AHC: developed nation bans busses and taxis

Ban i don't think, but have a massive decrease i think is very possible. Example of modern nations are the Switzerland, Japan and Germany. These nations you have a great rapid transit networks, subways, light rails and modern commuter, intercity and High Speed Rail (ICE and Shinkansen). Tokyo as virtually no urban buses, and the exist lines are operated by rail.companies as Keio Electric and JR lines, to take people to low dense areas up subways and train stations. Germany and Swiss have massive number of light rails and streetcars that operate together If buses on planned transport network.
 
I can't see any nation banning such thing, at least not any developed one. Why it even would do that when many would lost their almost only way go from one place to other one?
 
I can't see any nation banning such thing, at least not any developed one. Why it even would do that when many would lost their almost only way go from one place to other one?
To show that they've got the ability to enforce the law. Maybe something about environmentalism as the surface reason.
 
Buses could be banned theoretically if a large size terrorist organizations take to hijacking/blowing them up frequently, but ignore other vehicles
 
With a post-1945 POD, is it possible for a modern developed nation to entirely ban the usage of (non-school) busses and taxis?
Vatican City might, but that's about it. There's just no real reason to do this if your country is large enough that you can't walk across it in half an hour.
No. Sark doesn't allow cars so not an example.
To show that they've got the ability to enforce the law. Maybe something about environmentalism as the surface reason.
What kind of environmental policy rejects buses as bad for the environment but OKs privately owned cars? I could see this sort of nonsense in a third world country where the dictator is free to impose whatever idiotic whims strike his fancy upon the populace, but no developed country is sufficiently badly run for this to ever get off the ground.
Not really. Various 'anti-vice' laws exist in pratice merely for that kind of power tripping OTL.
Vice laws don't involve crippling your own infrastructure.
 
Vatican City might, but that's about it. There's just no real reason to do this if your country is large enough that you can't walk across it in half an hour.

What kind of environmental policy rejects buses as bad for the environment but OKs privately owned cars? I could see this sort of nonsense in a third world country where the dictator is free to impose whatever idiotic whims strike his fancy upon the populace, but no developed country is sufficiently badly run for this to ever get off the ground.
Vice laws don't involve crippling your own infrastructure.
well you could argue that that IS exactly what prohibition of drugs and booze actually achieves.
 
Quite unlikely, but incidents where public transportation is viewed unsafe after several instances where looting, murder and rape take place, could possibly temporarily result in this.
 
Top