# Will the age of the car ever return?



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

It never was about cars. Cars aren't going anywhere. I suspect anti-freeway sentiments are more about NIMBYism and are anti-growth in general, the same people turn out to protest new apartment buildings and rail transit lines. They want everyone to live in rural suburbia and be self-employed non commuters, or are just "drawbridge" people who move to unspoiled places then hypocritically want to prevent anyone else from coming to their slice of paradise and ruining it.

It is good that destructive urban freeway plans are dead and gone and can only return if they involve tunneling. I'm not against long-distance free roads in remote parts of the US or toll roads in the suburbs though.

What should die and never come back was the government social engineering to force everyone to live in suburbs and drive by subsidizing roads at the expense of transit and using land use planning to mandate all new development be suburban in nature.

I think in the future self-driving robot cars will be commonplace. One advantage of these vehicles is they'd blur the line between owning a vehicle and hailing a taxi, they'd be able to merge and pass another with perfect precision reducing both congestion and making widespread grade seperated roads unnecessary, and they'd valet park themselves making front-door parking unnecessary as well. Essentially, you'd have the convenience of a car but in a form that is compatible with a city center. There would probably still be rush hour transit service of course, just to keep the streets from being completely overflowing with them, and they'd actually benefit transit IMO because they'd solve the last mile problem. You could take a train somewhere and a private vehicle would be at the station for you rather than having to wait forever for a stupid bus to come.

The question is whether we can drop our suburban mindset. The future of cities could either be wonderful, where a robot taxi becomes another transportation option that makes life much easier when you have to bring home groceries or have an appointment on a sunday afternoon when bus service is limited. 

It could also be positively dystopian where robot cars are a tool for controlling society. The vehicle loads your profile of places you are and aren't allowed to go, people are shunted between their mass produced suburban living zones and consumer consumption zones in a hermetically sealed bubble. And if cars can drive themselves, just cut out the middle man and make a delivery unit. Now you never have to leave your home. It's safer that way. Soon we'll be like those people in Wall-E


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Cars will continue to be important as a transportation between cities, thats what motorways are for. Inner city motorways was never a good idea.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

I don't picture cars going away any time soon unless something ends up killing off the human race but I do picture that in the future like in the next 30 to 50 years you might see say 25% to 35% less cars on the road today. But depends on how fast new transit systems grow and how many people use them.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

zaphod said:


> It never was about cars. Cars aren't going anywhere. I suspect anti-freeway sentiments are more about NIMBYism and are anti-growth in general, the same people turn out to protest new apartment buildings and rail transit lines. They want everyone to live in rural suburbia and be self-employed non commuters, or are just "drawbridge" people who move to unspoiled places then hypocritically want to prevent anyone else from coming to their slice of paradise and ruining it.
> 
> It is good that destructive urban freeway plans are dead and gone and can only return if they involve tunneling. I'm not against long-distance free roads in remote parts of the US or toll roads in the suburbs though.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

I would be very afraid of things turning into Wall-E more then the Terminator happening with these automatic driving cars and other things that prevent people from taking responsibility for their actions and to go out and interact with people. Also people don't pay enough attention when driving as of now and turning cars into driving I phones might not be such a good idea for the future.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> Will the age of the car ever return?



For better or worse, the age of the car is just beginning. 

In China, India, Africa, etc.


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

I think it's far from over. The only thing changing is that cars are becoming more efficient, and technologically advanced to the point of having an auto-drive feature probably commonplace in as little as another 2 decades (possibly sooner). 

As already said you have vast swaths of the planet where cars aren't yet commonplace among at least half of the population. So the total number of cars will increase exponentially for decades to come. However, urbanity slowly moving towards multiple forms of transportation, and smart planning means that auto dependency will slowly become a thing of the past. I like to look at it as the automobile becoming more of a luxurious item (say like owning an TV) than a necessity in the future. More people won't need it, but they will have one for whenever they wished to travel or simply get around town.:yes:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> ...
> But what if in some point in the future some new fuel is developed...
> Makes no pollution, is really cheap, easy to buy etc


Chances for that are slim. And even then car only designs are inherently pedestrian hostile as cars, no matter how they are propelled need amounts of space that are prohibitive to designs that are acceptable for pedestrian layouts. 

In other words, if you don't want a city where you are doomed to use the car or be stranded, you can't have a return of the car age.


----------



## Nikom (Sep 24, 2005)

LtBk said:


> Cars aren't going anywhere, but the days of auto-centric developments and planning are coming to an end.


Couldn't agree more :yes: that's the essencial part of this topic


----------



## luife100 (Apr 12, 2006)

The cars age is far to be over, it will be over when we find another vehicle capable of give us the same benefits that the car and some advantages, like flying or something else (in one or two centurys). Meanwhile, a great step pending is to use electric motors, cleaner, more efficient and healthier for us than the oil-ones. Another step to avoid the traffic and many other issues, is to make the cars significative smaller and, as it was stated, make them self-driving.

The public transportation is good but doesn't cover all the needs, specially in the country.


----------



## Treka (Jan 26, 2013)

luife100 said:


> The cars age is far to be over, it will be over when we find another vehicle capable of give us the same benefits that the car and some advantages, like flying or something else (in one or two centurys). Meanwhile, a great step pending is to use electric motors, cleaner, more efficient and healthier for us than the oil-ones. Another step to avoid the traffic and many other issues, is to make the cars significative smaller and, as it was stated, make them self-driving.
> 
> The public transportation is good but doesn't cover all the needs, specially in the country.


maybe teleportation devices?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

luife100 said:


> The cars age is far to be over, it will be over when we find another vehicle capable of give us the same benefits that the car and some advantages, like flying or something else (in one or two centurys). Meanwhile, a great step pending is to use electric motors, cleaner, more efficient and healthier for us than the oil-ones. Another step to avoid the traffic and many other issues, is to make the cars significative smaller and, as it was stated, make them self-driving.
> 
> The public transportation is good but doesn't cover all the needs, specially in the country.


