13 ms·

Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would t

by curryst 10y ago

Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). Biking should be much shorter, though I can't say I've ever tried. We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true. If we made streets that were "bike only" cars wouldn't be able to access them. Cars are on a pedestal not only because of convenience and speed, but because they're the lowest common denominator.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once is an enormous upgrade to quality of life.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  If it's more efficient for you to make one trip to the store rather than several, it's even more efficient for the store to send one truck to make deliveries to many people in one trip. Even more so if enough people do so that the store can switch from a storefront laid out for customers (with cashiers, displays, and tags on shelves) to a warehouse.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    That's true. But they don't. Safeway has a long-running delivery program, but they sure aren't pushing it very hard. The system in Shanghai, where you might expect delivery to be popular, is that supermarkets operate their own buses which stop near your home. It solves the "the store is far away" problem, but it does nothing for the "I need more food than I can personally carry" problem.
    - mixmastamyk 10y ago
      That's called a cart, see above.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        No, you can't take a grocery cart on a bus.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
        Not true, in Los Angeles at least, outside of rush hour. You moved the goal post also. In the thread above we are talking about a 10-minute walk.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        No, we're not talking about a 10-minute walk. You responded to my comment 'It solves the "the store is far away" problem, but it does nothing for the "I need more food than I can personally carry" problem.' A cart is not actually responsive to that, because it reintroduces the other problem.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
        > There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house?
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        If you want to respond to that comment, respond to that comment.
        a_t48 10y ago
        Yes you can. I see it in SF, all the time.
- davidw 10y ago
  > I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. We mostly walked or biked to the local grocery store in Italy. It led to more fresh food, as you buy stuff in smaller quantities and eat it right away. A large backpack is fine for moving stuff. It worked for our family of 4.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    So... You can't eat when you're hungry, because you don't keep food at home. A huge portion of your week is suddenly devoted to shuttling back and forth between home and the grocery store. And you think that's not a massive inconvenience?
    - davidw 10y ago
      We had food at home, and went to the store 2/3 times a week. It was 5 minutes away by bike, so popping over was no problem, and it meant more fresh fruit and vegetables in our diet, too, which was nice. It was not an inconvenience, nor a "huge portion of my week". It was a small store that was quick to go through and get what I needed, not something like Costco. We did bulk buying elsewhere for other stuff, too, and took the car. It's nice to have the choice.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      That's not what was said at all. Nowhere do they say they don't keep food at home.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Eating what food you buy right away precludes storing food at home.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        "right away" doesn't mean the instant you get home. It's more like the next two to three days. Yes, in an urban environment you generally have less stored food. But usually not zero stored food. You also have less space to store it in, which makes shopping every other day more convenient. Trading off time for space and whatever conveniences urban living might provide you.
- zephjc 10y ago
  I think that depends on what your trip from home to the store is. Is it a pleasant 10 minute trip on down a country road or in an exciting, bustling city, or is it a 10 minute trip along a despotic road with nothing going on and which screams "cars only! no humans allowed!"? I prefer getting smaller grocery loads more frequently when the store is nearby, but when the trip is an ordeal, you go fewer big trips to avoid that as much as possible. A pleasant 15-20 minute walk to a store is much nicer than a 10 minute drive through an oppressive roadscape.
- mixmastamyk 10y ago
  A grocery cart is the classical solution, e.g.: https://www.amazon.com/Whitmor-6318-2678-Deluxe-Rolling-Utility/dp/B001DZ4QTC https://www.amazon.com/Whitmor-6318-2678-Deluxe-Rolling-Util... They do make bigger ones, but much bigger and you're better off with a second person. > Being able to do it all at once is an enormous upgrade to quality of life. Another perspective, a ten minute walk a few times a week is much better for quality of health (therefore life) than taking a car everywhere.
- hammock 10y ago
  Spoken like someone who has never lived in a city. If the store is a 10min walk away, you go a few times a week. And/or you use one of those old lady carts.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Seriously, read my comment. I've lived exactly like that. It's awful.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Then you did something wrong. Don’t you pass on the way from school/uni/work to home by a store anyway? just hop out of the bus, buy stuff, and walk the rest.
