Thoughts on the Car-Free movement?

The car-free movement is a broad, informal, emergent network of individuals and organizations including social activists, urban planners, transportation engineers and others, brought together by a shared belief that large and/or high-speed motorized vehicles (cars, trucks, tractor units, motorcycles, …)[1] are too dominant in most modern cities. The goal of the movement is to create places where motorized vehicle use is greatly reduced or eliminated, to convert road and parking space to other public uses and to rebuild compact urban environments where most destinations are within easy reach by other means, including walking, cycling, personal transporters, low impact vehicles such as golf carts, neighborhood electric vehicles, kei cars and quadricycles, mobility as a service or public transport.[2]

Attached: carma34b_1796v.jpg (615x400, 98.16K)

Other urls found in this thread: Raleigh to Richmond Signed Record of Decision.pdf

Could work in Europe and Asia.
It's impossible to implement in America tho, because the cities have been planned from the start in a way as to force people to use automobiles.

I hate cars

Not the whole thing, but pieces could be possible. Increase telecommuting, milk-truck-style route delivery to cut down on routine shopping trips, replace long-haul trucking with repaired rail lines, etc.

Attached: culture.jpg (680x383, 27.66K)

Cars suck but don't let porky tell you individual choices are going to save da erf from global warming.

Euro here.
We dont need to ban cars outright but I do fully support a more extensive public transporation network (government owned and operated for use, paid for publically) and the construction of a european wide network of high speed rail to link major urban centres and reduce the need for poluting airflight, while operating at about the same distance/hour (taking into account the lack of check in time, screening, arriving early, etc that come with trains) and about the same price, since currently airplanes dont pay any taxes while other modes do, which is why they are so cheap, and this isnt changed due to competitive pressure on which country hosts low-cost aircraft for neighbouring countries and which country is the european hub.

Also if the UK gets cold feet we need a cheaper regular

plz. If you want everyone to cycle just get everyone on an ebike. With lithium battery improvements they are viable now, and places like berlin which were previously just a bit too hilly now use a lot of ebikes, they give you just that extra push uphill, and modern ones cycle equally smooth and effortlessly as normal ones. (my mums cycles lighter than my own bike, with the assist turned off).

Everything can be changed.
Imagine the space you guys could free up simply by eliminating the legally mandated minimum parking requirements alone. Add to that some actually semi reliable railway system, subway system or tram system and you can basically get almost all american cities and their suburbs/satalite towns into public transport. A 70 kilometer trip (~40 miles) only takes about 30 minutes by direct train, and thats not even a high speed rail. Can you consistently do 80 miles an hour?

Attached: aerial-view-of-downtown-houston-texas-B0R36E[1].jpg (1300x956, 259.82K)

Wait you guys dont already get your groceries delivered? Get with the times, the netherlands is full of these fucking trucks doing their trip, delivering whole streets at the time.
Add a neighbourhood locker system where you get texted a code to open a box like they have in china and they can basically deliver everything in one go.

In order to build a movement on direct action based in the social congress of persons, you have to, you know, not keep them in a box totally fucking isolated 100% of the time.
Just sayin'

not only are cars are far too destructive to the environment but their very existence leads to the construction of even more environmentally destructive infrastructure like highways and the creation of a pro-capitalist mindset by promoting consumerism and disincentivizing public transportation as well as the passage of regulations designed to limit human mobility by sequestering roads so that only cars can move on them (regulation that was only passed because car companies pressured the government to make jaywalking illegal as a way to force people to buy cars)
Anti-Auto-Aktion gang

It would take a massive restructuring of infrastructure that isn't going to come from our porky government and would be viciously opposed by private firms. We're going to have to make the revolution if we want to end the hellscape that is burger transportation.

Nice sounding in principle, utterly useless in practice.

The only way to protect the environment is to abolish capitalism. There's no other way around. As long as profit incentive exists, the environment will be destroyed in the name of the all mighty dollar.

The advantage of making private transport a secondary consideration compared to public transportation is infrastructure is efficiency. The environmental benefits are minscule conpared to other pollution reduction measures.

demolish the fucking cities then. come on, an-nil.

burgers give to grocery stores, if they don't live in a 'food desert'

some of us can't drive.

