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

The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

blog.scaramuzza.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#51

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

TrackerFF wrote: post #14

(I live in Norway) When I lived in a major city, I went 10 years without owning a car. Should I for whatever reason need a car, I could rent one. But other than that, public transportation, walking, and biking for me. Hell, I often preferred public transportation over a car. But as soon as I moved back home, a rural area, a car has more or less become a life necessity. I simply can't imagine living out in rural nowhe…

If the only road that goes past your house is a bicycle path, a bicycle will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a railroad, then a train will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a motorway, then a car will be the most convenient.

But the transport infrastructure isn't an immutable property of the land, it's collectively-planned-and-built infrastructure. So the most convenient mode of transportation will settle into an equilibrium as the initial investment begets convenience, begetting more people choosing that method, begetting more investment and planning of towns and cities to accommodate that transportation method.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#52

Post by whyenot »

m-schuetz wrote: post #29

I've lost a lot of enthusiasm about close-range public transport. In Vienna, bicycles get you nearly every twice as fast as public transport, and mostly about as fast as cars, depending on your destination. Bikes are about four times cheaper as public transport too. Public transport ist great to connect cities, and perhaps districts. Beyound that, it quickly hits diminishing returns. It's prohibitly expensive to conn…

I think bicycles work very well in a dense and flat city where people respect traffic laws. I am highly skeptical that they are the answer everywhere. Take for example San Francisco with all of its steep hills, or Rio where you have both hills and low adherence to traffic laws. How about Mexico City with its at time horrendous air pollution. In the United States, where many cities didn't really mature until after the automobile, you have low density to deal with, for example in Houston or San Jose. How about for someone who is older? Bicycles may be great if you are in your 30s, but what about for someone in their 70s?

Bicycling is a great solution for some people in some cities, but it's not going to work as well everywhere or for everyone. Public transit, cars, walking, etc. will all have to continue being part of the mix.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#53

Post by m-schuetz »

whyenot wrote: post #52
m-schuetz wrote: post #29

I've lost a lot of enthusiasm about close-range public transport. In Vienna, bicycles get you nearly every twice as fast as public transport, and mostly about as fast as cars, depending on your destination. Bikes are about four times cheaper as public transport too. Public transport ist great to connect cities, and perhaps districts. Beyound that, it quickly hits diminishing returns. It's prohibitly expensive to conn…

I think bicycles work very well in a dense and flat city where people respect traffic laws. I am highly skeptical that they are the answer everywhere. Take for example San Francisco with all of its steep hills, or Rio where you have both hills and low adherence to traffic laws. How about Mexico City with its at time horrendous air pollution. In the United States, where many cities didn't really mature until after the…

At least San Jose has huge potential for biking inftastructure. I've lived there for a month, and taking the riverside cycling path (Guadalupe) to Santa Clara was amazing. Yeah, San Francisco is less suited. New York could also be amazing. I agree that it's not a solution for everyone, but good cycle infrastructure takes a lot of pressure from public transport.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#54

Post by frosted-flakes »

p_ing wrote: post #39
1over137 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being founded in 1880s doesn’t mean that all the planning since hasn’t been all auto-centric.

Except the dirt roads then were as wide as the paved roads are now with the same grid-style layout. Feel free to keep arguing how things radically changed just for cars. But they didn't.

It's not the width of the roads. It's about

- parking mandates that push everything very far apart because parking takes up a lot of space

- zoning restrictions that necessitate distant travel because your home is in a different sector of the city as your place of work, the grocery store, and places of leisure

- the disassembly of public transport systems after the war

- street design that makes it simply dangerous to travel on foot or on a bicycle, and extremely slow, because cars receive priority at all junctions

etc. etc.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#55

Post by p_ing »

adrianN wrote: post #45
p_ing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The place I live in was founded in the 1880s and incorporated a few years before the Model T debuted. Prior to the 1880s, Native Americans resided here. How is that car centric planning? And exactly how can one afford to live in a city where rent is $2500+ for a two bedroom or $1m+ for a SFH? That’s not going to happen on a McSalary. Those folks instead commute 1+ hours from affordable urban or more likely rural area…

I’m pretty sure that in the 1880s it was less than eight miles to the nearest shop and people didn’t need to commute dozens of miles per day to get to work.

You'd be correct on both accounts. There was a small general store which supported a few hundred people just fine (along with farms and fishing) and a gold mine which employed most people -- of course a small general store doesn't support 5K individuals and the gold mine is closed.

It's a bedroom community, there are approximately 1000 jobs in total most of which reside within the school district. The purpose of the town as it stands is to raise kids and retire. Commuting to work is a requirement.