- phyzome 10y ago
  That's me! Our closest supermarket is 10-15 minutes away. I have: - Carried the bags - Used a backpack - Used a push-cart (can carry groceries for 5 people for a week) - Biked (with panniers) - Biked (with a trailer -- can carry groceries for 10 people for a week) - Jogged, when I just needed something small on short notice for a cooking project! It's totally fine, because our neighborhood is very walkable.
- rvense 10y ago
  I live in the centre of a largish city in Europe. Here there's a few supermarkets less than five minutes away on foot, and the last one closes at ten every day of the week. They're also on the way to and from most other places I go. Usually I just buy what I need for tonight and tomorrow on my way home, or go after dinner when I'm likely to want a quick walk anyway. Of course, I don't have kids and am generally not a very busy person, so it might not work for everyone.
  - rand1012 10y ago
    I think a 24 hour economy should be a design goal of this city.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Because the serfs working in all the 24 hour establishments don't themselves need a life. There are also noise issues in mixed use neighborhoods as seem to be being advocated for. And business volumes don't justify 24 hour operation of most businesses.
- exDM69 10y ago
  > Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I've carried 30+ kg of groceries on my bike panniers, about 15 to 30 min of ride to the store. Regular city bike with off-the-shelf panniers, not a cargo bike (which would easily take 100+ kg). But quite honestly, I'd much rather get the groceries delivered to my home. I sometimes do but the websites to order the food are so bad that it takes more time to fill the order form that it's faster to ride to the store. Bike is my primary means of transport for 8 months of the year because my city is awfully designed traffic-wise (if you need to cross the town east-west). A moderately fast bike ride beats any form of transport (including a car) on my daily commute.
- rfrey 10y ago
  A surprising (to me) benefit of going from a car-based life for 35 years to a car-less life is that more frequent grocery trips have given me incentive to move away from processed foods to fresher foods. Shopping once every 7 or 10 days obviates the advantage of the freshest produce, meat, etc. but when I'm shopping every couple days it makes a difference, and I've enjoyed cooking and eating more.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? A collapsible grocery cart (similar to a collapsible stroller), and insulated reusable grocery bags.
- eropple 10y ago
  I can carry a full week of groceries home in one of these (from a grocery store a 15 minute walk away): https://www.amazon.com/UTG-Environment-Molle-3-Day-Deployment/dp/B004RNDSR8 https://www.amazon.com/UTG-Environment-Molle-3-Day-Deploymen... (Sometimes if I'll buy eggs I'll carry those in a separate bag. How difficult.)
- tirant 10y ago
  You can perfectly do it by walking or by bike. But still, how are you going to buy fresh meat/fish or even some fruits/vegetables by shopping only once a week? I go shopping usually 3 times a week, and it is a very enjoyable and relaxing activity.
davidw 10y ago
> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this, but they aren't allowed to function any more in most cities in the US because of the amount of rules and regulations about what can be built where.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, markets are a great way of finding what makes the most money for those who build the stores. That may be "the best" solution that is also aligned with the interests of the people who live there, but it might not be.
  - davidw 10y ago
    Central planning has been a colossal failure both in terms of the economy at large, and in terms of urban planning. If someone can make money by building a store, that's great, what's wrong with it? Zoning should be about keeping truly noxious activities away from residential areas, not about keeping a corner store away from where people could possibly walk to it.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      Ah, I took a different take on your original post. I'll leave my original reply, as I still agree with the point, but I see where you're going with this and heartily agree. One of my main complaints with where I live is that it's a round-trip hour to walk to any store, yet $DEITY forbid that we put a corner store anywhere in my neighborhood lest a developer be prevented from plopping another house on that plot.
