Americans Drive Less, Creating a Problem

[K. A. Pital]

Slacker's right. To seriously accomplish a shift from the US car culture, a generation at least would be required.

if that's the case, then get off the internet.

The Internet does not (a) pollute environment (b) contribute to food crisis (c) contribute to fuel crisis (d) contribute to luxury-on-credit culture (e) thus contributing to the overall economic crisis. Whether one might like it or not, car culture does have consequences for the economy and they are negative, the internet has not. Perhaps if you discovered golden rings bear a hazard to human health, you would assume this luxury isn't good, whereas say silver rings which do not cause such damage, or cause less of a damage. Just an example.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Slacker's right. To seriously accomplish a shift from the US car culture, a generation at least would be required.

if that's the case, then get off the internet.

The Internet does not (a) pollute environment (b) contribute to food crisis (c) contribute to fuel crisis (d) contribute to luxury-on-credit culture (e) thus contributing to the overall economic crisis. Whether one might like it or not, car culture does have consequences for the economy and they are negative, the internet has not. Perhaps if you discovered golden rings bear a hazard to human health, you would assume this luxury isn't good, whereas say silver rings which do not cause such damage, or cause less of a damage. Just an example.

I hate to nitpick, but the thousands of computers that run the internet and the millions more accessing it does however consume a shit load of electrical resources and infrastructure. In some countries, a computer is a far greater luxury than a ramshackle car, to be honest.

In fact, some parts of America do not have access to the Internet, but do have access to the car, just to give you an example.

[Coyote]

Ray, I think Singapore is about the size of Los Angeles and Orange County, California, combined. We can build mass transit in cities, but beyond that it is too expensive. It's not just suburbs-- it's thousands upon thousands of small towns, villages, and farms spread out.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ray, I think Singapore is about the size of Los Angeles and Orange County, California, combined. We can build mass transit in cities, but beyond that it is too expensive. It's not just suburbs-- it's thousands upon thousands of small towns, villages, and farms spread out.

Smaller. It's smaller than Manhattan city. It's even smaller than Lake Michigan. 60km on the length and 40 km across in a diagonal.

[K. A. Pital]

I hate to nitpick, but the thousands of computers that run the internet and the millions more accessing it does however consume a shit load of electrical resources and infrastructure.

Less per person than a car I would presume. And computers do add something useful, increasing the productivity of the material means of production in society, and of people as well. Personal cars also do, especially if they can be utilized for work purposes, so it's not a clear-cut question of course.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I hate to nitpick, but the thousands of computers that run the internet and the millions more accessing it does however consume a shit load of electrical resources and infrastructure.

Less per person than a car I would presume. And computers do add something useful, increasing the productivity of the material means of production in society, and of people as well. Personal cars also do, especially if they can be utilized for work purposes, so it's not a clear-cut question of course.

Probably not. But in some poorer countries, a car is more valuable because it grants access to resources that one would otherwise do not.

A computer on the hand, for these people, is a needless luxury. What can they do with a computer, when the more pressing need is to ship goods out for sale, or to obtain goods?

Internet infrastructure, on the other hand, is billions dollars worth, and requires replacement every few years. It goes from servers, to cables, to oceanic cables etc.

[K. A. Pital]

A computer on the hand, for these people, is a needless luxury.

A computer with education, if obtained for a relatively small value (think XO Laptop) is an educational ability for their children in nations whose education does not exist, or only private education is available and most are uneducated.

At least for their children; I don't pretend a person on the brink of survival can have time to work with a computer, I've been on that brink and 16 hours of labour a day are not the worst there is really.

The current generation of people in the Third World has to struggle for the sake of future generations; their own situation cannot cardinally improve in a short term. This is sad, but it is so.

[Broomstick]

Well, what's wrong with redeveloping a better public transport system, so that you can actually give up your car and make use of a public transport like a train or a bus that allows you to travel 90 miles and get your medicine?

If the public transportation is refined, you don't need a car to get your medicines.

