Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are urban planners always trying to force buses, rail systems, bike lanes, etc. down our throats when we're clearly an automobile-centric society? Why are urban planners always trying to coerce people out of their automobiles and onto trains like cattle by enacting high gasoline taxes, using highway funds to subsidize mass transit, and by tearing down roadways to build bicycle lanes? Why is it that urban planners have such contempt for private automobiles?
And don't give me this garbage about how we're all gonna die because cars cause "global warming". First of all, automobiles don't pollute (CO2 is not a pollutant), second there's no such thing as global warming, everyone knows it's just a scheme for rich urban planners in the government to further enrich themselves by taxing us all into poverty in the name of "saving the planet."
Third, we're not running out of oil. On the contrary, there's an abundance of oil. The only problem is that we rely almost 100% on an unstable part of the world to meet our oil supply needs. We could drill our own oil, but for decades urban planners have cut off our access to our own oil because they say it's bad for the environment. Either way, there's more than enough oil. Most urban planners wish we would run out of oil, but it's ain't happening.
Oil is efficient, clean, cheap, and renewable, and it's the lifeblood of our economy. Private automobiles represent freedom, individual liberty, private property, and free enterprise. We would never be such a prosperous society without the invention of automobiles. With automobiles, we can go where we want, when we want, how fast we want, in the comfort and privacy of our own car. It seems to me urban planners want to take that freedom away from us and make us all beholden to the government for our transportation needs.
I guess it makes sense, since this only makes it easier for urban planners to enslave us to a large, central, authoritarian government. Like urban planner economic policies that ensure everyone has the same amount of wealth, no matter how hard they work, socialized (public) transportation ensures everyone has the limited mobility, no matter how much money they have. Ergo, we can't all be rich, so no one should be allowed to be rich. We can't all own fancy cars, so no one should be allowed to own a car (with the exception of rich urban planners of course). Rich urban planners are always the exception to their own rules. Rich urban planners are allowed to have billions of dollars and pay less taxes than the middle class. They're allowed to ride around in limousines while us plebes are forced by the government to ride around packed in buses like cattle. Maybe that's the real reason urban planners want to abolish private automobiles, so that they can have the roads all to themselves, and the peasants are forced into buses and trains. Discuss.
Automobiles don't pollute? Oil is a renewable resource?! I felt brain cells dying and couldn't read any more... and I LIKE cars.
I don't think urban planners force public transportation down people's throats. They just defend and try to develop it vigorously, what's wrong with that. Public transportation is a part of urban life. Cities were built around pedestrian and pedestrian friendly transportation. No one argues against automobiles. I notice more animosity from people AGAINST public transportation, I think that's why urban planners defend it so much.
Example: "Only poor people ride the bus, buses take up roads, buses are scary and dirty and disgusting" and so on.
Those kind of generalizations and animosities are what need to be argued. I'm studying to become an urban planner and the amount of animosity I face from people regarding public transportation or anything really that is pedestrian friendly and doesn't require or involve cars is extremely frustrating. If people want to battle public transportation so much all we do is retaliate against auto-centrism.
Because a previous generation of planners believed enough lanes could be built to handle whatever traffic there would be. Look at LA, which later built a subway.
No, what happend in LA was that a lot of freeways weren't built forcing people to use the current freeways used thus thr traffic problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
