Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

devonzuegel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 344 posts

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#331

Post by supertrope »

wokky wrote: post #234
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient... Driving is subsidised in about a zillion different ways in the US; it's already hideously, ruinously expensive, we just don't realize it. You wouldn't have to artificially raise the price of driving to make it less appealing, you'd only have to make the actual cost…

Roads are indeed often financed from the general government budget in addition to fuel, registration, tire tax. But many voters like having more roads. In effect the majority is subsidizing its own desires.

It's a self-reinforcing status quo of people who accept government spending on roads, traffic congestion, crash casualties, total cost of ownership of a car in the thousands of USD per year, physical inactivity, and air pollution. And they expect free parking and cheap gasoline.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#332

Post by supertrope »

bunderbunder wrote: post #167
paulryanrogers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the time loss. Private vehicles usually save time and have maximum schedule flexibility. Bicycles a scooters could help with the last mile, if they can be managed well. Of course everyone has different thresholds. But I'd guess most people work hard to earn enough for their own time saving luxuries, even if the external costs will hurt their children later in life.

This seems to me like one of those issues that has way too many variables to make a reasonable guess at how things will really compare in the counterfactual situation. If you've got a city that really is dense enough to be pedestrian-friendly, I think it's likely to be the case that the time situation is shifted considerably. Not only will it take less time to walk and bike places, but you probably find that the kind…

Many people underestimate the total costs of commuting. They want a cheaper and/or bigger residence. They think they're a superior driver and/or they'll buy a bigger car for safety. They would never take a salary cut even if it came with a greatly shortened commute. Car operation cost deltas are not included when considering a job or residence.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#333

Post by supertrope »

rorykoehler wrote: post #248
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

>"make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". Two observations. 1) We need to think outside of the box. 2) We need to redefine what public transportation means. I would classify Uber/Lyft and dockless bikes/escooters as public transportation, at least from a city planning perspective.

Urban planning is the most important factor. Density of buildings and people is essential to how desirable a mass transit system is to potential riders and how economically viable it is.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#334

Post by wool_gather »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #202
Zaskoda wrote: post #62

I'm one of those folks who would love to drop everything I have going to wander off into the desert/forest/underwater/whatever with the intention of bootstrapping a new city from scratch. The more I talk about it, I've found that there are a lot of people who would love such an adventure - if we could all just find some effort worth getting behind. It's sort of like starting a hippy commune, only with high-tech inten…

I would love to do that too. The problem is that you have to comply with the laws of whatever state/province/country on whose land you build the city, so you are often restricted in many ways - not least in understanding the regulations and working with the government to demonstrate compliance. These guys https://www.seasteading.org/ are working towards building floating cities. In the short term, they want to figure…

I believe there's still unincorporated land in the American Southwest. I've heard secondhand about a "new intentional city" project in Colorado. Someone had a big chunk of land; other people -- invite-only -- were buying lots.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#335

Post by ManFromUranus »

btingle wrote: post #324
ManFromUranus wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution…

I think my original comment may have been a bit too snarky. But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more for their poor and downtrodden than they currently do. And yes, I guess I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) if it means that the quality of life for those with the least advantages was improved.

>But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more

They could do more for sure. But it's a bottomless pit. The more you invest the more "poor" people are "pulled" into orbit of the programs requiring more spend, which brings more poor which requires more spend ad inifinitum.

> I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it)

Oh ok then, I just decided that you don't need your money and I will spend it on the poor. Since I am "good" and I have everyones best interests at heart because I said so, then there's no problem. I will also decide who does and doesn't "need" their money. What an awesome power to wield.

What weasel word language you're using "life for those with the least advantages" just because you are poor doesn't mean you didn't earn it or don't deserve it. What simplistic logic you are using, what gigantic and awesome powers you propose to wield with such little thought.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#336

Post by aoeusnth1 »

DrScump wrote: post #292
jacques_chester wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool. And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or mo…

They solve air pollution They displace air pollution to wherever the generation plant is, except for rare areas served by 100% nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/geothermal.

Displacement results in better health outcomes, which is the whole point.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#337

Post by bunderbunder »

supertrope wrote: post #332
bunderbunder wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to me like one of those issues that has way too many variables to make a reasonable guess at how things will really compare in the counterfactual situation. If you've got a city that really is dense enough to be pedestrian-friendly, I think it's likely to be the case that the time situation is shifted considerably. Not only will it take less time to walk and bike places, but you probably find that the kind…

Many people underestimate the total costs of commuting. They want a cheaper and/or bigger residence. They think they're a superior driver and/or they'll buy a bigger car for safety. They would never take a salary cut even if it came with a greatly shortened commute. Car operation cost deltas are not included when considering a job or residence.

Which just feels crazy to me.

My commute is a 7 minute walk. I go home and eat lunch with my family several days a week. I would have a very hard time giving that up, and I couldn't even imagine going back to spending 10% of my waking hours stuck in traffic. Life is too short for that.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#338

Post by njarboe »

zumu wrote: post #201
njarboe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need a kickstarter like system. Get 10,000 people to deposit $10,000 and you have got $100,000,000 to acquire a nice plot of land, set up planning and governance, and incorporate a new town. I'd be interested in seeing plans for such towns and would be interested in living in one. Or one billionaire with similar ambitions.

> Or one billionaire with similar ambitions. I was with you until this part. I'd rather not live in a city with an 'owner'.

Multiple of both types would be nice to have to see how they turn out. If you are not locking people in, the amount of dystopia that such a city could support should be minimal.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#339

Post by njarboe »

toasterlovin wrote: post #148
njarboe wrote: post #70

What I would like is an electric bike and a legal structure where I can take one on the freeway(goes at least 60mph) and in bike lanes(go slow there). Range 30mi.

Something that is safe at 60mph is not really a bike anymore.

When is something with two wheels not a bike anymore? I imagine you would use a mass cutoff right? Or visual size? Bikes on the Tour de France get over 80mph on down hill sections so making one "safe" at 60mph seems not impossible on first principles. Safe is usually judged by just a feeling and I would like to check out my feeling on such a machine. I'm sure this space of vehicle has not been worked on much and would love to see some active invention going on.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#340

Post by toasterlovin »

njarboe wrote: post #339
toasterlovin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that is safe at 60mph is not really a bike anymore.

When is something with two wheels not a bike anymore? I imagine you would use a mass cutoff right? Or visual size? Bikes on the Tour de France get over 80mph on down hill sections so making one "safe" at 60mph seems not impossible on first principles. Safe is usually judged by just a feeling and I would like to check out my feeling on such a machine. I'm sure this space of vehicle has not been worked on much and woul…

If it can go 60mph, it needs a motor. Usually something like that is called a motorcycle.
Post reply on HN