Cars in essence is a luxury item.

Do you understand that my county is the size of your entire country?

County, hell - the city of Chicago is roughly the same land area as Singapore, although "only" 3/4 of the population. (The greater Chicago metropolitan area, or "Chicagoland", has twice the population of Singapore and significantly more land area). Ray, do you understand that the US has three cities that are larger than your entire country? We also have large areas - much larger than the entire land area of your country - with no human inhabitants whatsoever. It's a very, very different place than where you live. It's significantly different than Europe, as has been discussed frequently on SD.net.

For dense urban areas many of your ideas have merit and that's no surprise as you come from such a dense, urban area. Indeed, in areas of the US with features comparable to Singapore, such as Chicago and New York City (both dense, urban environments) we DO have viable mass transit and have had it for well over a century. I can't speak for New York City, but in Chicagoland the transit agencies are either city owned (the Chicago Transit Authority) or state owned (the Regional Transit Authority, Northwestern Indiana Commuter Transit District) which would be "government owned" - in our case local governments but corresponding in size to your Singapore government's transit. Hey, I lived in Chicago proper for 15 years and for most of them never owned or needed a car. I completely understand your position that in such environments cars really aren't necessary for most people, and may be a burden more than anything else.

So yes, your system does work well for areas similar to Singapore in size and population. No one is denying that. The Chicago mass transit system dates back to the 1860's, with some of the rail system still in use dating back to the 1890's. New York City's I presume is even older. The problem, MOST Of the US is not like Singapore. The population is much lower in density, and spread out over a much greater area.

Yosemite Bear, from what I gather, lives in an area that just doesn't have the population to support mass transit, and must travel 140+ km just to obtain his medications. Given he lives in mountains, in winter that's got to be hell, or at times even impossible. (Ray, I'm assuming you are not familiar with winter driving in general, or driving in mountains, much less the combination - I'm speaking of anything from roads covered in ice and snow and therefore treacherous to snow so deep it is literally impossible for a car to travel through it).

Or consider my former college roommate - in order to pay for medical school she entered a program where the government pays for some or most of the cost in return for the doctor agreeing to serve remote communities. The places she was stationed, in Nevada, was so remote that the nearest place to obtain groceries was 240 km away. Imagine that, Ray - having to travel 240 km to get your food. Nevermind the distance, the time involved in such travel gets to be a burden. That is also why a lot of remote communities in the US have people with small airplanes - with a fuel burn comparable to a pick up truck but the ability to jump over obstacles of terrain and higher speeds than traveling by road such aircraft are not so much luxuries but practical tools. These are not places where mass transit is or ever will be practical. For such places locally generated power (wind or water, for example) or biodiesel (either as main fuel or as a supplement) may make much more sense. (We have engines right now - both for ground vehicles and light aircraft - that can run very well on biodiesel, this is not some remote fantasy) I suspect that for the foreseeable future such communities will continue to need to import some of their fuel/energy - but that's no different than way stations for travel and commerce for millennia which typically have imported food, fuel, and other supplies for the travelers using their services. In Roman times it was animal feed, food and beverages for people, and olive oil. These days its petroleum products and food and beverages for people. The difference is in the details, not the main concepts.

[Kanastrous]

Roads are very expensive to build and maintain. Those of us who have no vehicle, or if we do, don't use it for commuting, should not have to pay the same level as someone who drives 50+ miles a day.

You still reap sufficient benefits from the road system that whether you drive or not, makes little difference regarding whether you should be contributing to its upkeep and expansion.

Unless you lead a more-shoestring-than-the-Unabomber existence, where you are 100% disconnected from any of the systems or technologies people routinely use in North America, that are supported by the transit system. Which is obviously not the case, since you have access to an internet connection.

[Darth Wong]

Slacker's right. To seriously accomplish a shift from the US car culture, a generation at least would be required.

if that's the case, then get off the internet.

