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

Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 576 posts

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#121

Post by jimmaswell »

dont__panic wrote: post #22

I've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently. I really hope this is proof of the younger generations -- Millenials, Zoomers, and younger folks even -- waking up to the idea that the USA in particular has become a toxic environment thanks to cars. WFH was a big wakeup call, I think -- once you step away from the commute for a year or two, trying to sit in traffic…

I work from home. I'd still rather drive most of the time than rely on transit and live anywhere more dense. E-biking is nice and I do it for exercise often, but I wouldn't want to do it in the snow or rain, even with perfect separate bike lanes, no matter how much Netherlanders insist it's no big deal.

My car has a comfortable seat, good sound system, a lot of my stuff in it, climate control, and no drug addicts accosting me for money inside it.

I'll be glad to see bike infrastructure and more rail lines built out but I would never want to live somewhere without a car.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#122

Post by mtalantikite »

Every time I'm on the west side of LA I think about how we could have built a gorgeous, walkable city like you see all over the Mediterranean, but instead we got LA.

Of course there's a little glimpse of it in that part of LA, but you still just can't easily live in LA without a car.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#123

Post by ryukafalz »

mancerayder wrote: post #84

High density is for young people. I've lived in ultra high density for decades and it's starting to really hurt. I sleep poorly due to noise (mostly from neighbors) and it's not fun to go for a walk anymore. I'm looking for a rural place to purchase a home because sorry, I just don't want to tolerate people's selfishness anymore. Density should come with more rules, both laws that are enforced as well as cultural rul…

There is a middle point between city center and car-dependent sprawl. We’ve just mostly outlawed building any new places in this in-between style, so the only ones remaining are those that have been this way for well over a century.

See “streetcar suburbs”: https://youtu.be/MWsGBRdK2N0

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#124

Post by deltarholamda »

mtalantikite wrote: post #95
Xeoncross wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs th…

I don't think anyone is advocating that rural America, or even most of exurban America, should be accessible by public transit. It's just that we literally only have one city in the entire United States that has a massive subway and bus system that operates 24 hours, which allows you to live without a car. It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.

>It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.

Yes, but remember that density is not without its problems as well. Socially of course, but also practically--density requires more competent urban management for things like sewer and water, which the US is famous for being awful at.

In the not so distant past, even rural places had (limited) access to public transportation. My mother lived way out in the sticks, but there was a road nearby. The bus would stop for anybody standing on the side of the highway to take them into town or back. This was in the 1940s-50s.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#125

Post by kennend3 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #97
Invictus0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think that most Americans have not traveled enough to realize there is a better way. Only 30% of Americans even have a passport.

30% is 100 million Americans. Also, a passport was not required to travel in North America (not sure if that is still the case). I traveled throughout Mexico and Canada before ever having a passport, for example.

I take it you have not travelled in some time? This hasn't been the case since "9/11" when the rules were changed. you need a passport to travel between USA/CA (not sure about Mexico but i would assume it needs a passport too?).

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#126

Post by NDizzle »

Invictus0 wrote: post #28
dont__panic wrote: post #22

I've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently. I really hope this is proof of the younger generations -- Millenials, Zoomers, and younger folks even -- waking up to the idea that the USA in particular has become a toxic environment thanks to cars. WFH was a big wakeup call, I think -- once you step away from the commute for a year or two, trying to sit in traffic…

I honestly think that most Americans have not traveled enough to realize there is a better way. Only 30% of Americans even have a passport.

Where, with a landmass the size of the US, in the world is it done better than in the US?

If the crusaders on this mission want to carve up SF/Seattle/Portland/DC/NYC to build whatever it is you think is better, please do. Good luck. You can't even build housing in SF, but go ahead. Redesign the cities to be whatever you want.

I'm completely done with cities and I'm not alone, never again to return. Even 78 people per square mile, where I am now, is slightly too many. Once the kids are done with school I'll reassess, and probably move even further out.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#127

Post by throw8383833jj »

dont__panic wrote: post #22

I've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently. I really hope this is proof of the younger generations -- Millenials, Zoomers, and younger folks even -- waking up to the idea that the USA in particular has become a toxic environment thanks to cars. WFH was a big wakeup call, I think -- once you step away from the commute for a year or two, trying to sit in traffic…

Absolutely. It seems strange to lock yourself into a metal box for 2 hours every day as you move back and forth between the same two destinations 220 times per year, not getting anywhere in the process. I also hope this has been a wake up call for most people.

Furthermore, driving is a lot more expensive than people realize, somewhere on the order of nearly 15% of people's expenses! or more! it's not just gas, but maintenance, parking, insurance, registration, smog, and that doesn't even count all the externalized costs.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#128

Post by badpun »

dont__panic wrote: post #22

I've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently. I really hope this is proof of the younger generations -- Millenials, Zoomers, and younger folks even -- waking up to the idea that the USA in particular has become a toxic environment thanks to cars. WFH was a big wakeup call, I think -- once you step away from the commute for a year or two, trying to sit in traffic…

> Selfishly, I really want the USA to bring city centers back to livable levels by banning most cars and redesigning them for humans. Otherwise I'm absolutely going to end up moving to Europe eventually -- likely the Netherlands

There isn't a single US city which meets your criteria?

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#129

Post by scelerat »

dont__panic wrote: post #113
jgwil2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather not learn a whole new language and leave my family and friends so far behind You could live in New York, Boston, DC, Chicago, or other dense cities with decent transit options without leaving the US entirely. It is certainly not impossible to live in the US without a car. EDIT: not really sure why this is downvoted. Just taking OP's statement that they would prefer not to uproot their whole life at face…

I have lived in multiple major US cities without a car. In NYC it's feasible, but impossible to visit family or friends who live in car-centric places. In most other cities you feel like a distant second-or-third class citizen. Swimming upstream gets tiring after a while.

> impossible to visit family or friends who live in car-centric places

Traditional car rentals like Avis, Hertz, etc., as well as carshare services like Gig or Zipcar enable this if you don't already own a car. Many people I know in SF do this.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#130

Post by lostcolony »

mtalantikite wrote: post #95
Xeoncross wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs th…

I don't think anyone is advocating that rural America, or even most of exurban America, should be accessible by public transit. It's just that we literally only have one city in the entire United States that has a massive subway and bus system that operates 24 hours, which allows you to live without a car. It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.

I don't think we need that level of density to warrant public transit. Singapore has one of the best public transit systems in the world (highest customer satisfaction rate), at 1/5th the density of NYC.
Post reply on HN