I don't support banning cars because that sort of thing can only be wielded in a way that helps capital; the entire reason American cities are built for cars was because Americans were sick of being throatfucked by railroad monopolies. It's also why Americans were ok with their railways degrading until the mid 70s when they were nearly destroyed by pricing laws.

That said the basic idea is genuine in that every person should be able to get most places without a car or Greyhound. This is slowly becoming the case in California, which was the poster child for railroad monopolies in the 19th century and freeways in the 20th. The goal should be to add ways in which people can get around, not subtract. Adding new Amtrak service and expanding it, dropping in light rail when necessary and bus lanes when practical are three ways of getting there. Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Jose are all good examples of this; San Francisco is not because SF's city government can't figure out how to make all their systems connect in a way people actually use them.

Attached: Amt_114 CP-CAHILL-sb-dwarfs-rear (1)

Other powers like Imperial Japan and Germany simply nationalized their railways. They had the idea only the bourgeois state had the discipline to optimally organize the life blood of heavy industry that is the moving of bulk goods to industry. They also had the idea that railways are the most important weapon of the army in they allow for the rapid deployment of the army along with their supply and communication back to the capital (thus why railways was a top priority target for bombers during the two world wars).
During the Cold War, national railways around the world were some of the most efficient logistical organizations.

I'm not a great fan of china, but whenever i've been on /his/ halfchan discussing infrastructure I've gotten into arguments over the viability of train infrastructure and an efficient high-speed rail. All the boomer nimby retards come out of the woodwork and shill the same programmed npc lines "public transportation doens't work in america," "we're too independent," "the country is too big". not only does one need to point out our deplorable airport infrastructure and reliance on cars, but the funny part is whenever i've shown them this map of high speed rail in china they've always shut the fuck up. All you need to do is show them that our up and coming competitors have extremely effective transportation built entirely from scratch in the span of a decade and they have NOTHING to answer from it. They are totally stumped.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 1.21.01 AM.png (862x586, 325.53K)

AmTrak is just a nice thing that only the yankees get to enjoy. Look at the map, it's totally unusable for southerners and anyone who isn't New England. it makes sense for the rural states to oppose these measures, because the only one who will get new trains is New England. Why should I pay more in federal taxes to benefit them? They already are the prime benefactors of just about every policy enacted in the first place.

Dumb as fuck
Literally no one rural could do this

The countryside is always reactionary. Our anti-motorist terror squads will deal with them.

The USSR built a large network of narrow gauge lines to feed their railway system.

Attached: Alapayevsk-TU4-bridge.jpg (600x389, 85.95K)

Mao and various peasants would like a word with you

It's not so much it wouldn't happen in a rural area, but with how it goes when the cities call the shots is they get all the good infrastructure and we would be left with shitty unusable infrastructure and the rural areas would be left paying extra taxes for a useless system that doesn't benefit them.

I know tons of leftists around here you ignorant urbanite twat
Y'all rude and dehumanizing

Tell 'em brother

yeah that's the issue, I have to fucking live here. a destruction and replanning needs done. idc if a civil war happens.

true, urban leftists are fucking condescending.

I grew up on a farm in Ohio.

Could this be Stirner milkman fantasy come true?

Also highways were invented by Hitler and until the barricades come up and block this essential infrastructure we will not see revolution

It's hard to find leftists who aren't condescending. People from rural areas are far less self centered in my experience and are far more aware of the bullshit that goes on. Hence they vote for Trump who at least talks a nationalist talk, instead of voting for someone who is openly for the status quo.

The rural South would be way poorer without lines like the Sunset Limited, City of New Orleans and Crescent, just look at how eastern Louisiana and the panhandle got fucked up after Katrina when the SL's tracks were destroyed and service was truncated at NOLA. It's clearly having a positive effect, and this should continue and be expanded.

This is already happening, albeit at a glacial place, through individual state DOTs working on a Southeast corridor network. Granted a 1,200 mile corridor is pretty huge, but at 100 mph it's only 12 hours which is just short enough to allow for proper intercity service rather than the current sleeper configuration.