The Internet does not (a) pollute environment (b) contribute to food crisis (c) contribute to fuel crisis (d) contribute to luxury-on-credit culture (e) thus contributing to the overall economic crisis. Whether one might like it or not, car culture does have consequences for the economy and they are negative, the internet has not. Perhaps if you discovered golden rings bear a hazard to human health, you would assume this luxury isn't good, whereas say silver rings which do not cause such damage, or cause less of a damage. Just an example.

I think you have not given enough thought to the consequences of modern networked computing.

A) The Internet is inextricably tied to the computer industry in general, and computers are not a particularly eco-sensitive industry. Computer components use all sorts of nasty chemicals in production, they contribute to the battery problem, and they are rarely recycled or disposed of properly.

B) You might think so, but check out item #E below.

C) You might think so, but check out item #E below.

D) Whoa, Nelly! Internet shopping is almost entirely credit card based. In Canada alone, on-line shopping in 2007 surged to almost $13 billion. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/1 ... ml?ref=rss

E) Actually, fast networked computing has contributed significantly to the current economic crisis, much of which was fueled by the kind of instant trading that was made possible by modern computing systems. Banks, investment funds, and traders can instantly transfer billions of dollars in seconds, often based on complex mathematical computer models. In fact, many hedge funds have computer-triggered trade thresholds, where a certain market condition automatically triggers the transfer of huge amounts of money, with no human intervention required. This modern super-fast mass-trading contributes significantly to the volatility of the market, including the commodities market where hedge funds have caused considerable chaos.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, fast networked computing has contributed significantly to the current economic crisis, much of which was fueled by the kind of instant trading that was made possible by modern computing systems. Banks, investment funds, and traders can instantly transfer billions of dollars in seconds, often based on complex mathematical computer models. In fact, many hedge funds have computer-triggered trade thresholds, where a certain market condition automatically triggers the transfer of huge amounts of money, with no human intervention required. This modern super-fast mass-trading contributes significantly to the volatility of the market, including the commodities market where hedge funds have caused considerable chaos.

Ouch

That's what you get for transplanting the realities of Russia on foreign nations. Yeah, I forgot how important e-trade systems are, how important credit cards were in fuelling this mess, online shopping and all that.

Indeedy, the computerization does have it's share of negative consequences.

[Darth Wong]

Roads are very expensive to build and maintain. Those of us who have no vehicle, or if we do, don't use it for commuting, should not have to pay the same level as someone who drives 50+ miles a day.

You still reap sufficient benefits from the road system that whether you drive or not, makes little difference regarding whether you should be contributing to its upkeep and expansion.

Unless you lead a more-shoestring-than-the-Unabomber existence, where you are 100% disconnected from any of the systems or technologies people routinely use in North America, that are supported by the transit system. Which is obviously not the case, since you have access to an internet connection.

Your rebuttal would be more appropriate if Ekiqa had argued for non-drivers paying nothing to support the road system. Instead, Ekiqa only argued for non-drivers paying less, ie- "should not have to pay the same level". Which is entirely reasonable, since it is pretty hard to justify the argument that there is no difference at all between the benefits a driver and a non-driver get from the road system.

[matus1976]

ray245: As a person who dislike the idea of private ownership of cars, I am glad to see this fact.
...
Even private ownership of cars is banned, public ownership of cars will still exist in any society.

Wow, another bona fida wannabe frustrated social tyrant. Why must I justify the use of and ownership of my car to you? What moral authority exactly do you have over me?

ray245: Well, what's wrong with redeveloping a better public transport system, so that you can actually give up your car and make use of a public transport like a train or a bus that allows you to travel 90 miles and get your medicine?