What we need is not some new vehicle, but rather more walkable and urban living arrangements.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

While it is impossible for car traffic to be eliminated entirely, an excellent transportation network for a major city can consist of freeways and arterials; airports; and light rail/tram/metro systems, commuter rail, and intercity rail.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

^^ I think the biggest enemy of the car is urbanization itself. When commute times start exceeding 45 minutes, the outer limit of sprawl becomes visible. Not many people want to waste their time commuting.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Robi_damian said:


> ^^ I think the biggest enemy of the car is urbanization itself. When commute times start exceeding 45 minutes, the outer limit of sprawl becomes visible. Not many people want to waste their time commuting.


And the biggest enemy of urbanization is the car :lol:


----------



## forexticks (Jun 8, 2013)

It depends on the country. Some countries have a culture of cars whilst other more forward thinking countries are creating solutions to reduce car usage.


----------



## CxIxMaN (Jun 12, 2009)

As a car lover I will never accept the death of private personal transport which you can drive your self. I will continue driving as long as it is possible.

In urban areas I can use public transport if it is good but I would still want to cruise along country roads in my own car.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

From what I have seen is that cars are only really seen as bad in an environmental way. If there was a way to have cars that didn't make any pollution at all like the few electric cars there then maybe people would look at them in a more positive way


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Whhen did the age of the car end?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

DanielFigFoz said:


> Whhen did the age of the car end?


When it became 'good' to downgrade roads, and replace motorway proposals with rail routes instead...Both of those have happened near me.


----------



## Cheyorow (May 21, 2013)

I think people will always be in love with their cars. Right now they just aren't affordable, but one day people will probably decide that they prefer driving around more than they do listening to twelve year old discussing their favorite alcohol and other obnoxious conversation. Generally, people have comfort zones and if they keep their comfort zone intact they will.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

I think clogging up streets and polluting the air is far more obnoxious than the remote possibility of having to listen to twelve year olds discussing their drinking habits.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

In some places the age of the car never left. Car ownership is as high as its ever been.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> From what I have seen is that cars are only really seen as bad in an environmental way. If there was a way to have cars that didn't make any pollution at all like the few electric cars there then maybe people would look at them in a more positive way


For me its not the pollution, I dont care that much about that. Its the space thay take, cars do not work in cities. At least not for everywone.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

You dont care about pollution? :nuts:


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> For me its not the pollution, I dont care that much about that. Its the space thay take, cars do not work in cities. At least not for everywone.


Well, in some cities, it is pedestrians who don't work. I recently saw a documental about Los Angeles, in which they stated that the city is indeed designed for cars, with parkings in almost all the buildings, but many areas lacking even sidewalks...


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

El_Greco said:


> You dont care about pollution? :nuts:


Of course but thats not the big problem when it comes to driving in a city.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

DanielFigFoz said:


> In the UK the age of road building might have gone (there are some things happening now though) but the age of the car hasn't ended at all, people just use overcrowded roads


The big attitude shift is among people who live in cities, for whom being without a car is a viable option.

For people who live in smaller towns, or in rural areas, it's much harder to get by without one. It's more expensive without one, and it's much slower to get anywhere.

And while people might see the benefits of public transport, nearly all housing developments being built on towns are on the outskirts of towns, where public transport options are minimal. A town of 100,000 people can't have trams and multiple train stations serving the area.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

100,000 isn't small.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> And while people might see the benefits of public transport, nearly all housing developments being built on towns are on the outskirts of towns, where public transport options are minimal. A town of 100,000 people can't have trams and multiple train stations serving the area.


Really? Norrköping has a tram system of two lines that covers a good portion of the city. Coupled with that it has a commuter rail system connecting it and a number of other cities in the immediate area on a 20 minute frequency off-peak as well as standard national rail services. There are no larger cities around except Linköping, which is around 150,000 people so the commuter rail system serves quite small places. 

It is perfectly possible to have such transport infrastructure in smaller places.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> Really? Norrköping has a tram system of two lines that covers a good portion of the city. Coupled with that it has a commuter rail system connecting it and a number of other cities in the immediate area on a 20 minute frequency off-peak as well as standard national rail services. There are no larger cities around except Linköping, which is around 150,000 people so the commuter rail system serves quite small places.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to have such transport infrastructure in smaller places.


Is it privately run or subsidised?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Is it privately run or subsidised?


Subsidised of course. I don't think there are many privately run systems across Europe that are operating without subsidy. Are you trying to tell me that the bus systems in the UK are all profitable without subsidy, because I can tell you that none of them are to my knowledge. Even the tube isn't profitable!


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Really? Norrköping has a tram system of two lines that covers a good portion of the city. Coupled with that it has a commuter rail system connecting it and a number of other cities in the immediate area on a 20 minute frequency off-peak as well as standard national rail services. There are no larger cities around except Linköping, which is around 150,000 people so the commuter rail system serves quite small places.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to have such transport infrastructure in smaller places.


Indeed. Trondheim in Norway have a small tram line covering a small, sprawling, unimportant part of the city, yet it seem to work with only 180.000 people (it had less than 50.000 when the line was built) and I doubt the line gives coverage to more than 10% of them. If anything the locals now want to extend it. If that thing can work then I see no reason why you should not be able to develop tram systems for well planned places at around 100.000 people.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> Subsidised of course. I don't think there are many privately run systems across Europe that are operating without subsidy. Are you trying to tell me that the bus systems in the UK are all profitable without subsidy, because I can tell you that none of them are to my knowledge. Even the tube isn't profitable!


I'm suggesting that due to the way our nations differ in tax rates, the level of subsidy here is probably somewhat lower.

The overall point is that housing developments hear never seem to have public transport in mind. They keep building new estates on the edges of towns, where your life will be much harder without a car.

