4 ms·
As someone who lives, and prefers to live, a car-centric lifestyle (as opposed to walking or taking public transportation), most of the points in this article d
by kylec 10y ago
As someone who lives, and prefers to live, a car-centric lifestyle (as opposed to walking or taking public transportation), most of the points in this article don't bother me. I think this is just another rehash of the "cars are bad" argument that keeps making the rounds.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoIt's not that cars are bad overall. It's that cars are usually mindlessly chosen as the 'default' or assumed mode of transportation, even when they are poorly suited and very expensive to support. Parking minimums are a good example of this. If people want to choose cars, that's fine, but parking minimums mandate that we reserve large portions of cities for people to park their private property on, thus heavily subsidizing that choice. Maybe that's okay in rural areas, but it makes little sense for denser urban or even suburban areas. Similarly, roads usually prioritize speed of cars over safety of everyone, particularly people walking or on bikes.
- leetNightshade 10y agoI don't think he's saying cars are bad, he's pointing out lots of flaws in the design of roads and living areas. He's bringing up the inefficiencies that lifestyle has, suburbia he argues brings a lot of inefficiencies. I LOVE driving. But Los Angeles is complete shit due to the suburban sprawl, lack of a well designed connectors and ramps, lack of well designed roadways for the throughput, etc. Los Angeles is a prime example of why Suburbia sucks. This article hits all the right points. There's a lot of artificial inefficiencies we've imposed on ourselves due to lack of forethought, stubbornness, resistance to change, or many other reasons. Sadly, it's impossible to fix anything in a quick manner.