61–70 of 226 posts
One thing I have always found odd is how no one talks about treating cars like guns. Both have reasonable use cases. Both are fun to tinker with. Both are the main ways people kill other people. And you shouldn't need to use either daily in a civilized society. That's not even talking about the rest of the problems mass car ownership creates, from climate change to destroying neighborhoods to the health crisis sittin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that America isn't only New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, but those three areas do make up over 10% of the population, which is nothing to sneeze at.
I know it’s because it’s HN, but SF is just not that big of a city to be included with the other two. Maybe include Houston, Philadelphia, or Phoenix. SF isn’t even in the top ten.
Americans want to be "apart"! Most people in America see high-density living as a negative. Most want a yard and a garage. The country is huge - you can fit three UKs into the state of Texas alone. We have the space, we have the roads, we like our yards. I have moved our family into progressively rural environments and will continue to do so until the distance to basic necessities is intolerable. In most rural enviro…
The times, and with it many people's preferences, are always changing.
It's wonderful that you have found the place that suits you. Likewise, a growing number of people value higher density living, just as you do low density living.
- The Geography of Nowhere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Nowhere
- Suburban Nation https://books.google.ch/books/about/Suburban_Nation.html?id=...
Much of the car-bound design resulted from zoning and simple the-rode-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions. The problem is fixable, but it will probably take much clamoring over a generation’s timespan to undo the damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until 1940 or so, the United States was relatively friendly to non-car transport--just look at the older sections of most towns and cities.
Exactly. That's part of why I don't buy the argument that we have no choice.
That’s what needs to be fixed.
I can understand that not every city can provide a good transit system, but for cities like ours I wonder if the problem can be solved by creating dedicated bus lanes that are always separate from other lanes throughout the city. When you're stuck in traffic and see the buses whizzing through without delay, it's easy to make the decision to ditch the car and start using the transit.
Those who are able to afford to live in affluent areas have high income jobs and can purchase the land surrounding their workplace, enabling non motorized conveyance or transit. The low and middle class, are forced out of the area, however these middle to low income jobs still exist and they need to be accomplished; think how far out a janitor is pushed away from a high income residence area before they can afford a…
That's not to say that there's something inherently wrong with the American suburban model, it just doesn't scale well. So much space is wasted on parking lots for vehicles that stand empty most of the day. And rush hour traffic is just not fixable beyond a certain point, no matter how many lanes are added to the highways.
It's just flat-out wrong to claim that non-car commutes only benefit the affluent. That's entirely dependent on how the economics of the community are set up. If there's a will to have everyone commute by public transit, there are many ways to achieve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you lived the alternative? It's obvious people are raised to want large houses and large yards, its cultural, but given we'd know the true experience of both would we still feel that way? I've lived the big city, high density European lifestyle, I lived it in America too, and in Canada, and I've lived the American and Canadian small town life. They're both nice. The small town life is great if the community is h…
Yes, lived in urban environments. When I was young and single I didn't mind density and the resulting loss of personal space. Now that I am older I want as much space between me and my neighbors as possible. Short of a trip to the hospital, I have no plans on sharing a wall with a stranger ever again.
Anecdotally, I always loved having a car and the sense of independence and freedom that came with it. Then at the age of 25, I moved out of the country to a small, walkable town in Latin America where I either walked, drove my scooter, or took motorcycle taxis everywhere. After two years of living there, I moved back to the US, bought a Jeep, and was super excited to have the autonomy and ability to travel between ci…
What happens if/when you have kids. I’ve seen many people biking around Amsterdam with their kids in protective bike high seats. But this is unheard of in many US cities. Minivans are the usual solution. Would you teach them to take public transport or try to live within walking distance of everything? Obvs doesn’t apply if u don’t plan on it, but curious if anyone has found a solution in US cities.
So in car-dependent places, they have no autonomy until they're nearly adults. I think it's much more healthy for them to slowly and steadily expand their autonomy, rather than a sudden discontinuous break when they learn to drive.
The same argument applies in reverse to old people too. In places with good transit and walkability they can stay independent and active longer, with no sudden loss of freedom when they can no longer safely drive vehicles at high speed.
Walking and transit are both overwhelmingly safer than cars (most things are).
When kids are small you just push them in a stroller. Once they're too big for a stroller, they're big enough to walk everywhere that you can walk. It's really not that complicated. Suburban kids who never walk anywhere may whine about needing to walk two miles, but my kids have been doing that since before they could walk unassisted, it's perfectly normal to them.
I do also have a Dutch-style cargo bike which we use a lot around our neighborhood. It's wonderful.
Also worth noting is the huge environmental cost of cars - not just in carbon monoxide, huge array of components and metals they require to build, impact on climate change, etc., but also how they create ‘nature barriers’ dividing land corridors for flightless animals. Witness roads in the middle of otherwise pristine forests or road networks that clear huge swaths of wilderness.
I’ve frequently thought how the true cost of cars has been understated, possibly due to the assumed bias that cars are positive pieces of technology, lobbying efforts by vehicle manufacturers, a bias against public transport, etc.
Cars are in many ways, the precursor to the most private of popular, self-focused technologies: the mobile phone.
Cars benefit a private (individual, family) need generally over a public one. It is your car and your ‘asset’. Whilst there are, of course, ‘public cars’ (taxis and ride-sharing), they are not the norm in most cities, in most suburbs, in most places.
We should, as a society, spend more time debating the merits of cars and road networks - especially factoring in the downsides for those with physical disabilities and those on low incomes.
edit: fixed spelling mistake, added last three paragraphs.