Deregulation in public transport has also created a system where there's no overlap between transport operators. To get to my old job, just 12 miles away, I'd have had to got a bus to the town centre, got a train to the next town, then taken another bus back in the direction I'd come from - and I'd need to buy three separate tickets.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I'm suggesting that due to the way our nations differ in tax rates, the level of subsidy here is probably somewhat lower.
> 
> The overall point is that housing developments hear never seem to have public transport in mind. They keep building new estates on the edges of towns, where your life will be much harder without a car.
> 
> Deregulation in public transport has also created a system where there's no overlap between transport operators. To get to my old job, just 12 miles away, I'd have had to got a bus to the town centre, got a train to the next town, then taken another bus back in the direction I'd come from - and I'd need to buy three separate tickets.


But that is the fault of the network, not of the actual mode of transport that you have poor bus provisions. As for subsidies and tax rates - well, Sweden actually according to the latest Eurostat figures doesn't have a tax rate that different to the UK in terms of income tax. Corporate tax is also fairly low here comparatively, so I don't think that is the reason either. 

If the UK allows car-centric developments, again, that is the fault of the government. It isn't a symptom of the actual population level of a settlement.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

Rev Stickleback said:


> For people who live in smaller towns, or in rural areas, it's much harder to get by without one. It's more expensive without one, and it's much slower to get anywhere.


In rural Russia scooters (small motorcycles) are becoming popular. Some have cars as well, but some don't and live fine.



> A town of 100,000 people can't have trams and multiple train stations serving the area.


Without traffic jams a bus service is perfectly enough.

In Vladivostok traffic is awful, but in a nearby Artem, pop 100,000, roads are almost empty, and buses serve even remote streets every few minutes.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Svartmetall said:


> Really? Norrköping has a tram system of two lines that covers a good portion of the city.
> It is perfectly possible to have such transport infrastructure in smaller places.


But, is that reasonable? tram lines should be expensive to maintenace... isn't it cheaper to use eco buses?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

mckeenan said:


> But, is that reasonable? tram lines should be expensive to maintenace... isn't it cheaper to use eco buses?


Not really. Trams have high CAPEX but not high OPEX. Once tram lines are up and running they are cheaper, but they require a higher cost outlay in their construction. Norrköping extended its tramway fairly recently with other expansions being explored.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

bayviews said:


> For better or worse, the age of the car is just beginning.
> 
> In China, India, Africa, etc.


Completely agree. 

This thread is very Western biased. It's easy for wealthy countries to say the age of the car is beginning to wane but that's because we have had the luxury of it for the last century. 

Us Westerners do have a lot of nerve telling poorer countries that they should not embrace the car even though we did and continue to although Westerns do like to bitch about other countries defiencies but not our own. Now we are telling the poorer countries to shun the car due to their GHG even though on a per-capita basis none of them come even close to our emissions. 

The age of the car is only just beginning as it moves from the few well heeled countries onto the masses of the planet's population.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

mckeenan said:


> But, is that reasonable? tram lines should be expensive to maintenace... isn't it cheaper to use eco buses?


You dont need to buy new trams as often as you need with buses. Until recently we had trams in regular service on suburban lines in Stockholm built in the 1940s.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

^^
They look pretty well. As far as it is functional and secure, i'm a supporter of using/adapting old equipment.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Dahlis said:


> You dont need to buy new trams as often as you need with buses. Until recently we had trams in regular service on suburban lines in Stockholm built in the 1940s.


I believe Milan still have tram from the '20s in regular usage. Not only is it much cheaper, but it can be rather charming too.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Milan


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

mckeenan said:


> But, is that reasonable? tram lines should be expensive to maintenace... isn't it cheaper to use eco buses?


From what I could see, it seems like it would be around 10% cheaper in pure monetary terms to use conventional buses instead of the tram line on the stretch I mentioned in Trondheim, Norway. A rapport also concluded that it would be profitable for the wider society ("samfunnsøkonomisk" is the term we use in Norwegian) with a smaller extension to this line as opposed to using buses where it was desired to extend it to. This is a line with only around 2000 passengers each day and where probably 90% of those passengers only use the first few stop that are located centrally (it goes up far into nowhere here) and with little to no density along the line (example). I'm convinced that it would be possible to run a line for the same cost as a buss in a 100.000 city as long as a) it properly covered the city, and b) the city was not a sprawling mess with no planning.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

Old trams are actually expensive, because their passenger km rate is bad, while maintainance is compared to fast new trams. And they are noisy - noise pollution is also an expense.


----------



## Depotmaster (Sep 22, 2007)

I think if Obama really wants to save the US economy for the future, he should spend as least as much effort on public transport as he did on healthcare.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

object704 said:


> Old trams are actually expensive, because their passenger km rate is bad, while maintainance is compared to fast new trams. And they are noisy - noise pollution is also an expense.


Isnt this depending on the model of tram? If you have a standardized tram used in large parts of the system with tone of availible parts certainly its cheaper to maintain then a new tram with modern complicated systems.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> Isnt this depending on the model of tram? If you have a standardized tram used in large parts of the system with tone of availible parts certainly its cheaper to maintain then a new tram with modern complicated systems.


Maintainance of trams themselves is only a part of a system's expense.

New trams may cost a lot initially, but they are cheaper to operate, due to technology (faster speed means less trams, employees and smaller depots are needed; energy efficiency may be higher), low noise, accessibility (low profile), better comfort - all things should be considered.

Maintainance is not a problem, unless a city orders only a few of them. A big contract actually includes service over its guaranteed life.

Also, maintainance costs increase over the years. Massive expense is required after about 15-30 years, then after 10-20 years.

And a small example: in 2014-2015 Moscow will receive 120 new trams, then 650 more. Twice faster average speed than current trams (made in late 1990's-2000's), 100% low profile, silent, and without a driver.

If it lasts for only guaranteed 30 years (depots and maintainance included in the cost) the cost will be about $180/day. Thats almost the driver's salary alone!

