Look up Pontevedra in spain.

This one is actually a pretty good idea. Eventually we get rid of the parking garages too and cover everything with railways.

I live in the Seattle area and while this stuff isn't free it's under $10 to park and ride both ways. Trains run every 7 minutes and the train will take you maybe five minutes extra if there's no traffic. If you're coming or going from the stadiums it's faster and cheaper than driving to one of the lots close to them. Trains are pretty clean too, it's a pretty great rail line

5-10 minutes is forever in some places

We haven't banned cars, but my city did put a park-and-ride lot at each end of its one BRT line. It's pretty great, now the haters get to complain that BRT is a failure because nobody rides it, AND that it's useless because those lots are always full.

A catapult on every rooftop!

Yes.

Barcelona resident here. I pay 22€ for an unlimited month transit pass (that’s a discounted price that will probably go up). I can ride any underground, bus or commuter train inside the metropolitan area. I own a car to go outside the urban zone but I barely use it.

When I have to use my car in town (because I’m going to buy something that cannot be carried easily otherwise) I recall how much driving in the city sucks.

I’m actually thinking about sellling my car and using a rental service if I want to take a road trip.

Idk what the other dude is talking about. It definitely exists some places.

Source: live in Copenhagen, don't own a car.

No. Not really.

Cars are very common and walkable cities have been largely accommodated for the car.

comprehensive public transport is impractical or next to impossible

That's how we used to do transit before cars were invented. The US had a railway line to even the most remote farms. USSR had amazing railways that interconnected almost everything despite being the biggest country on earth by a wide margin.

Generally the trick is to build densely populated walkable towns where you don't need a car for daily activities, and connect them with railways. In that case, it doesn't matter what the overall population density is.

Even for sparsely populated land, if you can build an asphalt road wider than 2 lanes, chances are you can also build a small commuter railway there eventually. It would also be cheaper overall, if you consider externalities like everyone having to own a car, car crashes being a lot more common than rail crashes, and of course CO₂ emissions and the climate change that comes along with them. And that's besides the socioeconomic benefits of letting everyone have a way to travel, rather than only those with financial means to maintain a car and the ability to drive.

Cars are sometimes necessary, but it's like 1% of what they are used for currently.

Yeah, you're never gonna live without trucks and vans either, you need those for the last few kilometres of the logistics chain. Still, we should reduce the remaining cars by half at least, and I'm saying that sitting in a train that goes so frequently that I don't have to check a schedule.

Yeah, well said. I agree with you on that, sometimes cars are still needed

Yeah i dont know if this fits shitpost

That's a Velaro

How will that help? By some studies, about 30% of traffic on downtown city streets is drivers circulating looking for street parking. With self-driving cars, they could cause congestion by circulating all day instead of parking.