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
Yes, THAT is why Seattle looks like shit. An interstate.
>>1884280>CAGE CAGE CAGE REEEEEEE
>>1884319would you rather have one more underground train or one more building demolished for a shitty lane leglet
>>1884320Cars equal freedom, why are you anti freedom?
>>1884321Because your freedom is trampling on my freedom.
>>1884364Wrong. 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 freedomno 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.
>>1884388Remind me, what percentage of public transportation and cyclist infrastructure is covered by the tax payer.
>>1884393a 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 mannerIn my opinion>and leads to city design that isn't a slop of parking lots and huge roadsSource: me
>>1884396>In my opinionyou 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 meand according to most studies on that matter with economic development following high quality transit infrastructure>Source: mesource: pic related
>>1884395So it's socialism as neither public transportation users nor cyclists contribute like car owners do, got it.
>>1884398great argument friend. back to walmart on your mobility scooter.
>>1884397And 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 MUTTI'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.
>>1884401Yes, 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.
>>1884405COPE more faggot retard.Only the poor and seething like (You) prefer public transportation over private car mobility.
>>1884397>you can do this in your headYeah, I can tell you've done that
>>1884408OK here you go
>>1884411Behold the power of the urbanist mind. Thinks a graph showing that larger vehicles carry more people is groundbreaking info
>>1884413you were the one who for some reason doubted that cars were the worst way to move people around.
>>1884414That 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.
>>1884415OK 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.
>>1884416Not my job to do your research for you
>>1884413How 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.
>>1884417He already presented his data. Now it's your turn to refute it and provide your reasoning. Typical retard whose only response is >nuh uh!
>>1884433No thanks.
>>1884422>require a lot of linesThat's the problem. No way you're within 5 minute walking distance with public transportation. >bad argumentHow 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 carsSo no solution there? >car infra already relies on thatNot 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 subsidizedNTA 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 roadsRoads are there, they are at every building because that's how people get around. >rent a carWhat 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 subsidizedRemind me again, how much of public transportation and cycling infrastructure is covered? Exactly. Car owners pay so car owners have the right.
>>1884280Anon 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.
>>1884542Proofs that transit users pay 100% of transit expenditures.Oh wait, there is none.
>>1884543You didn't answer my question, homosexual.
>>1884545You didn't answer my question, Raghav
>>1884543so? cars don't either. They're easily the most subsidized mode of transportexcept transit has positive externalities associated with it, while private automobiles have a laundry list of negative externalities.
>>1884531>source: faggot assYeah no.>>1884542Proof that public transportation and cyclists pay 100% of expenditures.Oh wait, there's none.
>>1884543>>1884565Samefag homosexual.
>>1884320>one more building demolishedAh yes, like all those historic, pedestrian-oriented buildings were taken out for the Katy Freeway widening
>>1884566Meds.
>>1884547>They're easily the most subsidized mode of transportEvery form of transportation is subsidized>except transit has positive externalitiesNegative externalities as well. Nothing is without its drawbacks.>while private automobiles have a laundry list of negative externalitiesOpinion
>>1884570>Katy FreewayPeople's homes, yes
>>1884397
>>1884565my 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
>>1885087there'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 assWhy is the /n/iggerbrain like this?
>>1884280Seattle is too dangerous and unpleasant for that.
>>1884280Problem 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 freedomImagine 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>>1884365The 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
>>1886398Those 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.
>>1886400Sorry, but they're all subsidized.
>>1886396>seething poor: the blog post