And since its made domestically, its production will boost the economy.

It would almost be a crime not to replace "old" trams.  They will be sold, btw, to less fortunate cities or even countries.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

object704 said:


> Maintainance of trams themselves is only a part of a system's expense.
> 
> New trams may cost a lot initially, but they are cheaper to operate, due to technology (faster speed means less trams, employees and smaller depots are needed; energy efficiency may be higher), low noise, accessibility (low profile), better comfort - all things should be considered.
> 
> ...


And you think removing drivers is a good thing?

This sounds like a sales pitch from those making the trams, reality always differ.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Galro said:


> I believe Milan still have tram from the '20s in regular usage. Not only is it much cheaper, but it can be rather charming too.



I remember those, looks a lot better than the newer onces.

We have older ones in Stockholm to on the heritage line to Djurgården:








They are only used in the summer and on special occations though.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

One problem with trams is that generally you need pretty wide streets for them.

I really like trams, but it would be very difficult to put them into a lot of towns


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Rev Stickleback said:


> One problem with trams is that generally you need pretty wide streets for them.
> 
> I really like trams, but it would be very difficult to put them into a lot of towns


Compared to buses no not really, trams are reliable as in they follow the laid out track. Depending on the model of tram you can make quite sharp turns.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> One problem with trams is that generally you need pretty wide streets for them.
> 
> I really like trams, but it would be very difficult to put them into a lot of towns


Not necessarily:

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=50.0...HETg&cbll=50.075129,14.439031&dg=opt&t=h&z=11

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=47.3...Hfj9w&cbll=47.374053,8.538407&dg=opt&t=m&z=17

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=52.3...WHBdg&cbll=52.362592,4.891909&dg=opt&t=m&z=16

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=34.6...uvsJA&cbll=34.60792,135.49705&dg=opt&t=m&z=17

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=34.3...iFA&cbll=34.395325,132.439752&dg=opt&t=m&z=17

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Toyam...=j_PlX0gpvH7aUZZjkEBz8w&cbp=12,208.36,,0,3.63

Most of these examples (that I recalled just from the top of my head) are just 1 lane of traffic in each direction and one lane for trams in each direction. Most cities can easily accommodate this level of infrastructure.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

^^ All of those streets are pretty wide, no? I think the majority of Oslos streets are tighter ... And we have trams in them. Examples: 

- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...=ehYqLbgv5YRG6t68g8k_Zw&cbp=12,193.86,,0,2.63
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...9t4Ij9mYmsWLfEPMA&cbp=12,197.63,,0,-3.34&z=16
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...=_agBP-ywLUzMVgsB3TMRoQ&cbp=12,139.98,,0,0.21
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...=AFeLNLZ2fffwk9ilcD--jg&cbp=12,176.02,,0,1.92
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...3&panoid=5iWtczsyFedhzKqWNW686g&cbp=12,0,,0,0

You don't really need greater width than a conventional road. And I'm sure there are many tram lines around the world going through even tighter streets than that.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> And you think removing drivers is a good thing?
> 
> This sounds like a sales pitch from those making the trams, reality always differ.


Reducing costs while raising quality (elimination of a human factor) is always a good idea. Humans will be able to remote control them, just in case.

The technology has been tested - works fine. Moscow subway is also buying automatic trains - Paris and some others have tested them extensively.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

Cars will never go away because they are highly practical modes of personal transportation. What will change, in cities at least, is how we use them. In fact this change is already underway with short-term time based car hiring schemes (I believe they already have this in Paris) just like the bike hiring schemes that already exist in some cities around the world. People will increasingly go to the nearest car depot, take out a car for whatever they need it for that day, and drop it off at a convenient depot when they have finished with it, and all for a small amount of money for its punctual use.

I already know several people who don't own a car but hire one just for their holidays.

Of course there will always be people who need their own car due to particular circumstances, be it geographical location or a specific need, but I think we will end up seeing fewer cars being personally owned and more cars being used on a use-per-need basis. In cities certainly.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

The problem with short-term car rent is that it makes car "ownership" very cheap - say hi to traffic.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

When age of car ended? 

Cars more popular than ever.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

apinamies said:


> When age of car ended?
> 
> Cars more popular than ever.


Not in the cities.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Dahlis said:


> Not in the cities.


Understandable if we look at how fuel prices doubled over the last 10 years.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

object704 said:


> The problem with short-term car rent is that it makes car "ownership" very cheap - say hi to traffic.


I don't know anyone who rents a car (other than on holiday).



Seeing the pictures above, I'm having a rethink on trams. I've seen such streets many times, but when I think of trams I think of larger routes where you have a four-lane road, with two lanes for cars and two for trams.

In many places roads here have been similarly narrowed for bus lanes, but tram routes would probably be better. Probably quicker too.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> Understandable if we look at how fuel prices doubled over the last 10 years.


But fuel consumption of cars was halfed as well. Thats still not the problem.

Its not about fuel prices or the enviroment, its about space.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

Dahlis said:


> Not in the cities.


You forgot that there are developing countries where number of cars in cities have exploded in this decade. 

If you think whole world number of cars is growing and quite fast.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

apinamies said:


> You forgot that there are developing countries where number of cars in cities have exploded in this decade.
> 
> If you think whole world number of cars is growing and quite fast.


I dont forget, but in the developed world we are going the other way. Wich makes you question if the developing world is going in the right direction or if they just want to be us in the 1960s.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> I dont forget, but in the developed world we are going the other way. Wich makes you question if the developing world is going in the right direction or if they just want to be us in the 1960s.


is there any evidence to suggest car ownership is decreasing?

is there even any evidence to suggest people are using their cars less?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> is there any evidence to suggest car ownership is decreasing?
> 
> is there even any evidence to suggest people are using their cars less?


In some cities, absolutely. In some countries overall, well, that's more limited data.

