How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?
More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity
Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?
Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.
Yes, that’s how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.
How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?
Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?
projection, or else hyperbolae
Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.
Yes, that’s how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.
Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely.