19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But also: their economies are not so closely dependent on the fossil fuel and automotive industries, and their citizens are more powerful - when they're adamant, European governments address their concerns.  

Uh, that is getting off-topic but I doubt that is true for much of Europe. Of course there are very divergent systems, so a sweeping statement is going to be close to impossible. However, in Germany the auto industry is notoriously powerful. I think something around 20% of the industrial revenue is automobiles and three of the ten largest companies in Germany are car manufacturers.

I think part of the big difference is that cities in Europe are old- they were not built with cars in mind and many of the suburbanization and related consequences did not happen in the same degree in many European countries, compared to the Americas, at least. Though with increasing housing prices, commutes did increase. 

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Uh, that is getting off-topic but I doubt that is true for much of Europe. Of course there are very divergent systems, so a sweeping statement is going to be close to impossible

You're right. I was generalizing too much from the most progressive EU nations.

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

However, in Germany the auto industry is notoriously powerful. I think something around 20% of the industrial revenue is automobiles and three of the ten largest companies in Germany are car manufacturers.

And yet Munich and Hamburg are among the cities banning cars from downtown. Seems the auto industry is being suborned by the bright side.

On 8/18/2021 at 11:20 AM, studiot said:

The future's good. the future's rosy.

So they said back in 1910

My post about the BBC article and some of my other material has really been to highlight that most, if not all, of these matters have been tried before, some of them long ago.

 

Yet no one seems to be prepared to analyse and learn from past experience.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Yet no one seems to be prepared to analyse and learn from past experience.

Because they're more comfortable now...

 

History is just another example, of a less efficient system; but we're much more clever now...

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Yet no one seems to be prepared to analyse and learn from past experience.

Maybe they are, but how closely does a past, in some cases, very long past, experience compare to a present situation? The cities have grown; the infrastructure has changed, the organization of cities and industries, the demographics, generation and distribution of wealth, transport requirements are different from 1910. And in another decade, things will changed again - in some cases, quite dramatically.

The only thing we can successfully fish out of that period and keep is the electric car.  (In Manhattan, an electric gondola service.) 

Edited August 20, 20214 yr by Peterkin

2 hours ago, studiot said:

My post about the BBC article and some of my other material has really been to highlight that most, if not all, of these matters have been tried before, some of them long ago.

 

Yet no one seems to be prepared to analyse and learn from past experience.

I feel the author's logic is somewhat faulty. They assume vehicles need to stay parked somewhere. Ideally they drop you off and leave the area instead.

Take awhile to see a true smart setup(and longer for transport mode routing), but even something partial would be leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now. Much more efficient use of space, time and resources.

Edited August 20, 20214 yr by Endy0816