Car ownership across Japan has decreased quite dramatically:

http://www.japanfs.org/en/pages/029996.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/123121951587500.xml&coll=7

http://www.leftlanenews.com/japans-kuruma-banare-dramatically-decreasing-new-car-sales.html

There is further evidence that the coming generation are shunning cars more in other countries too - at least for the present. This is quite different to how things used to be in the past when having a car at the age of 18 in many countries was a "rite of passage". 

http://www.renthomas.ca/attitudes-and-behaviour/youth-and-young-adults-increasingly-car-free

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/123121951587500.xml&coll=7

Most important was this article in the economist that shows declining distance travelled and the change in licencing in the US (in particular):

http://www.economist.com/node/21563280

From my own personal experiences - public transport does make up the majority of travel (along with active transport in the form of walking and cycling) in my city. Only 33% of journeys are completed by car. The car is already marginalised here, so I wouldn't really say that the age of the car is here as far as I am concerned.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> In some cities, absolutely. In some countries overall, well, that's more limited data.
> 
> Car ownership across Japan has decreased quite dramatically:
> 
> ...


Picking some big cities with good public transport can trick you believe that age of car is over but most cities in the world don't have good public transport and cars rule them. 

In Finland we have only one city where cars aren't most popular way to travel (Helsinki) and in Oulu city of less than 200 000 which is 5th biggest in Finland only few % uses public transport.

When live some big city you can lost your view you maybe don't see big picture (when I say you I mean people in general). Of course if want count only cities over 1 million inhabitants as cities then it can look different.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

apinamies said:


> Picking some big cities with good public transport can trick you believe that age of car is over but most cities in the world don't have good public transport and cars rule them.
> 
> In Finland we have only one city where cars aren't most popular way to travel (Helsinki) and in Oulu city of less than 200 000 which is 5th biggest in Finland only few % uses public transport.
> 
> When live some big city you can lost your view you maybe don't see big picture (when I say you I mean people in general). Of course if want count only cities over 1 million inhabitants as cities then it can look different.


Picking big cities? These are nationwide trends that I have posted, not just cherry picking. Most of Japan is quite car-centric outside the major cities, and yet there is a trend for demotorisation across the whole country. Not only that, but the whole of the US is driving less according to the trends exhibited there (along with a load of other western countries). The declining uptake of drivers licences also holds with that trend too.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

I guess it depends on where you live and what are the attitudes and perceptions as well as the culture there.

For instance, in Japan, you could probably go around even if you don't have a car. The public transport network there works and is effective and has wide coverage.

Meanwhile, if you look at it from a US perspective, it is difficult to move around without an automobile.................unless of course you live in New York/New Jersey or District of Columbia.

Yet in Mainland China, even if they have train networks, car ownership is still on sky-high and there's no stop to it just yet.

So it really depends........

If there's one thing I could say:
I suspect that IF there is a reduction of car usage by younger generation people, then you can mostly attribute it to social media and technology. For some youngsters, they don't care about owning a car or driving or even getting a license.............as long as they get the latest smartphone (i.e. Iphone 5S, Galaxy S4, whatever) and have accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and who knows what other social network application there is out there. Once they have that, then they're good.

----------------------------------
Anyways:


Where I'm from though (Philippines) 

People who mostly use public transport here are those from:
-Lower income groups, students, blue-collar workers and minimum wage earners

The thing is though: The quality of our PT here sucks so bad (except for LRT Line 2). I mean seriously, other than our Purple Line 2 and probably the Green Frog Hybrid Bus line, the quality of our PT is sub-par at best.

Overcrowded trains (even outside of rush hour), pickpocketing, loitering, thieves brandishing knives and guns and robbing people while in a bus or a jeepney...........and heck, a few taxi cabs here aren't safe because some have a modus operandi wherein they join with syndicate groups to either rob the passengers or to take them hostage.

I mean:
Would you ask a Filipino millionaire/billionaire to just use our local public transportation every single day? Unlikely

Probably the only exception was when World-Renowned Filipino Boxer Manny Pacquiao rode a crowded train because the roads were flooded at that time and road traffic was at a standstill


















Only as an exception or last resort

IMHO, there are currently only two public transport systems in our country that I really love or would at least use frequently:

LRT Line 2 (Purple Line)










Green Frog Hybrid Bus Line










Hence, this is why most local people dream of owning a car because they see it as a sign of economic progress and a sign of escaping poverty.

IMHO, it will take decades for the rest of public transport in the Philippines to reach an acceptable level.......


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Hopefully not


----------



## Haddington (Apr 26, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> In the UK our last burst of 'roadism' was in the late 80s / early 90s when the whole 'roads for prosperity' thing came about. Loads of cancelled 1960s plans where resurrected and built. But since then its been pretty quiet.
> 
> There are a few projects ongoing right now...near me its the re re re resurrected Manchester Outer Ring Road (Western Parkway as it was once know at some point)...altho as its the 2010s they have branded it the...South East Manchester Multi Modal Study Environmental Improvement Road...and reduced the plan from a full scale motorway to a 4 lane dual carriageway with cycle lanes, that no one will ever use! :bash:


In England maybe. However have a look at Glasgow 10 years ago compared with Glasgow now. In that time the 6 lane M74 has been ploughed into the city centre and the M80 completed to Stirling. Also the M8 missing link is finally about to be plugged creating at last a motorway link between Scotlands largest city and it's capital. 

Quite ironic that all of this has happened / is happening in a city which has among the lowest rates of car ownership in western europe.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Blackraven said:


> Would you ask a Filipino millionaire/billionaire to just use our local public transportation every single day?..


Why not? Is it really so below him to use metro?


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

009 said:


> Hopefully not


Yeah I hear you about that.

I too am hoping for some improvements to our public transport system (similar to what is currently present in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Europe, etc.)

At least within my lifetime.

Unfortunately, at the current rate, progress here is extremely slow.