Come up with one that is cheaper and more convenient than my car and you'll be a billionaire.

ray245: In regards to the US, the better alternative is to scrap the idea of suburbs altogether, although that is an impossible go

The only reason suburbs exist in the first place is because of moronic totalitarian zoning laws by still more wannabe frustrated social tyrants. Virtually every town in the US has a height limit on buildings, most are 3 stories. In many New England counties you can not build a 2 story colonial with a normally pitched roof because the peak of the roof exceeds the zoning height restrictions. Most of these restrictions were put in place originally because fire trucks could not pump water more than 32 feet. Now they are used by do-gooders who think they have the right to design the look and feel of cities and towns. In denser urban populations you are faced with height restrictions and space restrictions put in place by the same morons who are demanding 'affordable' housing. In wooded areas it is often required that you have 5 or more acres of a lot just to build a 1,000 sf house. Most cities have area to height ratio restrictions, or just general height restrictions. All of these moronic restrictions combine to force people to spread out into suburbs. It is far cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and much more effective for many people to live in a small area than it is for many people to live spread out over a large area, the only way to achieve this is to build up and take up your whole lot. Both of which are illegal in almost every single US county and city.

[Darth Wong]

You are confusing cities with suburbs. The cities often have dense build-ups of high-rise buildings. It's the suburbs where they call themselves "planned communities" and have all these restrictions on the appearance and layout of housing. In short, you are blaming the suburbs for themselves.

[ray245]

Well, what's wrong with redeveloping a better public transport system, so that you can actually give up your car and make use of a public transport like a train or a bus that allows you to travel 90 miles and get your medicine?

If the public transportation is refined, you don't need a car to get your medicines.

Cars in essence is a luxury item.

Do you understand that my county is the size of your entire country?

County, hell - the city of Chicago is roughly the same land area as Singapore, although "only" 3/4 of the population. (The greater Chicago metropolitan area, or "Chicagoland", has twice the population of Singapore and significantly more land area). Ray, do you understand that the US has three cities that are larger than your entire country? We also have large areas - much larger than the entire land area of your country - with no human inhabitants whatsoever. It's a very, very different place than where you live. It's significantly different than Europe, as has been discussed frequently on SD.net.

For dense urban areas many of your ideas have merit and that's no surprise as you come from such a dense, urban area. Indeed, in areas of the US with features comparable to Singapore, such as Chicago and New York City (both dense, urban environments) we DO have viable mass transit and have had it for well over a century. I can't speak for New York City, but in Chicagoland the transit agencies are either city owned (the Chicago Transit Authority) or state owned (the Regional Transit Authority, Northwestern Indiana Commuter Transit District) which would be "government owned" - in our case local governments but corresponding in size to your Singapore government's transit. Hey, I lived in Chicago proper for 15 years and for most of them never owned or needed a car. I completely understand your position that in such environments cars really aren't necessary for most people, and may be a burden more than anything else.

So yes, your system does work well for areas similar to Singapore in size and population. No one is denying that. The Chicago mass transit system dates back to the 1860's, with some of the rail system still in use dating back to the 1890's. New York City's I presume is even older. The problem, MOST Of the US is not like Singapore. The population is much lower in density, and spread out over a much greater area.

Yosemite Bear, from what I gather, lives in an area that just doesn't have the population to support mass transit, and must travel 140+ km just to obtain his medications. Given he lives in mountains, in winter that's got to be hell, or at times even impossible. (Ray, I'm assuming you are not familiar with winter driving in general, or driving in mountains, much less the combination - I'm speaking of anything from roads covered in ice and snow and therefore treacherous to snow so deep it is literally impossible for a car to travel through it).

Or consider my former college roommate - in order to pay for medical school she entered a program where the government pays for some or most of the cost in return for the doctor agreeing to serve remote communities. The places she was stationed, in Nevada, was so remote that the nearest place to obtain groceries was 240 km away. Imagine that, Ray - having to travel 240 km to get your food. Nevermind the distance, the time involved in such travel gets to be a burden. That is also why a lot of remote communities in the US have people with small airplanes - with a fuel burn comparable to a pick up truck but the ability to jump over obstacles of terrain and higher speeds than traveling by road such aircraft are not so much luxuries but practical tools. These are not places where mass transit is or ever will be practical. For such places locally generated power (wind or water, for example) or biodiesel (either as main fuel or as a supplement) may make much more sense. (We have engines right now - both for ground vehicles and light aircraft - that can run very well on biodiesel, this is not some remote fantasy) I suspect that for the foreseeable future such communities will continue to need to import some of their fuel/energy - but that's no different than way stations for travel and commerce for millennia which typically have imported food, fuel, and other supplies for the travelers using their services. In Roman times it was animal feed, food and beverages for people, and olive oil. These days its petroleum products and food and beverages for people. The difference is in the details, not the main concepts.

