Or you could design cities to have green in the first place by designing for better modes of transport than cars. Cars take up a huge amount of space both while traveling and while not in use, instead of spending all that money and space on cars you can have public transit, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure, and greener cities.
Or you could design cities to have green in the first place by designing for better modes of transport than cars.
But there are no better modes of transport than cars. They are literally the most used vehicles on earth. This means they have topped every other form so far.
The natural next step in the cars evolution is self driving electric vehicles. So cars will be used by multiple people, so there are less cars overall and those cars could be stored in large strategically well placed big parking lot buildings.
Cars take up a huge amount of space both while traveling and while not in use, instead of spending all that money and space on cars you can have public transit, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure, and greener cities.
I agree on cycling infrastructure and other forms of public transport. The more options people get, the better.
But cars are irreplaceable. Car infrastructure is the most flexible we have. Ambulances, police, craftsmen, busses, taxis, you can easily transform them into pedestrian territory, or turn them into bike lanes.
And as I claimed before, if the next 100 years bring us new technologies and self driving cars revolutionise public transport, then this infrastructure offers the option to increase green surfaces in cities.
But there are no better modes of transport than cars. They are literally the most used vehicles on earth. This means they have topped every other form so far.
This is an appeal to popularity. Something being popular does not make it the best or good. Bikes are also insanely popular - with around ⅔ as many bikes as cars world wide. Car usage also varies highly from city to city. Unsurprisingly those that have good viable alternatives have much less car usage. Build lots of roads you get lots of cars.
Self driving is not a solution to the massive inefficiency of cars; it’s likely to make it worse. Improving the quality of a mode of transit generally results in increased usage - this is known as induced demand. Not needing a license nor having to pay attention means more people will opt for the car instead of alternatives, resulting in more congestion.
They’re also unlikely to reduce the number of cars per person. Assuming self driving cars are cheaper than the current situation why would people voluntarily sit next to a stranger in a locked metal box when - for less than they were paying before - they could not do that. They’d also be trading off journey time - the number one thing people care about in regards to transit.
So more people would use cars, but cars are parked unused 95% of the time, isn’t there efficiency to be gained there? Yes, most likely. But the thing to remember is the majority of cars are on the road at the same time during peak hours. Even if you double the efficiency here you’d at best be reducing the parking needed by 5%.
You are right though in regards to cars not going anywhere. They are a valuable mode of transportation, especially in rural areas. Hopefully self driving won’t make car dependence even worse.
That’s why I actually like car infrastructure.
If one day. Self driving cars become reality, many people will be able to live without owning one themselves.
And then the places previously occupied by cars will ensure that there is room in cities for some green.
Or you could design cities to have green in the first place by designing for better modes of transport than cars. Cars take up a huge amount of space both while traveling and while not in use, instead of spending all that money and space on cars you can have public transit, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure, and greener cities.
Easier is just to have covered parking lots, with a green roof. No massive societal changes requires, just an expensive parking garage.
Or you know, plant more trees in the cities.
But there are no better modes of transport than cars. They are literally the most used vehicles on earth. This means they have topped every other form so far. The natural next step in the cars evolution is self driving electric vehicles. So cars will be used by multiple people, so there are less cars overall and those cars could be stored in large strategically well placed big parking lot buildings.
I agree on cycling infrastructure and other forms of public transport. The more options people get, the better. But cars are irreplaceable. Car infrastructure is the most flexible we have. Ambulances, police, craftsmen, busses, taxis, you can easily transform them into pedestrian territory, or turn them into bike lanes. And as I claimed before, if the next 100 years bring us new technologies and self driving cars revolutionise public transport, then this infrastructure offers the option to increase green surfaces in cities.
This is an appeal to popularity. Something being popular does not make it the best or good. Bikes are also insanely popular - with around ⅔ as many bikes as cars world wide. Car usage also varies highly from city to city. Unsurprisingly those that have good viable alternatives have much less car usage. Build lots of roads you get lots of cars.
Self driving is not a solution to the massive inefficiency of cars; it’s likely to make it worse. Improving the quality of a mode of transit generally results in increased usage - this is known as induced demand. Not needing a license nor having to pay attention means more people will opt for the car instead of alternatives, resulting in more congestion.
They’re also unlikely to reduce the number of cars per person. Assuming self driving cars are cheaper than the current situation why would people voluntarily sit next to a stranger in a locked metal box when - for less than they were paying before - they could not do that. They’d also be trading off journey time - the number one thing people care about in regards to transit.
So more people would use cars, but cars are parked unused 95% of the time, isn’t there efficiency to be gained there? Yes, most likely. But the thing to remember is the majority of cars are on the road at the same time during peak hours. Even if you double the efficiency here you’d at best be reducing the parking needed by 5%.
You are right though in regards to cars not going anywhere. They are a valuable mode of transportation, especially in rural areas. Hopefully self driving won’t make car dependence even worse.
Let me quickly comment. I think I got banned for shitposting in the shitposting community.
Edit1: no I am still here.
So let me start with my answer:
Yes is a good dream but you know the capitalists will make it PAYG that is over priced and takes half your weekly wage
What does that have to do with capitalism? All the other options aren’t for free either.
OR, the sad reality will probably be that Entrepreneurs will buy these places and simply build more houses on them.
On the big parking spaces? Yea probably. But the smaller parking spaces along the roads? I don’t think that the place is big enough for housing.