Heck, to even build a one station extension (of an existing line) TAKES YEARS here.



El_Greco said:


> Why not? Is it really so below him to use metro?


For a select few, they may be willing.

However, most of our corrupt Filipino politicians are.............well you get the idea


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

El_Greco said:


> Why not? Is it really so below him to use metro?


And in a densly populated city it would be much faster to. So why not?


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> And in a densly populated city it would be much faster to. So why not?


Hehe perhaps

But let me ask you this: Do you expect David Cameron and other UK Government officials to ride the London Underground railway (aka 'Tube') each and every single day they have to get to their offices/workplaces in Downing Street?

In the case of the Philippines, most of our public transport is full. Trains are too overcrowded (even during non rush hours) so in a sense, it's really hard for most politicians to use train services that are extremely overcrowded and that makes it hard especially when implementing security protocols.

With that said, I'm already figuring as to what kind of scenario will come up if Obama decides to just use Washington Metrorail every single day.

1) Secret Service does a sweep of every train station on the network
2) All US Federal Law Enforcement Agencies including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and all relevant government security and law enforcement agencies (along with DC Police, Capitol Police, etc.) will be bound to cooperate under a unified security protocol just for this special purpose
3) SWAT teams will be on standby inside and outside stations
4) Secret Service agents will be present inside while traveling with President Obama inside any train
5) Police and other emergency vehicles will be on standby
6) Presidential vehicles will be traveling in proximity to help provide an escape route for the President and his entourage in case something goes wrong

And that's just part of the list










Now, you could probably do that in America or in some countries/territories............but to implement something like that in the Philippines is a pain-in-the-ass (for most government security agencies and law enforcement units here).


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

You cant compare the Prime Minister with some boxer.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Why not? Is it really so below him to use metro?


People who don't have a car, mostly don't have one because they can't afford one. I say mostly as there are a few who 'don't need a car'.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> People who don't have a car, mostly don't have one because they can't afford one. I say mostly as there are a few who 'don't need a car'.


What utter nonsense. There are plenty, and I repeat, plenty of people who choose not to have the expense of a car. I work with a whole room of people who could afford a car, but choose not to have a car because with the costs saved they can go on holidays around Europe very comfortably and still have some savings. I know three people here out of the fifty or so that I talk to on a regular basis that have a car. The rest choose to have one.

If the choice between taking weekend trips around Europe and having a car comes up, I know which I would choose. Owning a car for many IS a choice and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with prosperity. Either that or Tokyo is poor.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> You cant compare the Prime Minister with some boxer.


Perhaps

But he is not just a world-renowned boxer. In our country, he's also a politician (thankfully he's not corrupt) and he's much more than that.

But yeah going into point. 

There is a reason why in certain countries/territories, public transportation usage is not limited to socio-economic class or status.

I for one have observed that even rich people in Hong Kong (locals, expats, wealthy foreign tourists, etc.) ride Airport Express train.

Why?

Because:
1) It's world class
2) It's easy, efficient and effective (3 E's of a modern rail transport system)










Nevertheless, I think we can come to the conclusion that it's mostly a case-to-case basis. It's all relative.

Keanu Reeves would be a superb example of this:


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Blackraven said:


> Do you expect David Cameron and other UK Government officials to ride the London Underground railway (aka 'Tube') each and every single day they have to get to their offices/workplaces in Downing Street?
> 
> With that said, I'm already figuring as to what kind of scenario will come up if Obama decides to just use Washington Metrorail every single day.


PM or President is different from some random rich guy, non? I can understand the need for a car if you live somewhere rural, but in the city? Fuel costs, Congestion Charge (in London's case), endless traffic jams, looking for a parking space etc. Sounds like too much hassle.



poshbakerloo said:


> People who don't have a car, mostly don't have one because they can't afford one. I say mostly as there are a few who 'don't need a car'.


People that use public transport are failures? Lol!


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> What utter nonsense. There are plenty, and I repeat, plenty of people who choose not to have the expense of a car. I work with a whole room of people who could afford a car, but choose not to have a car because with the costs saved they can go on holidays around Europe very comfortably and still have some savings. I know three people here out of the fifty or so that I talk to on a regular basis that have a car. The rest choose to have one.
> 
> If the choice between taking weekend trips around Europe and having a car comes up, I know which I would choose. Owning a car for many IS a choice and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with prosperity. Either that or Tokyo is poor.


I have seen people from my hometown making similar comments about people using mass transit in general. It's just ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> If the choice between taking weekend trips around Europe and having a car comes up, I know which I would choose. Owning a car for many IS a choice and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with prosperity.* Either that or Tokyo is poor.*


The same applies to NY and Boston BTW, but in the rest of the US (and probably Canada and many european countries/Aus) that's pretty prevalent..if you use PT you must be poor.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

That's an exaggeration. Statistically some cities' transit riders earn nearly as much on average as drivers. Anecdotally I know a lot of six-figure incomes who ride transit to work.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

BTW when I said "if you use PT you must be poor" I meant the mindset of many people in those countries not me personally. I am a big advocate of transit


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

El Greco said:


> PM or President is different from some random rich guy, non? I can understand the need for a car if you live somewhere rural, but in the city? Fuel costs, Congestion Charge (in London's case), endless traffic jams, looking for a parking space etc. Sounds like too much hassle.


Maybe in the UK that could *possibly* done (maybe)

But here in the Philippines, it seems unlikely. 

Trains are too jam-packed here even during off-peak (blame it on lack of trains and trains with small capacity.......in an overpopulated country).

Oh and you underestimate the level of graft and corruption some of our local politicians here have. Philippine politics is a pain-in-the-ass :nuts:hno::bash:



> BTW when I said "if you use PT you must be poor" I meant the mindset of many people in those countries not me personally. I am a big advocate of transit


For me, I'm a mixed kind of guy.

