Secrets of the world's happiest cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#51

Post by jaegerpicker » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 11:48 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #48

rpedroso wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other problems that need to be solved before public transit can fully replace automobiles. Consider groceries. I can't get two weeks of groceries for two people without a car. Wine bottles get heavy, and stacking bags on my arms risks crushing my eggs. I imagine it's even more complicated for those with larger families. It's also generally cheaper to pick up furniture with Zipcar than it is to have furnitur…

Or walk 6 blocks to the corner store each day to fetch your dinner. Shopping only every two weeks seems like what your car forces you to do, not enables you to do. I don't even like buying food that won't spoil in two weeks.

because all people live within 6 blocks of a corner store. I do now but this is the first time in my live that I've lived with in 3 miles (at least usually more) of a shop able store. A lot of cars in the city centers are people who live out of the city but have to drive in to get supplies.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#52

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 11:58 PM UTC

svantana wrote: post #27

jaibot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the perverse incentives of mandated "free" parking, resulting in every pedestrian, cyclist, and transit user subsidizing everyone who parks somewhere (in addition to the horrible sprawl effects).

Exactly. Even in places that are generally enamoured with free markets, you never see this. It would be fun to see market-priced parking in places like Manhattan - what would happen?

Parking is not market-priced in Manhattan? Are there any major cities where it is free?

When I lived in Chicago it certainly wasn't. Parking in the Loop was $10-$20/day (this was 15 years ago) if you just did it ad-hoc, you could buy monthly passes and save a bit, but it certainly wasn't free and as far as I know it wasn't subsidized.

All the extra taxes, costs, and inconvenience of owning a car in an major urban area is one of the big reasons why I will never live in such a place again.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#53

Post by agumonkey » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 12:12 AM UTC

oftenwrong wrote: post #2

Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...

I wish Google (or anyone else) can find a way to get land to build and experiment alternative lifestyles. Having test-beds like this may help diffuse knowledge in more efficient way.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#54

Post by agumonkey » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 12:29 AM UTC

junto wrote: post #10

Downtown Bogota at night was one of the scariest places I've ever been. On the flip-side, Bogota itself is awesome, made more awesome by Colombians, who are also double awesome!

I spent a lot of time on omegle speaking to south-americans, colombians felt wonderful from the first sentence. They have a joyful warming way of speaking that cross the screen. That said, one of them quickly had to leave because someone stabbed his car tires for no apparent reasons. Weird.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#55

Post by natrius » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 1:19 AM UTC

rpedroso wrote: post #19

zacinbusiness wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The automobile-industrial complex that destroyed public transportation in the US would never let it happen here. Maybe in other countries it's a possibility. Or maybe in the future when the major car manufacturers FINALLY go under. I support visionary tech like the HyperLoop even if only because it shows that there are some smart people who can actually see the problem and that they are thinking of ways of solving it…

There are other problems that need to be solved before public transit can fully replace automobiles. Consider groceries. I can't get two weeks of groceries for two people without a car. Wine bottles get heavy, and stacking bags on my arms risks crushing my eggs. I imagine it's even more complicated for those with larger families. It's also generally cheaper to pick up furniture with Zipcar than it is to have furnitur…

I get my groceries on my bike that has baskets on the back rack. Two reusable bags hold lots of stuff, and I bring a backpack for when I go over. I drive when I need larger things, like toilet paper every two months.

Palo Alto taught me that cycling was a viable mode of transportation five years ago, and that knowledge has added lots of happiness to my life since.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#56

Post by Shorel » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

alpeb wrote: post #21

Bogotanian here. This is one of the most unlivable cities there is. As soon as you step out the door you're aggravated in a thousands ways through your day. Bogotá and Colombia usually score high in the "happiness" rankings because of a servitude mentality that dates back to the colony. Inequality is very high even for Latin American standards and people are taught to accept and embrace it. You'll rarely see protests…

People here is not really happy, just drunk.

About half the people I know without a degree drink all their wage the very day they get it.

It is very usual for them to be very drunk the next day (if the payday is Monday, they will be drunk Tuesday). Also, their wives will fight with them for that very reason.

It is not luck that the most powerful private company from Colombia is Bavaria.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#57

Post by Daniel_Newby » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 2:19 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #49

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most towns, bus economics only allows for one hour routes and a transfer for most trips. That means two hours in motion average for a round trip, and up to two more hours waiting if your business does not line up with scheduled stops. The grandparent comment is exactly right. Shorter, more frequent routes are possible, but making the economics work does require a ban on cars to convert drivers to paying transit ri…

Yours is the sole intelligent response, so I'll comment here. > Autonomous taxis will rewrite the economic rules. You're absolutely right. However, that technology isn't here yet and there is no guarantee that it will arrive. Mind you, most of the barriers to adoption aren't even technical, although those exist too. I prefer not to count my chickens until they hatch. Right now, public transportation means one thing:…

Self-driving vehicles work today and are legal in several states. Elementary pieces of self-driving tech are selling in production cars. I take it as a foregone conclusion that everything will be self-driving in 50 years—probably much sooner.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#58

Post by mjn » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 2:46 AM UTC

brigade wrote: post #33

MAGZine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody who lives outside of the city would ever be expected to give up their vehicle. The corollary, is, however, that this means that people need to live IN the city, and the city needs to NOT be sprawling, and have good transit networks (paths, bike lanes, p. transit)

The point is that there are always going to be people that live outside the city. Period. Banning cars from the city means anyone not living in the city simply won't visit, which for most cities will result in too few people spending money inside the city to sustain the businesses that make living in the city attractive.

Surely they could still visit by train? Why would you want to drive into a city, and deal with the traffic and parking? Copenhagen has deliberately reduced parking in the city center, slimmed roads, and pedestrianized a bit of the core, and people still come, mostly by S-train [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#59

Post by mjn » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 2:47 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #20

oftenwrong wrote: post #2

Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...

> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster,…

> The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish?

Nobody is restricting your right to use your property as you wish. You may drive your car on private property all you want: your own property, or that of anyone else who gives you permission. That's what private property rights guarantee.

What you seem to want is to drive your car on property you don't own, which is not some kind of human right. Nobody is required to facilitate your desire to drive around by building you roads and granting you access to them.

Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities

#60

Post by mjn » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 2:52 AM UTC

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #42

epo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any rational planning system would enhance public transport to mitigate the effects of curtailing widespread use of privately owned cars. However, you seem to be American so perhaps the notion of rational planning is alien to you. Certainly the use of verbiage like "stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish" would indicate that rational thought is alien to you.

In most towns, bus economics only allows for one hour routes and a transfer for most trips. That means two hours in motion average for a round trip, and up to two more hours waiting if your business does not line up with scheduled stops. The grandparent comment is exactly right. Shorter, more frequent routes are possible, but making the economics work does require a ban on cars to convert drivers to paying transit ri…

How about just a good and reasonably fast commuter-rail network? It's faster to get to many suburbs of Copenhagen by public transit than to drive, because we have: 1) extensive commuter rail; and 2) not many freeways.

I don't think it's only that American cities aren't actively discouraging driving (e.g. by banning cars from city centers), but that they are spending huge piles of money actively encouraging it, by building 10-lane freeways and the like. If you build rail and not freeways to all the suburbs, most people take rail for routine trips.