POLICE in the Brebes regency in the northwest of Central Java have confirmed that as many as 18 people died during a “horror” traffic jam that lasted over 20 hours on Tuesday.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/07/indonesia-traffic-jam/

How about this? Some cities stay as they are. And some cities are destroyed and new cities are built with a completely different layout and modes of transportation. And people can choose which cities they want to live in. So everyone's happy.

Getting rid of vehicle companies and cars does not mean there is now MORE money for healthcare, restaurants, and residential structures. Economics and wealth are not a zero-sum system. I don't know what this is such an impossible concept these days. I swear it's like a new religion. "Wealth" is human interaction, it is not static... any piece of "interaction you remove reduces overall value of each other piece.

Something tells me that it'll be huge chance for many industries as families in developed countries use big amount of income for services, fuel and cars. It'll also change how nature looks around cities and how it looks far away. As getting rid of the car allowing everyone to visit every place with easy will allow nature to restore.

Not to mention the idea of packing people in MORE densely and centralized cities is the perfect recipe for a plague or natural disaster to wipe out humanity.

I have some problems with logic here. You do not need to pack people very densely, you can just properly organize areas and transportations. One of the good ideas is long homes with single floor (strictly divided) only were many families live each having good amount of their own land outside of home.

Otherwise it is all context. Some countries and areas can survive only with dense packing, as otherwise it'll mean significant available agricultural land reductions.

In practice, the elimination of the idea of personal transportation is disastrous. As much as I would banning cars in LA, destroying the personal liberty of your own transportation, also destroys VAST amounts of opportunity and entrepreneurship. The wealth that has been created by industries/jobs that rely on the organization automotive-autonomy creates, does not magically find it way into other areas. Getting rid of vehicle companies and cars does not mean there is now MORE money for healthcare, restaurants, and residential structures. Economics and wealth are not a zero-sum system. I don't know what this is such an impossible concept these days. I swear it's like a new religion. "Wealth" is human interaction, it is not static... any piece of "interaction you remove reduces overall value of each other piece.

Not to mention the idea of packing people in MORE densely and centralized cities is the perfect recipe for a plague or natural disaster to wipe out humanity.

I actually fully support the idea of SOME cities not using cars if they choose. I would actually live in one of these cities, I think. But the power and economics of allowing other cities to choose what best suits the area is too powerful to eliminate.

This is a very very interesting and relevant subject for me, as I work in BTL car marketing in mainland China. I grew up in NYC and I have owned 2 used cars during college and grad school (outside of NYC).

Do you know it takes 6-12 months before the average Chinese decides what kind of car he wants to buy? One issue is cost of course, but the other larger issue is 'face'. Surface value far outweighs MPG :-). Even some guys can't get married or even dates without owning a car.

Please stick to my words, I said your idea of "freedom" is very cynical. BTW, other than on God's punishment you can always rely on nature…

Or are you already booked on "Elysium" ?

Plus, what's different if a person from a rich elite is saying the same to his poorer neighbor what your "apparatchik" said?

ps. I read somewhere that Americans spend roughly 17% of their income on purchasing and maintaining their cars...

"Let's share GH2?" why not? I would even take it a step further. Let's share Alexa which none of us can afford. Or let's share Hollywood cameras and studios and budgets.

As far as DaVinci's idea, sounds better than the status quo. And more moderate / less radical ideas have been put forth. For instance, a prominent American architect whose name escapes me at the moment suggested not allowing cars in the city centers.

Even if cars could use thin air as fuel and could be folded after use and put in a pocket until next use, there would still people criticizeing them. It is an ideological matter: can individuals have the right to go wherever they like whenever they want or not? Can a single man or a single woman use the short time called life the way they like or has the group, the commitee, the society the right to dicide what a single individual can do or posses? In other words, does it exist human dignity, which is an other name for freedom? Data and graphics are scientific, but what we think that they should suggest is arbitrary. We could as well have data showing that cities would waste less land if not every family would be allowed to have a house. So what, let's share apartaments among three or four families? Let's share GH2? As for traffic within cities, it is probabily better to have good public transportation AND personal cars, but among cities it is a whole different story, as @rNeil explained very very well. Leonardo da Vinci proposed an ideal town, with a multilevel organization: traffic down, pedestrians up. A genious?

As a previous poster pointed out, some people really have no choice but to own cars because of the way cities are designed. So the problem is complex.

Problem is not complex, as if you have reducing income with rising fuel price you have no other options if you want to survive. :-) Don't thing that some hamsters are important to nature. Nature don't give a fuck.

I don't have the solution, but a better system needs to be devised - possibly a combination of a much more extensive and comfortable public transport system along with car sharing or some sort.

As I said, we are all "lucky" that oil and gas will cost more and more. So cars problem will be solved by itself.

"Change zoning approaches and kill public transport" ... as a 60-yr old who's lived here for all of it, that's ... well, perhaps more a ideological notion than one of reality.

It is backed by facts and documents. Again, I am talking first half of 20th century, not 1960-80 years. I need to find this old post and reference to book. It was female who wrote book about public transport and city planning changes in US. I need to find it.

So ... suggesting that everyone should stop driving cars means YOU suggest that we who don't live in a crowded city need to simply accept a very simple life. Be happy being a peasant with dreams of the outside world or something? :)

Do not take all to extremes. Whole point here is that car is not the thing required by anyone. And this is the point. But other point is that cars effectively made many people "requiring" them via different approach to living and planning.

That doesn't seem quite sensible to me. And I'm not one to like some Commissar or Committee determining my life choices either.

Committee appears if something is not enough for all people. So, if such thing will allow to drop car usage by 5-10 times, I am all for it.