Times change, requirements change, and needs change. This isn't the 1880s, but the physical layout of the town is largely the same with the same roads. There was no "planning" for the Model T [cars] as you're attempting to argue -- it was already laid out like it is for the horse, cart, and carriage.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#56

Post by zmnd »

nialv7 wrote: post #48
outime wrote: post #3

It's interesting how people's positions can be so different. As a European who has lived in two (european) countries with good and affordable transport, I've always been a happy public transport user... until a couple of years ago, that is. Much of the transport is now filled with unpleasant people, dirt, delays, etc which paired with the insane prices of housing in the "walkable" parts of cities, has made me 100% in…

I don't get it. If you've been enjoying public transportation for so long, then why is your reaction to it getting worse not: OK, we need to fix it so it's as good as it was. Instead you are just saying: OK, I have the resources to fix the problem for myself, so I don't give a F.

How do you fix the mentioned problem of "filled with unpleasant people" with money?

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#57

Post by p_ing »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #54
p_ing wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the dirt roads then were as wide as the paved roads are now with the same grid-style layout. Feel free to keep arguing how things radically changed just for cars. But they didn't.

It's not the width of the roads. It's about - parking mandates that push everything very far apart because parking takes up a lot of space - zoning restrictions that necessitate distant travel because your home is in a different sector of the city as your place of work, the grocery store, and places of leisure - the disassembly of public transport systems after the war - street design that makes it simply dangerous t…

No parking mandates here. It's rural. Zoning restrictions are everywhere (except Huston where you have oil refineries next to housing), it's almost all residential. No real public transportation to speak of around that time frame. In-town speed limit is 25Mph and there is about 90-95% coverage for sidewalks. I walk daily anywhere from 3 - 5 miles around this town, I don't feel unsafe.

etc. etc.

You and others in this thread are arguing about _where I live_. Don't you find that a tad silly? I haven't even named the town, you have no ability to research it, and the historical docs are all located at the local library and history museum.

This is a great place to be a ped and driving is a requirement. Maybe this is the golden holy land of mixed-use roads, or something.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#58

Post by UtopiaPunk »

ang_cire wrote: post #35
mojuba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are third-tier historical medieval towns that are 100% walkable and you again don't need a car. My ideal city of the future is a small walkable town with everything within a 15-20 minute walk, possibly a part of a conglomerate of towns that run trains or buses between them. I currently live in one such historical town in Southern Europe that's protected by Unesco. The streets are so narrow that not onl…

It's interesting to me seeing the different ways that different people respond to our modern urban hellholes. I don't want to live in a city at all, I want to live in at most a village where people all have their own land, and the village 'center' is just the most convenient nexus of property lines, where people could set up the local market. I always sort of assume people who are into de-urbanization are also de-dev…

Peasant life has its charms, I suppose.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#59

Post by Freedom2 »

nradov wrote: post #15
outime wrote: post #3

It's interesting how people's positions can be so different. As a European who has lived in two (european) countries with good and affordable transport, I've always been a happy public transport user... until a couple of years ago, that is. Much of the transport is now filled with unpleasant people, dirt, delays, etc which paired with the insane prices of housing in the "walkable" parts of cities, has made me 100% in…

European countries only have good and affordable transport in the first and second tier cities. I usually spend a few weeks per year in Europe, often in smaller cities or rural areas, and the only public transport you'll find is some occasional bus service at inconvenient times. In those places everyone drives everywhere. Or they just sit around and home and don't go anywhere.

> only

Categorically this isn't true, I easily found good and affordable public transport in smaller towns. It's definitely less common, but to bluntly say that only first and second tier cities have gold and affordable public transport is inaccurate and dismissive.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#60

Post by socalgal2 »

mattigames wrote: post #5
outime wrote: post #3

It's interesting how people's positions can be so different. As a European who has lived in two (european) countries with good and affordable transport, I've always been a happy public transport user... until a couple of years ago, that is. Much of the transport is now filled with unpleasant people, dirt, delays, etc which paired with the insane prices of housing in the "walkable" parts of cities, has made me 100% in…

And who do you think is most interested in such decay of public transportation?

Make it like Japan, not public, private. Then, like Japan, provide positive feedback loops so it’s in each of the 100+ train companies in Japan’s best interest to provide good service. They do this by letting the private train companies have complementary interests like shopping centers, office rental, apartments, etc such that the more people ride their trains the more business they get to their other interests.

Conversely, “public” transportation always needs flawless perfect politicians to continue to fund it

Post reply on HN