zlacker

>>amathe+(OP)
The issue of quiting cars is nowadays far from just a matter of values as the article seems to be implying.

Cars are by now a hard to reverse environmental and urban planning disaster across the world. We are stuck with them. As a mode of transport it has grown uncontrollably at the expense of all others (except the airplane) and practically everything has been shaped to accomodate it.

Reversing that development, limiting car traffic to where its really needed is like trying to perform a complete heart and arteries transplant on a living person. Even if there was a will (which there is not) it is not clear if there is a way.

In the best scenario it will be an excruciatingly long transformation (~50 yr) as car oriented cities (or city sections) get slowly deprecated and the car-free or car-lite segments become more desirable, more livable.

>>nologi+Mz1
It's not really "remove cars" problem tho. Cars are fine and are needed, you can't move anything big with tram or bike easily. It's make other forms of transport more viable for day to day stuff

You still need vans and trucks delivering stuff to people and businesses. Bus is far more flexible form of transport than tram. Just... if you need to wait ages for one and there is no stop nearby nobody will want to wait.

>>ilyt+wH1
I think it's a refusal to acknowledge necessary trade-offs. You cannot create a human termite mound with tens of thousands of people per square mile while keeping the exact same forms of infrastructure that serve communities where everyone has their own two acres. I'm a person who enjoys the freedom and solitude of a car. That means I don't get to live in a place that has fifty restaurants within a half-mile and it would be wrong of me to try and force that environment to cater to my needs.

>>causal+9P1
>I think it's a refusal to acknowledge necessary trade-offs. You cannot create a human termite mound with tens of thousands of people per square mile while keeping the exact same forms of infrastructure that serve communities where everyone has their own two acres. I'm a person who enjoys the freedom and solitude of a car. That means I don't get to live in a place that has fifty restaurants within a half-mile and it would be wrong of me to try and force that environment to cater to my needs.

In that case, what's your take on the cost of infrastructure required per capita in relation to property taxes as it pertains to suburban development?

As it stands today, property taxes in suburban areas generally do not cover the cost of infrastructure required for the areas, and hence they get subsidized by high-density areas which have a more sustainable amount of infrastructure per capita.

>>occz+3P2
I don't really have an opinion, as I'm not familiar enough with the math and most of the people who are interested in explaining the math seem to be zealots who would say anything to support their particular view. I also think the debate is muddied because everyone has a different definition of "suburb" and the math is not the same depending on which version you're thinking of. There are also other factors to consider, like dense areas not having to pay for raising and educating the people who move into them but collecting their tax revenue.