> those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better.
David Graeber has written eloquently about this
https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...
David Graeber has written eloquently about this
https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...
You need to not hurt thoses who are brainwashed by cars and keep taking it despite having one of the best public transit in the world.
I'm in favor of more public transportation, but if you think people use car willingly in and around Paris, I don't think you've tried it; it's so bad that only people with no viable choice will use a car. Or maybe you could explain (for example) how my sister in law was supposed to carry her two baby kids to the daycare using an overcrowded metro (and bonus, through stations without working elevators) or how my brother was supposed to carry the equipment he was using to constructions sites he was working. And then you've got all the places where taking a car is a 30 min trip vs 2 hours by bus or public transportation (thankfully the Grand Paris initiatives are helping a lot there).
For now, removing cars in Paris just push them around the city, because the public transportation network isn't ready.
The rest of your comment try to justify car usage by taking less than 5% of the transit in the city, when there is already exception or infrastructures made for the scenario you described (except elevators and accessibility, thats a big issur in paris intra-muros). Yes, there are a lot of people that use the car when they can not use it, thats still most of the car traffic.
so, do you have any data to back up that assertion? (I won't claim that I have any favorable to my argument, just the observation that driving in and Paris around Paris is pretty bad)
> For a lot of destination you can take 2-3 differentes routes.
most alternative routes usually take longer and end up congested whenever the main route is having issues.
https://www.paris.fr/pages/le-bilan-des-deplacements-a-paris...
Indicate 13% of the traffic is for utilitary vehicule. This number include people taking their utilitary vehicule for personal reason. 50% is for personal vehicules.
Also, why were you driving around Paris ?
> most alternative routes usually take longer
It depends.
Also, according to one of the linked pdf, cars in Paris are barely for Paris-Paris movement, but more for Paris-suburbs, which is still the biggest weakness of the public transportation network.
There is also buses, bus since the rail is faster, I never take it.
In case of strike the network is never fully down, people that can remote work do it, so there is a lot less of people transiting. On the biggest strike you can loose an hour or two while commuting, for small strike, it will get more crowded.
Otherwise, there is no such thing as "transit employees not feeling like working" - thanks to the magic of economy holding a metaphorical gun to the heads of most people. You work whether you feel like it or not.
Flying is less energy efficient. You need to find cheaper and clean energy source.
You need to find a tech that allow to fly quietly.
Forcing to make people walk more is better for the society as a whole.
It's like you think the only victims of drunk drivers are the drunks themselves.
tl;dr: it all leads to this conclusion: replace "capitalism [with a system that] is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power:.
"Bullshit Jobs" should have also remained a blog post.