For instance, just a while ago, I rode the train going back home then from our house, I took our car and made a trip to the nearby supermarket (i.e. five minute drive)

Pretty much it


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

I thought the age of the car had never left?

Ideally people would be able to rely on public transit and thus be free from the economic and environmental burden of car ownership. Sadly it's not the case for most people. The auto (or moped) dependent areas can be divided into 3 groups:

-dirt poor places that sincerely cannot afford PT investment
-developing places where the PT investment is catching up to the built environment
-wealthy places that have neglected PT to the detriment of their residents

The 3rd scenario afflicts many of us, yet doesn't get much attention. Many people HAVE to drive because there are no plausible alternatives to private transportation. The building densities are too low, the areas are too spread out, and/or the PT investment is way too low. 

One of my friends is a dentist who occasionally does pro bono work. At 5am, people were lining up for dental work. Almost all of them drove. They were too poor to pay for a regular dentist, yet had to pay for a car and its related gas, maintenance, insurance? In many areas, public transit is cheap, but is simply too sparse and inconvenient.

With the rise of even more rightwing politics, there is even more "benign" neglect of the public realm.


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

ukiyo said:


> The same applies to NY and Boston BTW, but in the rest of the US (and probably Canada and many european countries/Aus) that's pretty prevalent..if you use PT you must be poor.


I think you're correct.

The cost of a basic car is really really cheap, given average salaries and that you can obtain finance on it.
And for most trips, the car is the fastest and most flexible means to get from place to another.

It's only when you get places with horrendous traffic delays, that everybody will take PT if it is faster.

Eg. Very large cities always generate lots of long car journeys and therefore traffic jams.
Or cities that grew before the age of the car, so they have narrow roads ad little parking available.

===
So how is the traffic in Atlanta?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Cars are very cheap if you buy older ones(like over 6 years old). 



> and probably Canada and many european countries


I don't really think people in those places you mentioned(with few exceptions) look down on those who use mass transit.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Restless said:


> So how is the traffic in Atlanta?


Interestingly though

IMHO, even if Atlanta, Georgia is a very car-centric area, it seems that the MARTA train service is doing quite well in its own right


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm wondering which cities in the developed world have the lowest modal split for cars. Anyone any idea?


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

wc eend said:


> I'm wondering which cities in the developed world have the lowest modal split for cars. Anyone any idea?


Try Venice


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

wc eend said:


> I'm wondering which cities in the developed world have the lowest modal split for cars. Anyone any idea?


For Germany it would be Berlin. In the whole developed world Hong Kong would be a good guess. They have the lowest car ownership rate of any city in the developed world.


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

Restless said:


> Try Venice


Sure, but Venitians are forced due to geographical circumstances. I rather meant which city managed to push car use down only by politics or public will.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

How much of a city's population is going to use rail-based public transport on just one day?


----------



## gooseberry (Nov 3, 2009)

People will use whatever is most convenient/fastest or will make a decision based on how much their time is worth. 

It takes me 20 minutes to get to work in my car. If I take public transportation, it takes an hour and a half and I have to give myself two hours just in case the bus or one of the trains I have to transfer to is delayed. Car wins. End of story.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

gooseberry said:


> People will use whatever is most convenient/fastest or will make a decision based on how much their time is worth.
> 
> It takes me 20 minutes to get to work in my car. If I take public transportation, it takes an hour and a half and I have to give myself two hours just in case the bus or one of the trains I have to transfer to is delayed. Car wins. End of story.


Yep, but that's maybe because someone in the past decided to provide better roads and not to invest that seriously on public transportation. Or maybe not, but it is not simple as that. IMO, the problem is cities are becoming just too large. More medium cities would be better that just a few megacities. Cities bigger than 2 million almost always end being a mess of traffic jams or some commuting hell.


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

Rotterdam is for sure still in the age of the car. A large grid of wide roads.

https://maps.google.nl/?ll=51.924559,4.478098&spn=0.004678,0.012392&t=h&z=17

But we also have a good public transport system as well.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

mckeenan said:


> Yep, but that's maybe because someone in the past decided to provide better roads and not to invest that seriously on public transportation. Or maybe not, but it is not simple as that. IMO, the problem is cities are becoming just too large. More medium cities would be better that just a few megacities. Cities bigger than 2 million almost always end being a mess of traffic jams or some commuting hell.


Not sure I agree with that. I love bigger cities. The Japanese big cities are quite nice to get around, though admittedly Tokyo gets very, very crowded on the trains. It doesn't have to be a commuter hell. Heck, Stockholm is a small city, but gets very crowded on public transport during peak hour too, so I don't think size is necessarily a determinate of how hellish a commute is. I actually get squashed on the green and red lines of the tunnelbana here in the central section almost as much as I did on some of the busy Tokyo lines in peak hour.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Bucharest is just bellow 2M people and is definitely helped at all by this fact at all. From my experience is what you do with your city that matters, not what abstract, "objective" facts and figures can do for it by themselves. I'm in a city five times larger, now, and it's five times better to live in.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Being located in a richer country helps too


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

gooseberry said:


> People will use whatever is most convenient/fastest or will make a decision based on how much their time is worth.
> 
> It takes me 20 minutes to get to work in my car. If I take public transportation, it takes an hour and a half and I have to give myself two hours just in case the bus or one of the trains I have to transfer to is delayed. Car wins. End of story.


Is public transportation really that bad in Boston?


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

The car is of course an amazing invention but its been horribly misused, its done more harm than good to humanity


----------



## Cedar Teeth (Nov 15, 2008)

El_Greco said:


> Whenever I come across something like this during *my travels* my blood starts to boil. The car has been such an unmitigated disaster when urban realm is concerned. hno:


Do local businesses and residents want the parking spaces gone? Or should planners think of pleasing visitors first and foremost? :cheers:


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

The residents who don't drive obviously want them gone, anyway its absolutely not necessary for these car parks in such tiny easily walkable sized urban areas in the examples above and especially not in those locations of exceptional architecture /urban space

Its a wonder how all the nice little towns and cities around italy and spain and france manage to keep their urban areas so wonderfully pedestrian friendly without some type of social dysfunction or economic implosion while brits and irish and americans and aussies feel compelled to fill every piece of free space with cars, sure makes you think doesnt it!


