That’s nice in fantasy world. In the real world there are existing structures and grades that can’t be changed, and the rail line has to cross them. Dozens of miles of elevated track would be sufficiently expensive to torpedo any proposed project even before the abutters protested the construction into oblivion.

The whole article summed up for you guys:

OK, but what about pedestrians?

he uses computers all the time. computers love him. he has fantastic computers, with many many friends.

Yeah, I’m baffled by the smaller footprint claim. I didn’t think much of it when it was first made because it was just one of a number of nonsensical claims made at once. E.g. that it would also be cheaper than rail - uh, yeah, a brand-new technology with no manufacturers producing parts and more exacting requirements…

I read Strong Towns regularly and they have a lot of really cool ideas with retrofitting cities and suburbs to be less car centric. We can undo bad urban planning.

Also the years clearly weren’t kind to Kitt.

What makes you think the USA is a succesful business?

America isn’t a country, it’s a business.

I’m not going to watch.

Perhaps you should read the post.

The article focuses on banning/limiting in cities only.

As usual, the real answer is “YMMV.” It obviously depends a lot on the particular case.