Also in terms of farebox recovery, both the City of New Orleans and Crescent do much better than the Sunset Limited or other inland western routes.

Attached: amtrak3.jpg (320x316 225.36 KB, 10.48K)

Some sources: Raleigh to Richmond Signed Record of Decision.pdf

Again I'd describe the work on this as "glacial", nothing here would come into existence for another ten years at least. Republicans aren't really on board with the idea of transit but the idea keeps moving towards construction and funding keeps getting allocated for it because it's Amtrak not HSR (train speed would cap out at 125 mph, "HSR" is 126+) which is tainted by Obama and other stupid Zig Forums conspiracy theories I'm too tired to list. If Trump ever manages to pass his own infrastructure bill, all of these will probably be given more money.

Attached: GA.png (373x598 11.18 KB, 467.18K)

I don't disagree with what you've said I'm saying in the case of federal spending the north benefits way better in the south. You can even see this with stuff like the new model of mail trucks, the blue states (and cities) get these new mail trucks first and we just get hand me down'ed shit. The richer states are always prioritized over the poorer ones and this is part of the system.

Top kek. Also:
The South is urban as fuck. It's just that its cities are fuckugly coal-powered urban sprawl. Wearing cowboy hats and listening to that pop trash that passes for country music now does not make you rural.

Attached: united-states-urban-areas-and-clusters-map.jpg (1217x777, 242.13K)

t. urbanite who's never been there

That out of that entire post is what you take issue with? Southern fashion? You're a joke.

At any point Southern states could just pony up the money themselves through sales taxes like the North does. It's not like transit is particularly expensive, and the only reason Amtrak uses hand-me-down equipment on their Southern routes is because nobody in the South is willing to pay for new cars the same way Northern states are. For example, Brightline in Florida (who also now owns XPW which wants to build a train between LA and Vegas).

My point is that despite all this, Amtrak and transit in general has a positive impact on the South.

How am I supposed to reply to?
I replied to the rest of your post.

pic related. The people are already poor as fuck, you really can't politically swing around new taxes, it's going to be unpopular. When about 20% of the population in most small towns are in poverty, mass transit isn't going to be the first thing on everyone's mind.

Attached: income.png (907x654, 82.36K)

I bet you hate pussy too, fam.

In addition, even if people were willing to pay the price for hand me down trains; 95% of the time they are never a viable option for anything. IIRC back home the closest Amtrak line is in Atlanta, so driving 3 hours north just to take a train isn't practical at all. In the mean time you can look at the map and see that the north not only gets the new trains, they get the majority of the lines too. It makes sense that southerners (or anyone) doesn't want to pay extra in taxes so the north can have new toys.

Having people get around easier without cars is a noble goal, and I'm a huge car enthusiast. However, I think there is room in the world for the internal combustion engine, and I think this isn't going away. There are places that are simply not accessible without a personal vehicle, and recreation is also a thing. I wouldn't be against owning a car just for the track and not using it at all in the civilian world.

Autonomous municipality with trams powered by renewable electricity when?

Attached: tram.jpg (1200x803, 265.34K)

The problem with any urbanist movement in American cities is that it necessarily requires redeveloping much of the area near city centers. In California cities there are neighborhoods of single family, suburb style homes from the 1950s blocks from the city center, unthinkable for most of the world. Businesses are built so that you can drive there and park, not walk down a vibrant commercial street.

It's not that it can't be done. I've watched LA generally succeed in creating walkable neighborhoods and expanding public transport over the past decade, and they're not stopping. But there's a catch: the working class does not benefit, rather they are actively harmed by gentrification, higher rent, expanded police presence, etc. The result is that most leftists have justifiably decided to oppose all of it: urban rail, new transport options, mixed use developments, and relaxed housing regulations (anything that can be used to block development, from parking requirements to height limits). These things would make a better city, no one is denying that, but the resulting gentrification would make more people homeless and turn cities into playgrounds for tech workers.

drop the fucking victim complex you fucking dixieshit. your politicians and bourgeoisie are THE number one reason everything in your state is defunded and privatized. Your states REJECTED federal money for medicare because "muh niggers" getting gibs was unpopular among the voting base that politicians didn't accept the money because it threatened their reelection prospect. You are a myopic self-deluded fool who has all the flaws of the southern viewpoint and none of its benefits. Please stop larping as some morally righteous rural folk pitted against big bad northern money interests. it's not that simple anymore and NEVER was.

Yes I know, but my point is that the places that do have transit it works well enough. Which is why expanding Amtrak service keeps popping up in the South despite the lack of political support behind it.

Either way they become playgrounds for rich people, just look at San Francisco's whose extremely strict housing policy has only caused poor people to be completely kicked out as housing costs skyrocket. Not building housing or transit is the fastest way to cause a supply crunch that leads to rapid gentrification. East Palo Alto is a good example of this too.

This is inevitable under capitalism, but at least with good transit and no zoning policies cities can have some place to put renters that isn't literally kicking them out or kicking them down into homeless shelters. And if a city becomes majority homeowners (as is the case for SF), it's going to stay that way because everyone will sabotage their neighbors' attempts to let in renters.

If only all states had the balls to tell the feds to fuck off.
Fuck the US federal government, and fuck you for licking president nigger's boots.

I always thought that Amtrak was receding, not growing. Let's hope I'm wrong and that one day all rural states can have transit.

To be fair letting in renters is a problem for a lot of home owners. In the campaign I'm chair of a lot of voters get pissed that land lords don't do any checks on renters and cram ~12 college kids into a big house. So they can turn neighborhoods into slums pretty quickly. The issue is moreso with land lords fucking everything up rather than the homeowners.

Intercity travel in private cars is fucking cancer, especially if you live in an underdeveloped third world hellhole like me.

Literally no reason for not having mass intercity transit except for muh dividendies.

well don't we all at this point.


that's some classist nonsense.

you can't ALT people of a regional demographic

oh wait….

both left boards already do.

its just Americans in general. like most of us have control over that.

Not a bad idea for urban centers, but I will never give up my car. Or get an automated one. The ability to travel 500 miles in any direction I wish at any time I wish carrying whatever I want without having to get permission from any person or government is not something that can be replaced by public transportation.

Maybe you're a European, but in America it gets old fast seeing how much of your hard earned money goes to the federal gov so they can redistribute it to fatherless households with 6 kids that rely entirely on government assistance, where the male children will become criminals and the females will becomes government dependent taxsuckers like their mothers. This is true at least 75% of the time.

I generally agree, but I suspect that this position is bourgeois (not in the stupid labeling way, literally that I hold it because I'm a upper middle class, culturally bourgeoisie tech worker and don't value my local "community" the same way many proles do).

A lot of neoliberals (the self-proclaimed kind…only in california) also hold that we should prioritize increased housing supply, so that the number of affordable units goes up instead of down. I'm not on board with their often simplistic supply/demand arguments, but I think the right building regulations being loosened and the right affordability requirements being strengthened would probably make a real difference, assuming expropriating all the land is out of the question for now. The counterargument is always that people don't want a nicer apartment for the same money if it means being uprooted from their community to make way for denser development. Like it or not, it seems like activists are going to be preoccupied with preserving notions of community and neighborhood identity for the foreseeable future.

You could increase housing supply, preserve community and neighborhood, push up market standard wages for workers, and reduce the amount of nice homes being converted into shitty apartment buildings in one fell swoop by limiting immigration.

Based on the latest SCAG report, 63% of LA County population growth is people moving in from other parts of California and the US. So unless you plan on limiting "immigration" within the country as well, limiting immigration won't do much for housing in major cities, even ones like LA that have large immigrant populations.

It would still be an improvement, user. Even just 10%, and it's likely more than that, would be a significant improvement for the average quality of life for the proletariat in affected areas.

I don't think changing immigration policy for a possible small increase in housing stock is worth it for a variety of economic and moral reasons. Not going to entertain derailing this into an immigration debate, just pointing out that "it's still an improvement" on a single issue in a small subset of affected areas (cities that don't have a lot of foreign immigration are having housing problems too, you know) doesn't justify that broad of a change.