----------



## Cedar Teeth (Nov 15, 2008)

wakka12 said:


> The residents who don't drive obviously want them gone, anyway its absolutely not necessary for these car parks in such tiny easily walkable sized urban areas in the examples above and especially not in those locations of exceptional architecture /urban space
> 
> Its a wonder how all the nice little towns and cities around italy and spain and france manage to keep their urban areas so wonderfully pedestrian friendly without some type of social dysfunction or economic implosion while brits and irish and americans and aussies feel compelled to fill every piece of free space with cars, sure makes you think doesnt it!


If anyone proposed to build half the amount of expressways Madrid has cutting through its urban fabric in Dublin or London people would probably riot.
Again just another example of car haters selective vision. Complain about a parking lot in some beautiful (but honestly architecturally irrelevant) square while citing a country that literally has a 6 lane motorway a few meters from the royal palace as an example of the right balance between cars and pedestrians :bash:


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ your post makes no sense whatsoever. Why would someone who hates cars disapprove of the square turned into a parking but NOT also disapprove of massive urban highways? There is literally no such person.


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

I know the larger cities in those countries aren't particularly pedestrian friendly ! I actually found Paris and Rome very car dominated but its why I said smaller cities, Florence, Siena, Bordeaux, Montpellier, Taragona, Valencia, are a lot more pedestrian friendly than similar size cities in the other western countries I mentioned

And Madrid does have a lot of motorways on the outer areas but it has a very large central area which caters more to pedestrians than cars

There are definitely some cultures in the world that value car free public space and provide it with no negative consequences

And also places don't need to ban cars to be pedestrian friendly..landscaping(widening footpaths, limiting on street parking,outdoor seating, underground car parks) and provision of good PT can go a long way to improving pedestrian experience to same level as complete car ban without completely limiting cars. Speaking of London I think its a very good example of a city which has rather few fully pedestrianised areas but much of the city is very comfortable to walk around , definitely a good model. Its incredible public transport is surely a large factor in why such a large dense city feels like it handles cars pretty well, doesnt feel choked by them at all like some big cities do.
Im not necessarily in favour of complete car bans but the examples provided by el greco are an absolute disgrace, completely shameful use of what could be lovely public space.


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

Yes the part of Rome with the really narrow streets was very lovely and walkable, but I don't know, my perception from visiting was just that it felt very car dominated in a lot of places, like I was often dodging cars on these wide multilane roads and everyone drove so fast. And there was a very busy wide road beside the colosseum and the forum and all the archaelogical ruins,via dei fori imperiali, which I found a bit disappointing, I thought of all places in the city to ban cars, that would have to be the place, but maybe its a very vital road and I just don't know much about the workings of Romes transport

I also found it strange seeing really busy wide roads literally surrounding ancient ruins, like the pyramid cestius, it was like 2000 years old, yet there was nowhere to view it from because of how car busy the surrounding area was, same with outside caragalla baths was just huge wide roads, some parts of the ancient walls too ,just car city, some of the less nice areas a bit outside the very central area, were very busy with cars too. Also I found a lot of drivers broke red lights. 

But as you say, Rome has plenty of large parts of the city where you can completely escape from cars, so its not that big of a deal


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Rome gets an unfair bad reputation IMO. Yes there's relatively heavy traffic by Western European on certain roads, but I took the bus at rush hour on a Monday to go from Termini station to Ciampino airport and it only took half an hour without a dedicated bus lane. The same trajectory in Bucharest (from Gara de Nord to Otopeni airport, similar distance) was taking well over two hours at that time! I think the bad impression Rome leaves to many people comes from how difficult it is to cross certain large roads as a pedestrian, on crossings without lights and with drivers not overly keen on stopping. The centre is also great for walking, although I haven't visited since I became a parent (which has made me much more strict in my judgment).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I am not sure if it is still like that but a good while ago I was taking the bus to the western periphery of Rome for a week and it was the craziest thing PT wise I have ever done. The bus was not all to frequent but so packed full every single time I used it that it was barely possibly to squeeze in, sometimes literally impossible. The buses needed quite some time at every stop until finally the doors managed to close. I don't know if it was just that line, just unfortunate time or if it is a more general problem.


----------



## SpazzyWeasel (Mar 1, 2019)

If you've ever been to Texas, it looks like the "age of the car" is still in full bloom! New and expanded freeways are constantly under construction, as if they can't build them fast enough. I'm glad so much of the rest of the world is smart enough to invest in more sustainable forms of transportation and development, rather than catering so heavily to the private automobile. Even if some magical, 100% renewable, zero-emissions means of powering cars came into being, the social detriments and safety risks associated with automobile-oriented urbanism would still remain.

(Hi, I'm new here.)


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

The age of the car isn't going anywhere It's hold on the West maybe waning but it is becoming ever more popular in developing countries due to mobility issues and having a car in most developing countries is still a status symbol. 

If there is one thing that will result in the decline of the car, surprisingly, it's the rise of self-driving cars. They take the control, power, and fun out of driving where you are no longer 'in the driver's seat'. They will make driving as fun and interesting as having tea on an old sofa at grandma's house.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Maybe so, but take China for example. They are very harshly restricting car license plates in their large cities and a big chunk of the Chinese population lives in such cities. 

Equally, many developing countries nowadays understand that it is a terrible idea to only set your horses on car mobility and thefore also invest massively in creating metro networks and modernizing feeder PT lines. It is borderline absurd how major US cities are presumably not capable of getting a proper Metro network, while various cities in up and coming countries seem to be capable of building such a system.


----------

