Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Now, there is no such thing as 'free', we will pay for it eventually, via tax dollars. I think that the prices of transportation, say a taxi service, that runs on electricity, would be substantially cheaper than one based on gasoline.] Next, "I think that cities with extensive public transportation systems should not ban passenger cars, and replace them with hybrid cars instead of banishing the whole idea of individual cars; therefore, I think that this idea is a supporting detail in my side of the argument." you may think that, however, this does not support your side and heres why: Given my definition of a "car", I believe that electric/hybrid cars ought to remain. Because, they are technically not cars. They their own breed of vehicle. This only supports my argument because these provide easy and cheer means of travel, and this also falls under the category of "public transportation". Next, "It is against justice to force people to move by certain ways. People have the right to decide their ways of transportation. Some simply cannot afford to ride a taxi or bus every single day, depending on how much money they earn from the jobs in which they work in" It's against my right to be not allowed to take a certain mode of transportation? Well, then how come the government is allowed to have regulations on cars? How come cars under a certain fuel efficiency are not allowed on roads? How come certain types of vehicles are not street legal? Because your not entitled to transportation! Which is also pecan pie the government can take away your license if you become a danger to a society. It's a privilege, not a right. Next, "Furthermore, there are disabled people who have trouble walking long distances. More importantly, if a majority of people use public transportation, it would mean extra production of buses and trains in order to prevent from carrying overcrowded people in one station. Forcing people to participate in an act against their will does not bring flawless success." I would like to note that the disabled argument is entirely invalid considering that when you say, "extensive public transport", that problem ought to be solved. Also, public transport does have options for handicapped people. Also, "flawless success"? What is that? surely you should know by now that nothing is truly flawless, and to expect a public transportation system that is would be ridiculous. Also, " There is bound to be people who suffer from the changes. Banning passenger cars may bring up severe issues of human rights and still leaves the problem of air and noise pollution from abundant transportation vehicles." Since you did not give a definition of "human rights", I will Human rights: "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible." http://www.ohchr.org... Now, human rights is a horrible argument, that strengthens my argument because, like you just read, human rights should be available to everyone. In which, cars are not. Next, I don't know if you have researched electric cars, but there silent. Due to the lack of a combustion engine, no noise is made. So noise and pollution is also out of the picture. Thank you, I am now ready for the conclusion round.