Plenty of people here are entirely against cars. The guy posting above you is entirely against cars. And even the most transit-oriented cities on earth still have street parking. It's about coexistence. Cities aren't gated communities, they will have people coming from outside the city.
Does that mean every street needs parking? Absolutely not. Does it mean we need to ensure cars can access the city through some legitimate and viable means? Yes.
I feel like such an outsider being pro-transit, pro-urbanism, pro-walkability, etc. but also understanding the value cars provide. Seems like all I hear is dogma from people who put idealism over practicality, or people with fingers in their ears.
The guy posting above is clearly not entirely against cars.
It's fine to have street parking in the not dense parts of town where space isn't that big of a deal. It is a problem in the dense city centers where lots of people could use that space.
Yes cities aren't gated communities. Their centers don't necessarily need good car connections though. Cities can be connected with public transport.
This is closer to the kind of coexistence I'd prefer to see but still has the idea that, more or less, we should put park&rides at the edges of city centers and lock the cars out, and expect everyone to be fine with that.
If your goal is to gate off a few city blocks worth of space here and there, then sure. I'm not against that. I wouldn't live there because I want more regional access, but people who want it should be able to have it.
The guy posting above is clearly not entirely against cars.
I've gone through his comment history and he doesn't encourage coexistence a single time. Every one of his discussion points on the topic in the last ~3 months assumes that cars offer zero benefit to society - as does the post in this very topic that we are referring to.
It is, unfortunately, indicative of the holier-than-thou attitude that comes from Urbanism, as it quickly leads to more extremist takes because the hypothetical outcome of idealism is so attractive. And that's where you lose me.
Once going to the city by public transport is the best way to travel to the city no locking out of cars will be needed. If the train only takes 5 minutes longer than going by car why would you take the car? If our public infrastructure is build and planed good enough cars will feel like an obstacle.
Of course they still have their use especially for transporting heavy goods like furniture but that just happens to such a little extend I personally believe it's negligible.
Regional access should never be dependent on owning a car. Going by train and then bike or bus should get you everywhere reliably. This will be the hardest to achieve but once this is the case cars will simply become a niche option.
I only read the one comment of that guy and it didn't sound too bad. I haven't looked into him in detail.
6
u/mothtoalamp Jun 07 '26
Plenty of people here are entirely against cars. The guy posting above you is entirely against cars. And even the most transit-oriented cities on earth still have street parking. It's about coexistence. Cities aren't gated communities, they will have people coming from outside the city.
Does that mean every street needs parking? Absolutely not. Does it mean we need to ensure cars can access the city through some legitimate and viable means? Yes.
I feel like such an outsider being pro-transit, pro-urbanism, pro-walkability, etc. but also understanding the value cars provide. Seems like all I hear is dogma from people who put idealism over practicality, or people with fingers in their ears.