Firstly, one of my major weakness is due to the fact that I am too idealistic, and idealism without grasping on to reality is a very dangerous thing.

Ideally, I would really hope that people would just live in those sky cities and etc, and give up on the idea of suburbs altogether if your population don't need so much land. Then proceed to link those cities together using trains and etc.

If it is so hard to get to a local store and etc, then simply don't live in those areas. Grant economic benefit from tax cuts to housing grant to encourage people to leave from those isolated pocket of community in the US to the cities. (BTW, I know the CCP manage to move large amount of people from the rural areas to the city areas, does anyone has any idea how they accomplish it without a huge social outcry? Like granting people economic benefits and so on?)

Other than that, can anyone tell me why people stop building cities as a whole?

Don't occupy the land for the sake of occupying the land, something that is a major flaw among humanity as a whole. Living in isolated pockets on the earth is something that should be left to us as a holiday event.

Realistically speaking, the thing that can be achieved is basically the use of electric cars and switch our energy sources to Nuclear and other renewable energy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Firstly, one of my major weakness is due to the fact that I am too idealistic, and idealism without grasping on to reality is a very dangerous thing.

I think you are confusing idealism with government propaganda. I know for a fact they have been espousing Government policies in Social Studies recently, so yes, I know they have been extolling the benefits of their systems from young.

Ideally, I would really hope that people would just live in those sky cities and etc, and give up on the idea of suburbs altogether if your population don't need so much land. Then proceed to link those cities together using trains and etc.

You are joking. It's very expensive to live in a city. There is no suburb in Singapore, remember that. You would have little to no idea as to the great difference involved. And who wants to live in a city when the suburb is quieter? The only reason why some would live in NY is just so they don't have to take a car.

But in say Chicago or in Maryland, I know that there are people who would drive to the nearest train station, park the car there, and then go on to the city.

If it is so hard to get to a local store and etc, then simply don't live in those areas. Grant economic benefit from tax cuts to housing grant to encourage people to leave from those isolated pocket of community in the US to the cities. (BTW, I know the CCP manage to move large amount of people from the rural areas to the city areas, does anyone has any idea how they accomplish it without a huge social outcry? Like granting people economic benefits and so on?)

Are you kidding? There are people who would loathe to live in crowded spaces. I can assure that many people will be protesting such a move. Moreover, your tax cuts will never compensate for the fact that city living is extremely expensive.

And by the way, the CCP rules by the sword. Do you think you can do that in the US?

Other than that, can anyone tell me why people stop building cities as a whole?

Because a city is a massive investment. Also, not every city in the US is as densely populated as New York or Chicago. There is little or no justification for building more cities when they can't even populate most cities to the same level as Chicago, New York, San Francisco etc.

Don't occupy the land for the sake of occupying the land, something that is a major flaw among humanity as a whole. Living in isolated pockets on the earth is something that should be left to us as a holiday event.

It is a "yes and no" flaw. Not everybody wants to live in a place where it is densely populated, where you have to fight your way through crowds to get to something.

Realistically speaking, the thing that can be achieved is basically the use of electric cars and switch our energy sources to Nuclear and other renewable energy.

!??! YOu are not making sense here, again.

[matus1976]

You are confusing cities with suburbs. The cities often have dense build-ups of high-rise buildings. It's the suburbs where they call themselves "planned communities" and have all these restrictions on the appearance and layout of housing. In short, you are blaming the suburbs for themselves.

No, I'm not, you are just not aware of the extensive restrictions in cities. Cities, towns, suburbs, farms, etc, all have extensive zoning laws.

2 minutes of googling shows New York Cities extensive zoning laws
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/z ... icts.shtml

A lot in Brooklyn zoned as R5 can not be higher than 40ft
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zh ... .pdf#r4-r5

A commercial zoned building in mid town Manhattan between fifth ave from 27th to 33rd street is zoned "C5-2" can have a maximum floor area ration of 10.0 whether residential or commercial.

Floor Area Ratio from - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/g ... html#floor

"The floor area ratio (FAR) is the principal bulk regulation controlling the size of buildings. FAR is the ratio of total building floor area to the area of its zoning lot. Each zoning district has an FAR control which, when multiplied by the lot area of the zoning lot, produces the maximum amount of floor area allowable in a building on the zoning lot. For example, on a 10,000 square-foot zoning lot in a district with a maximum FAR of 1.0, the floor area of a building cannot exceed 10,000 square feet."

So you can make your building low large and flat, and reach that 'maximum floor area ratio' or you can make it tall and slim, and reach that floor area ratio, but you can not make it large and tall, because you'll exceed that maximum floor area ratio that some city council men has pulled out of nowhere.

[Stormbringer]

Ideally, I would really hope that people would just live in those sky cities and etc, and give up on the idea of suburbs altogether if your population don't need so much land. Then proceed to link those cities together using trains and etc.

Ray, that's nearly flat out not going to happen. The ultra-dense cities you're used to are aberrations caused by local conditions. Your home city of Singapore, as I understand it, is constrained pretty heavily by the availability of land. It's gotten so dense because there's no where else to go and yet the city must grow. That happens some times in place like Hong Kong or Mexico City or others where there's a limited area available.

That's not the case in most major metropolitan areas the world over. It's more prominent in North America because of the standard of living and the sheer material affluence. But large sprawling cities are more often the norm. It simply makes very little economic or technological sense to create your "sky cities" with out other factors necessitating it.

If it is so hard to get to a local store and etc, then simply don't live in those areas.

Yes, some people are cranks and to an extent they already pay for that. On the other hand, a fair number of those places exist because of economic need. Many of them are there because of things like resource extraction or in the case of Yosemite Bear's place, because of economic factors like tourism. Some are simply nigh impossible to shut down and others it makes sense to keep open in spite of the hardship.

Other than that, can anyone tell me why people stop building cities as a whole?

They haven't but city size is strongly constrained by economic, technological, and social factors. Skyscrapers are massively more expensive than other buildings, far more than mere scale difference, and are much more difficult to construction and maintain. There's also the issue of infrastructure development and maintenance which become progressively more difficult the more densely packed the population.

The real world isn't SimCity where you can just go make it so regardless of outside factors.

[KrauserKrauser]

ray245 do you have some sort of learning disability that removes your ability to understand other people's points?

Firstly, one of my major weakness is due to the fact that I am too idealistic, and idealism without grasping on to reality is a very dangerous thing.

Yes, it leads to incredibly stupid statements like the following.

Ideally, I would really hope that people would just live in those sky cities and etc, and give up on the idea of suburbs altogether if your population don't need so much land. Then proceed to link those cities together using trains and etc.

I wish that I could eat ice cream, peanut butter cups and fried chicken legs all day and not become a disgusting fatty. I wish lesbians were all smoking hot and constantly going at it on demand.

We Americans have the luxury of alot of arable land fit for human habitation. Singapore is a county sized block of rock that has in my opinion too many people living there. Why do you people feel the need to live in such close proximity. Why are you causing a greater environmental impact through your urban living than simply spreading out and living in the mountains, etc?

