If everyone uses public transport could the system cope?
924842
As some one who works in the rail industry the answer is that we are rapidly approaching capacity and we are struggling to cope with existing numbers
1185282
how about human transportation by molecules and atoms?
407934
If you are on a train it's easy... just complain about the trains... any regular commuter will happily engage on a conversation on how bad the trains are!
573759
Public transportation.  Move to a city with well-run public transportation and you won't even need a car.
933361
Balloons are quite difficult to steer, they tend to just go with the prevailing wind, they also have to be careful of strong up and down draughts, which you will certainly get over deserts.\n\nIt's a nice idea, and would certainly be quite a "green" transpotrt system, but I think the problems would outweigh the benefits.
481794
I'm assuming you mean mass transportation, like subways, bus service, els, etc.\n\n1.  Secure, monitored parking lots where people feel comfortable leaving their cars and where they feel save moving from their cars to the transit station\n\n2.  Safe, patrolled trains, etc.\n\n3.  Regular and reliable short-distance transportation at end points (from station to major venues, major work areas, etc.)\n\n4.  Early and late schedules (although perhaps less frequent) for individuals who don't work regular hours (also, in case someone may need to stay late unexpectedly).\n\n5.  Reasonable cost -- must be materially less expensive than personal commuting in order to offset less convenience and flexibility.\n\n6.  Availability of emergency transportation alternatives in the event of a need to get somewhere quickly (in major cities for intercity travel, this would be cabs, for instance).
876992
a) If posted in the average newspaper, the information would be absorbed and contemplated by the masses by about lunch time. 180 km/hr = 111.85200 mi/hr so it would take the train 14.30461682 hrs under perfect conditions to reach its destination. Thus the train would normally arrive at 5:18PM. At about 1Pm the protesters would make their appearance with ample time to prepare. This fiasco may be averted due to the vast movement of the train seeing as protesters although readily available tend to be slow and wouldn't not probably be able to catch up.\nb) As for the group of       ists, they most likely already have a sufficient stock pile of nukes do to Americas massive oil expenses and would not take such an obvious risk.\nc) The protesters, discouraged by their fail attempts, would then turn on the politician blamed for allowing the transport. He would be voted out of office soon thereafter. This can be calculated using this simple equation:\n[(Outrage)*(# of protesters)]/[(Political power)*(Cases slowing legislation)]
1184524
Yes, everybody can...\nThe thing is that they have not yet achieved the level needed for that to happen...
920742
Well any good debate requires that one also know your opponent's opinions, reasoning, and evidence.  So I will give you some opinions for both sides, aside from the ones you already stated.  First I will give some counterarguments for the points you already stated, one is that pollution is not limited to a certain area, so you should avoid saying exactly that, just say a decrease in overall pollution.  I'm not familiar with this area, but public transport can be troublesome for people buying stuff, seeing as how they have to haul their goods and belongings onto public transportation, which could be a potentially ripe place for people to get robbed.  The CBD will be less congested, well I'm betting that what traffic there is small fry compared to Asian cities such as Tokyo or Hong Kong.  Elimination of private cars would be a good thing because it can severely limit the number of casualties related to driving, most commonly drunk driving.  Cars should also be banned because it will help conserve natural resources such as gasoline, as well as reserving more land for real estate development rather than road development.   The elimination of cars on the road will help to expedite any emergency being responded by the authorites, such as medical emergencies, fires, etc.  Now let's take a look at why we shouldn't eliminate private cars, well for one its an inconvenience for people who are already accustomed to their own transportation.  Another is that risk for accidents in public transporation may become riskier, as said before mugging, but also vehicle accidents, a bus that is full of passengers toppling over could be catastrophic.  Private transportation for personal reasons become more inconvenient, such as someone who is about to give birth could only get to a hospital through public transportation rather than a car.  Again, I am not familiar with this area, so some points may not necessarily apply, but hoped that helped.
239301
Have less people drive. Instead they can get on the bus.\nDesign cars differently so that they don't emit so many exhaust fumes.\nThose are the only 2 ideas I can think of right now. Try typing in reducing the greenhouse effect. Good Luck
187602
No.  You COULD get hit by a runaway bus.
495128
Actually ... yeah ... I think it could could. If everyone in the world was filled with genuine love for others, we'd be rid of war, poverty, and greed.\n\nBut that's never going to be the way things are. For some reason, there always has to balance, and we never really appreciate the good without the bad to offset it.
1117557
Absolutely!!! It would cut back on pollution and make traveling so much more efficient and hassel free.
127995
Too low. \nBush may be wrong on a lot of things, but he does have a point regarding our dependence on fossil fuels. \nAs you increase prices, more and more people will take alternative transportation. Bicycles, public transport, hybrid cars are all viable means to reduce dependence on oil. This means healthier environments, healthier people and in the long run, a better way of life.
37379
Probably so, especially if controlling traffic flow for children or school buses.
462394
It would suck.  Everyone would be stressed and on edge and there would probably be more health problems than there are today.
1126485
No because we would still not be all on the same level. There would be just a poor rich class compared to the absolute filty rich.