Cars have people inside them. And unlike buses, cars allow people to have much more living space, cars are available at any time of day and night, you don't have to wait for a car for 30 minutes, etc.
Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode.
And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.
> What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers?
Living with and regularly interacting with "people" instead of living in a personal convenience store.
> Cars have people inside them.
Cars kill people. A lot. Like, orders of magnitude more than literally anything other mode of transportation. If you die in a car, it was almost certainly the fault of a driver. If you die walking or cycling, it was almost certainly the fault of a driver. Cars a human-hostile in the most literal sense. Cars kill people. The solution to the problem of cars killing people is not putting more people in cars, because cars are happy to kill people in cars. Because cars kill people.
> And unlike buses, cars allow people to have much more living space
Please elaborate on this. What does "living space" mean to you?
> cars are available at any time of day and night, you don't have to wait for a car for 30 minutes, etc.
Buses only exist because so much money has been spent on car infrastructure, and they are the only mode of public transportation that can directly use that car infrastructure. Once you stop spending insane amounts of money on car infrastructure, more reliable transit can be built (trams, subways, heavy rail, cycling infrastructure, walking infrastructure).
> Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode.
Have you - heck, have anyone you know - ever made a friend while driving? Or does human-friendly not include being friendly with humans?
> And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.
> What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers?
Certainly an interesting question, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're really arguing against big cities rather than against mass transit, but that's an entirely different discussion.
> Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode.
No. Cars are human-hostile. Far, FAR more so than ANY other transit mode. Foir one thing, they kill FAR more people than any other transit more. But also because they require So. Much. More Space.
Sure, it's nice to have your own private space while moving around (not worth much when you have to concentrate on driving and are thus stressed, but let's assume that will be alleviated by self-driving cars) but you're not alone. There are 100,000 people who also want to move in the same space. And thus everyone gets a big upside once and a downside that is small but multiplied by 99,999.
> And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.
But what you're arguing for is to build them for cars instead. And we have done that and we know the result is horrible. And whe have done the other options too, and we know they are much better.
>What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers?
You don't really need 30 story towers to have mass transit. Row houses with 3 stories and a few apartment complexes here and there is enough density to not spend forewer to get somewhere and also not necessarily need a car.
What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers?
> Individual traffic requires car-centric, human-hostile design.
Cars have people inside them. And unlike buses, cars allow people to have much more living space, cars are available at any time of day and night, you don't have to wait for a car for 30 minutes, etc.
Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode.
And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.