If it is so hard to get to a local store and etc, then simply don't live in those areas. Grant economic benefit from tax cuts to housing grant to encourage people to leave from those isolated pocket of community in the US to the cities. (BTW, I know the CCP manage to move large amount of people from the rural areas to the city areas, does anyone has any idea how they accomplish it without a huge social outcry? Like granting people economic benefits and so on?)

Yeah, forced migration for the win! You really have no ability to understand other people's viewpoints do you, ray? You simply believe that big city living is the only possible way to live and people should be forced into it even when there is a viable alternative. That is asinine and completely ignores the previous posts that reveal your viewpoint is incredibly narrowed when considering the vast size differences between Singapore and the United States landmass. We have more room than you and are not forced to cram our population into a tiny sardine can like you are.

Other than that, can anyone tell me why people stop building cities as a whole?

I don't understand this question. Cities are simply a growth of a town, village, etc as more and more people decide to live there. Cities are growing and contracting on a regular basis world wide do to job avilability, environmental changes, etc.

What are you actually asking with this question?

Don't occupy the land for the sake of occupying the land, something that is a major flaw among humanity as a whole. Living in isolated pockets on the earth is something that should be left to us as a holiday event.

So you are arguing against private land ownership? Alot of the large plots of land in America are either used for agricultural purposes or somehow or other put to use. People aren't "occupying the land for the sake of occupying the land" for the most part. Even the desert ranches in NevedaArizonNewMexico can be used as a revenue stream with Solar power in the future where they were previously pretty much just scrubland. Private land ownership allows for more value to be gained from the usage of the land as collectivization of the USSR farming industry resulted in massive food shortages. It also allows for a higher incidence of explotation as there are more opportunities for highs and low, higher statistical sample size for variation, but collective efforts can result in just as much devastation.

Realistically speaking, the thing that can be achieved is basically the use of electric cars and switch our energy sources to Nuclear and other renewable energy.

And you continue to ignore everyone's comments in the thread above you. Good job sir, you can stick your fingers in your ears with the best of them.

[Kanastrous]

Roads are very expensive to build and maintain. Those of us who have no vehicle, or if we do, don't use it for commuting, should not have to pay the same level as someone who drives 50+ miles a day.

You still reap sufficient benefits from the road system that whether you drive or not, makes little difference regarding whether you should be contributing to its upkeep and expansion.

Unless you lead a more-shoestring-than-the-Unabomber existence, where you are 100% disconnected from any of the systems or technologies people routinely use in North America, that are supported by the transit system. Which is obviously not the case, since you have access to an internet connection.

Your rebuttal would be more appropriate if Ekiqa had argued for non-drivers paying nothing to support the road system. Instead, Ekiqa only argued for non-drivers paying less, ie- "should not have to pay the same level". Which is entirely reasonable, since it is pretty hard to justify the argument that there is no difference at all between the benefits a driver and a non-driver get from the road system.

I think that there are too many individual variables for each road user/benefits-from-road-use person, to make a blanket statement that a person who may not himself drive, owes the system less than a person who does drive.

For example, on any given day I owe my ability to conveniently reach my job, to the presence of the road system. On any given day, some number of diabetics who don't drive, owe their lives to the availability of the road system.

[Teebs]

Why can't individual human beings be allowed to possess the technological means to make their lives easier and more convenient?

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a luxury item? Something you can possess to make your life easier and more convenient? If we exclude the whole technical economicsy definitions.

Get off the internet and go huddle in a dark, dank cave. Fire is a luxury by that definition.

I wasn't saying people shouldn't be allowed cars, just that car ownership is not some kind of right and/or necessity in the way that I might consider sufficient food or somewhere to live to be (in a first world country at least). Hence luxury.

[Kitsune]

Don't occupy the land for the sake of occupying the land, something that is a major flaw among humanity as a whole. Living in isolated pockets on the earth is something that should be left to us as a holiday event.

I like to go hiking / camping a few times a year......The mountains are about 200 miles (320 km) away from where I live. How can I even reach those isolated pockets with some form of transportation. Even if an electric car would be affordable, they generally don't have enough range.

