The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by AllegedAlec » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:41 PM UTC

mojuba wrote: post #26

nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> And then there are third-tier historical medieval towns that are 100% walkable and you again don't need a car.

Ah yeah sure I'll just find work in a place and then buy a house there. It's not like 3+ decades of mismanagement on migration and internal policies left even places 30+ minutes by car from work unafforable by mere mortals.

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

#32

Post by AllegedAlec » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #8

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 have the same experience, but I wonder if I just got older and more spoiled or if non-car traffic really got worse

It has gotten significantly worse to the point where I stopped taking it. Prices on public transport are now also so high I'm better off taking the car on most trips.

Also it it me or are "just have walkable/bikeable cities people" more obnoxious than vegan speed cyclists

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

#33

Post by 1over137 » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:45 PM UTC

p_ing wrote: post #30

adrianN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car dominance is cemented by decades of car centric planning which made cars indispensable in some areas. That is a well known fact, but planning can be changed. If you prioritize other forms of transport in a few decades cars can be a lot less important.

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…

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

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

#34

Post by bluGill » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

dkiebd wrote: post #16

ang_cire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is "interested" in making public transit worse, the issue is that people in power are not users of it and so are not invested in it, and civic and national pride is generally dead in the West, being replaced with vapid nationalism, so there's no drive (no pun intended) to invest in public works projects.

The way I understand your comment, it implies that a) users of public transportation should be invested in it, whilst it’s more likely that they use it because they have no alternative, and that b) civic and national pride results in higher demand for public transportation. I don’t think those are universal truths.

When users of transit are few there is not enough people to care. often the only users are those least likely to be usefuly involved. so you can't get a useful advocate. Even when transit gets support it is from people wanting to feel good about helping the poor - but would never use it themselves and so they want something with no care for quality. They often make alliences with those whose intersts are not for good transit and don't care that the compromise is bad for transit.

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

#35

Post by ang_cire » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

mojuba wrote: post #26

nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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, because I don't see how or why the large-scale industrial base would be needed or could be sustained with only smaller, distributed cities, but it's interesting to hear another perspective.

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

#36

Post by jweir » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

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…

I spent 17 years without a car - first Berkeley then Brooklyn. It was a huge boost in financial freedom and stability - nothing worse than a major repair on something you depend on.

But most of the US this is impossible by design. Where I grew up you might live right next to a grocery store- but it is a mile walk because of the wall and road design. Nuts.

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

#37

Post by bluGill » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #28

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

"That's just like, your opinion, man." The car is clearly not the best way to navigate a dense city. It is impractical to have, say, tower block apartments and also have a car for each resident. It is unreasonable to build enough parking for peak time around every destination that anyone might want to go to. On the flip side - not everyone wants to live in a dense city, and people's opinions on this change throughout…

> On the flip side - not everyone wants to live in a dense city, and people's opinions on this change throughout their lives. If you look at the cost of living in an urban area it’s clear there is a lot of demand. Rural is cheaper because most people don’t want a long commute.

Urban living isn't even possiple without a high cost of living. Building a single story builing is massively cheaper than going up - unless land costs are extreemely high.

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

#38

Post by feurio » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:50 PM UTC

ang_cire wrote: post #12

mattigames wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No one is "interested" in making public transit worse, the issue is that people in power are not users of it and so are not invested in it, and civic and national pride is generally dead in the West, being replaced with vapid nationalism, so there's no drive (no pun intended) to invest in public works projects.

The London Mayor some years ago, Ken Livingstone, was a huge proponent of public trasport and used it extensively.

The current Mayor, whilst still a proponent, likely does not use it. A quick glance at the social media that he recieves will tell you why - it would not be safe. He needs to travel with close protection officers.

The reason? He is Muslim, and Britain has become a very racist country indeed. Well, maybe always was, but the likes of Farage and Musk have so emboldened them that there is no longer a stigma.

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

#39

Post by p_ing » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:51 PM UTC

1over137 wrote: post #33

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…

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.

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

#40

Post by nradov » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 5:53 PM UTC

dietr1ch wrote: post #13

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…

My motorized freedom dreams got stuck in increasingly worse traffic. Nowadays I dream of a "bikeable" commute and grocery shopping and whatever works best between public transport and driving on the weekends.

My area is fairly "bikeable" but I seldom ride my bike for errands because I can't be sure that it will still be there when I get out of the store. The local authorities do almost nothing to prevent bike theft.

Sure, cars can also be stolen. But modern cars are now fairly theft resistant and police at least take it seriously as a crime.