Holy shit this guy gets it, faith in the board restored

social security = money for workshy BENEFIT CHEATS who are literally STEALING money from hardworking people like you and me
Flat tax and remove social spending NOW, that'll sort the LAZY BUMS out

President obama is gone you stoud republicunt shill. I see you switched your flag after shilling and samefagging yourself in theblast republican apologia and campaigning threads. How much are you paid by your thinktank to larp on here you fucking lackey

No you cannot change the region youre born too but you certainly dont have to shill your region’s idpol on this board as though its some gleaming example to be held up and admired. But southern history is a cesspit of reactionary politics and thinking. I bet these larpers are upper middle class suburbanites living outside washington dc who grew up away from any southern poverty but nonetheless claim to epitomize their section as though they they have some spooky mystical connection to it through blood and soil

Attached: JaJa.jpg (598x797, 48.42K)

Flag is back up, this one ain't coming down :^)

I do admire the south almost single handedly ending the crippling US empire forever, while also allying with the natives.
Complete bullshit, again allying with the natives, opposing the wars we had with Mexico, opposing the excessive taxation, to just blow off all the progressive struggles they had is you wanting to have a selective version of history that the north dindu nuffin. In reality no one's hands are clean.
Posting the map of incomes isn't "shilling your region's idpol", if that maps upsets you then you should take a look at pic related. It's not something I'm fabricating, the low incomes and disproportionate conscription is a real thing, and I want this shit to stop.
I grew up in southern Georgia, the median income was less than 25000$.

Attached: enlisted personnel division map.png (1200x891, 64.27K)

…of course, the abolitionists of the union were flat-out socialist, while the south was literally peak capitalism.
This is interesting. Tell me more…

Look at west Virginia. Now that's rural.
Then those states in the Rockies.

Not sure if ironic or not, the north was literally industrial capital. Both sides were capitalist and like all capitalist wars, everyone is a bastard. Saying the abolitionists were majority anti capitalist (they were already a tiny minority within the GOP) is a very idealistic look at history.
But that doesn't mean the south doesn't genuinely get fucked (I cite the maps I posted. Here's another article talking about how people in the south are the most likely to stay in poverty than anywhere else in the country
Just look up shit about the cherokee confederates, pic related it's Stand Watie who was leader of the Cherokee nation and served as a confederate general. The natives were actually the last of the rebel forces to surrender.

Attached: CherokeesOftheCivilWar.jpg (244x300 51.79 KB, 29.11K)
…I mean, thanks for the link, though, it was interesting.

wow so amazing, it's as if the southerners didn't want to establish their own slave empire and an interamerican alliance of slave states from brazil, to cuba to the usa! we've already discussed this in the last thread.
funnily the georgians liquidated the cherokee nation in one huge land grab which was overseen by the federal government under a souther president Andrew Jackson. this is known as the trail of tears. Both northerners and southerners fought indian wars to exterminate or force indians westward for their own economic benefit. This is one of the axioms of america's westwards expansion. all and any alliances with natives were temporary expedients until the next new wave of settlers, whether regulated or unregulated, would push the natives even further west.
This was almost entirely a southern supported war. Inb4 your calhoun argument. All the militiamen who joined were southern volunteers.
taxation isn't good or bad. it simply depends on who wields the tax money and what its used for. if you are not getting taxed by the government realistically speaking then its a corporation or some other organization your paying out of pocket for.
I lol at this further appeal to regional idpol. You know who disproportionately fought in the regular union army from the Mexican war to World War I? Northern immigrant men of german, irish, italian and other foreign extraction who were on their last legs and had no other way of securing a living and faced starvation. It has nothing to do with who sacrifices more. Northern immigrants and poor man sacrificed more than any modern southern man does today "forced" to join the army (as if anyway a tiny minority of the population joining the army is now representative of the whole region), yet i don't make a point of saying how northerners are somehow special victims of federal oppression. The southern is only a particular case of a general example that poor people tend to join the army. No need to draw an idpol conclusion.
I don't give a shit. Its possible to live your whole life in a suburb here in florida without seeing poor people. You only need to drive anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes and you'll be in a poor area though. Areas in the US are notoriously segregated by space and socioeconomic status. I doubt you lived in squalor you fucking larper.