold the power of the urbanist mind. Thinks a graph showing that larger vehicles carry more people is groundbreaking info
>>
>>1884413
you were the one who for some reason doubted that cars were the worst way to move people around.
>>
>>1884414
That image doesn't show what you think it shows. That's what happens when you do a google search and save an image from some guy's urban planning blog.
>>
>>1884415
OK then tell me with data how cars can possibly move around people as well as a rail or even a bus system, or biking or walking or taxis/ubers if you absolutely must be dropped off directly at your destination.
>>
>>1884416
Not my job to do your research for you
>>
>>1884413
How many trains for everyone to go everywhere within 5 minute walking distance?
How will people transport things from one end of town to another?
How will people move from or to destinations with low traffic?
Who will pay for all of this that isn't covered by any fee or tax and isn't profitable?
>>
>>1884418
>How many trains for everyone to go everywhere within 5 minute walking distance?
that isn't really what a train needs to do, but to do that in a huge city would require a lot of lines, certainly doable but not really the objective
>How will people transport things from one end of town to another?
bad argument based on a false idea that a defocus on car infrastructure means no vehicles of any kind besides trains or busses are allowed
>How will people move from or to destinations with low traffic?
if you mean rurally? they need cars, that's not an argument, though small cities should have interurban lines to population centres
>Who will pay for all of this that isn't covered by any fee or tax and isn't profitable?
unrealistic because car infra already relies on that and isn't profitable either.
>>
>>1884417
He already presented his data. Now it's your turn to refute it and provide your reasoning. Typical retard whose only response is
>nuh uh!
>>
>>1884433
No thanks.
>>
>>1884422
>require a lot of lines
That's the problem. No way you're within 5 minute walking distance with public transportation.
>bad argument
How so? People need to transport stuff. This is exceedingly difficult with public transportation.
A car will do much better, even a small one.
>they need cars
So no solution there?
>car infra already relies on that
Not as much as public transportation or cycling infrastructure since car owners pay multiple taxes and fees.
>>
Germans can't help it but habitually lose it seems.
>>
>>1884453
>That's the problem. No way you're within 5 minute walking distance with public transportation.
do you have any idea how much roads it requires to get people around anywhere in a city?
>How so? People need to transport stuff. This is exceedingly difficult with public transportation.
A car will do much better, even a small one.
ok, have a small car and pay for parking, rent a car, get stuff delivered if it's furniture or larger, this does not require everyone to own a car.
>Not as much as public transportation or cycling infrastructure since car owners pay multiple taxes and fees.
still subsidized, and it's subsidizing an inefficient lifestyle that fractures communities.
>>
>>1884469
>still subsidized
NTA but every form of transportation is subsidized

>and it's subsidizing an inefficient lifestyle that fractures communities.
That's a matter of opinion
>>
>>1884469
>how much roads
Roads are there, they are at every building because that's how people get around.
>rent a car
What if it's not available? Delivery is expensive, even a simple food delivery costs 6 yuros here. Imagine paying so much on delivery when you could just get a car and be free.
>still subsidized
Remind me again, how much of public transportation and cycling infrastructure is covered? Exactly. Car owners pay so car owners have the right.
>>
>>1884280
Anon stop being so dangerously based
>>
>>1884520
>What if it's not available? Delivery is expensive, even a simple food delivery costs 6 yuros here. Imagine paying so much on delivery when you could just get a car and be free.
if your city is dense you can just get take out, and it's much cheaper to get things delivered every once and a while than own a car.
>>
>>1884520
>Car owners pay so car owners have the right.
Proofs that car owners pay 100% of road expenditures.
Oh wait, there is none.
>>
>>1884542
Proofs that transit users pay 100% of transit expenditures.
Oh wait, there is none.
>>
>>1884543
You didn't answer my question, homosexual.
>>
>>1884545
You didn't answer my question, Raghav
>>
>>1884543
so? cars don't either. They're easily the most subsidized mode of transport
except transit has positive externalities associated with it, while private automobiles have a laundry list of negative externalities.
>>
>>1884531
>source: faggot ass
Yeah no.

>>1884542
Proof that public transportation and cyclists pay 100% of expenditures.
Oh wait, there's none.
>>
>>1884543
>>1884565
Samefag homosexual.
>>
>>1884320
>one more building demolished
Ah yes, like all those historic, pedestrian-oriented buildings were taken out for the Katy Freeway widening
>>
>>1884566
Meds.
>>
>>1884547
>They're easily the most subsidized mode of transport
Every form of transportation is subsidized

>except transit has positive externalities
Negative externalities as well. Nothing is without its drawbacks.

>while private automobiles have a laundry list of negative externalities
Opinion
>>
>>1884570
>Katy Freeway
People's homes, yes
>>
File: FjPrJUTWYB8rOTD.jpg (447 KB, 1310x2048)
447 KB
447 KB JPG
>>1884397
>>
>>1884565
my source is that the AAA states the average cost in a year for a car is $10,728. you can obviously get lower with a payed off car but it won't get lower than the cost of operating a bike and using transit and getting occasional deliveries for things too far away or renting a car to get to remote areas.
>>
>>1885063
>can't prove with definitive numbers
>>
>>1885087
there's no way of calculating how much you NEED to get delivered that is so big that it can't be carried on public transit or a bike.
>>
>>1885235
>I can't provide numbers that I pulled from my ass
Why is the /n/iggerbrain like this?
>>
>>1884280
Seattle is too dangerous and unpleasant for that.
>>
>>1884280
Problem with Seattle is that I-5 is used too much for intra-city travel. They don't have a decent surface street system, so everyone just says "Lets jump on I-5, drive two miles and exit."
It's an _Interstate_ folks. Not a local arterial. Seattle looked at some proposals to lid I-5 or constrict it. And all of them need a massive network of surface streets. Kiss your neighborhoods goodbye.
>>
>>1884321
>Cars equal freedom
Imagine having Stockholm syndrome that runs so deep you uniroincally believe American propaganda that cars = freedom. If anything, the car is the single most freedom eliminating object humans have brought upon itself and the media pushes American car propaganda because money. Humans back in the day were significantly more free when they weren't debt slaves to the car companies who are debt slaves to the government who is a debt slave to big oil. Local governments wouldn't have had to go in debt just to build the infrastructure for their socially isolating sprawl
>>1884365
The government is subsiding your freedom. If the government wasn't subsidizing the cost of oil as well as paying for the manufacture of the car, 99% of humans can't afford a car. That cost is taken from all of us. There's a reason the dollar keeps inflating, let me rephrase that better, there's a reason the dollar is not gaining value. The government is kind of forced to however because it shot itself in the foot by creating policies that continues to promote car and car infrastructure as well as actively sabotage its rail infrastructure with poor freight-passenger rail sharing policies.

Nothing about the modern car is freedom. You can't even offroad a modern car without proper modifications, how is it real freedom if you're stuck on designated roadways? The car cages the body like it does the mind.
>>
>>1886396
>The government is subsiding your freedom.
Wait until you hear about passenger trains, airlines, ports, and mass transit
>>
>>1886398
Those forms of transport are alright because the cost/burden of maintenance is lower than the futile attempt at maintaining roads. Outside of the cost or burden of maintenance, those alternative transports bring positive revenue to a city while cars have shown to usually result in net negative.
>>
>>1886400
Sorry, but they're all subsidized.
>>
>>1885006
I might be a bit biased, but I think dedicated zorb lanes are the future.
>>
>>1884393
>deflecting
>>
>>1886400
>It's ok because..... um.... Because I like it and I say so ALRIGHT?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.