[Darth Wong]

You are confusing cities with suburbs. The cities often have dense build-ups of high-rise buildings. It's the suburbs where they call themselves "planned communities" and have all these restrictions on the appearance and layout of housing. In short, you are blaming the suburbs for themselves.

No, I'm not, you are just not aware of the extensive restrictions in cities. Cities, towns, suburbs, farms, etc, all have extensive zoning laws.

2 minutes of googling shows New York Cities extensive zoning laws
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/z ... icts.shtml

A lot in Brooklyn zoned as R5 can not be higher than 40ft
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zh ... .pdf#r4-r5

You honestly have no clue how ridiculous it is to use one of the most built-up areas in the world as an example of a place where restrictive zoning laws prevent built-up urban construction, do you?

Of course NYC has zoning laws; I never said it was anarchy. But the zoning laws in urban areas obviously allow a lot of built-up construction, as anyone who's not blind can see when he passes through them. The same is not true of suburbs, which are ridiculously spread out.

[ray245]

I think you are confusing idealism with government propaganda. I know for a fact they have been espousing Government policies in Social Studies recently, so yes, I know they have been extolling the benefits of their systems from young.

Idealism as in ideas that can never be fully implemented in real life, in essence, just empty talk. Come on, no one in the PAP would even support the idea of banning private ownership of cars in real life. BTW, the PAP has yet to accomplish what they preach about in social studies.

You are joking. It's very expensive to live in a city. There is no suburb in Singapore, remember that. You would have little to no idea as to the great difference involved. And who wants to live in a city when the suburb is quieter? The only reason why some would live in NY is just so they don't have to take a car.

Really? I thought as a whole, living in the suburbs is more expensive than living in a city with the cost of transportation unless you are talking about the the size of your house, come on, there is no point in living in a big house.

The size of the houses Americans are living in is basically a house for the rich down here. Having a big house without a big family basically a waste of money. This is a luxury we can live without, living in big houses. Unless you are really rich, stop demanding the need to live in bigger houses.

But in say Chicago or in Maryland, I know that there are people who would drive to the nearest train station, park the car there, and then go on to the city.

What? Taking a bus to the station might be a much better choice in my opinion.

Are you kidding? There are people who would loathe to live in crowded spaces. I can assure that many people will be protesting such a move. Moreover, your tax cuts will never compensate for the fact that city living is extremely expensive.

And by the way, the CCP rules by the sword. Do you think you can do that in the US?

Living in a city is expensive if you are expecting to have the same standard of living you enjoyed in a suburb. Ok, living in a city might not be too enjoyable for you, but don't complain about the fact that you can't drive in SUV or having to drive a more expensive cars.

Both options is going to suck, but simply giving them some benefit is more than enough to convince a portion of society. Come on, how many people in any society can notice the real benefit they gain from the government, if there are benfits to begin with.

It is a "yes and no" flaw. Not everybody wants to live in a place where it is densely populated, where you have to fight your way through crowds to get to something.

Unless living the suburb does not hurt the society as a whole.

Realistically speaking, the thing that can be achieved is basically the use of electric cars and switch our energy sources to Nuclear and other renewable energy.

!??! YOu are not making sense here, again.

Oh crap.

I am saying the only viable solution we can have is find a way to increase the usage of electic cars and ensure pollution is curb to a certain extend. ( Am I making more sense now?). After noticing the respond, it might not be viable as well.

[ray245]

We Americans have the luxury of alot of arable land fit for human habitation. Singapore is a county sized block of rock that has in my opinion too many people living there. Why do you people feel the need to live in such close proximity. Why are you causing a greater environmental impact through your urban living than simply spreading out and living in the mountains, etc?

If there is no major energy issues concerning the fact that spreading means we will require more use of cars and vechicles, I would say feel free to live apart.

There is a problem with spreading out due to the rising cost and consumption of energy.

As people have pointed out above, spreading out means public transportation will be less viable and the demand for car ownership will increase.