      - davidw 10y ago
        Yeah, my point is that it's impossible to say a priori what the mix of stores and single family houses and apartments and barber shops and other things should be, and where they should all be located. Markets are a good way of dealing with complex problems like that. They're not perfect, but better than the alternatives.
galdosdi 10y ago
> The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true. Your statement is only true for low speed roads. At higher speeds, it is impossible or unsafe for anyone to use the road unless they are also going at an equally high speed. So in practice, cars do NOT function as a lowest common denominator, but actively drive out other means of transportation because the roads they prefer -- high speed roads -- cannot be safely used by pedestrians or cyclists!
- jdavis703 10y ago
  There's nothing that stops setting the speed limit on a highway to 25 MPH and allowing non-motorized transit. In San Francisco they did that to a highway along the waterfront, and vehicular traffic still moves fine.
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    Exactly right. Jurisdictions need to make these decisions intentionally, or else it is possible to make roads that not all users can use. Manhattan avenues are very similar to this, and are surprisingly usable for all three modes -- they are limited to 25 MPH, and are not limited access freeways, but can feel like one to a motorist in medium or better traffic because they are one way and the signals "travel" up the avenues at 25 MPH -- so as long as you can go the speed limit, you never need to stop, which is great for motorists, yet they're still reasonably usable by pedestrians and cyclists -- it helps that the speed limit is self enforcing in that there's no point in going much faster since then you'll hit a red light. The only thing that could make it better is probably to reduce to 20 MPH.
justinator 10y ago
> Cars are on a pedestal not only because of convenience and speed, but because they're the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator? I don't own a car, and I'm sure many other people in my city don't either, so no: it's not the lowest common denominator for us: walking is. Cars are themselves very expensive and require a massive amount of infrastructure to function. Look around a city and think of all the cars, streets, parking lots, highways, etc, used for cars. Then think how that all impacts any other mode of transportation other than vehicles. Go deeper and imagine a world without those cars - what to do with all this new-found space? The words you're looking for is, "status quo". Cars are on the, "status quo" pedestal. They've replaced everything else because their massively profitable to produce. Damn the long-trail environmental cost of them, or how they've influenced the design of our modern cities.
- Kalium 10y ago
  Have you considered that with infrastructure in place, cars enable an immense amount of individual flexibility? To my mind, it seems somewhat plausible that cars rose to dominance because they enabled individual flexibility for the masses atop pre-existing and extensible infrastructure.
  - justinator 10y ago
    Flexibility? I don't own a car, and haven't for the last decade (and only had a car for maybe a year of my life). This year, I've been driven in a car about four times in > 170 days. So let me talk about flexibility. Think about how much a car costs to buy and own (purchasing, upkeep, insurance, gas, parking, storage) - then put a price on that in hours you work a year. I bet it's a lot! Maybe weeks out of every year. Now, think of not having to work those days, because you don't have car, and those expenses do not apply to you. What would you do with all this time you know have? So many things! I can't even imagine what to do first! Cars enable convenience, not flexibility. But it comes at a huge price: a financial price, an environmental price, and a huge price on the standard of living in the negative direction - not just for people living in fancy cities: the oil field worker, the car factory worker, the people living in third world countries mining some of those conflict materials you all need. There's no free lunch. You can argue about a single car, and how much convenient it is for the individual, but we're talking about something we've produced in the hundreds of millions. There's huge effects of this invention. You know what happens to cars and cities? People live far away from their jobs. Then they talk about their hellish commute. And how much gas costs. And how their neighborhood is boring. And how there's not parking. And how the car needs to go into the shop. And on and on and on. These may all be transparent to you, but without a car, I hear it all the time, and I'm happy - so very happy to be off that spinning wheel. Having lived in Europe a little while (had to do something with all that free time!), intelligent, forward-thinking people, living in cities without cars, because these cities were designed before cars. Other options are created, like public transportation system (and bike sharing schemes) that don't have whatever stigma they have in the states. I don't know for this topic if I'm willing to trade "flexibility" for a massive amount of complexity.
gwbas1c 10y ago
Could do quick delivery of dry goods, and only go to the store for fresh produce that you really want to inspect. I'd love Amazon to drop off a bag of rice by drone.
mason240 10y ago
> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. This would be highly inefficient and result in higher costs of goods and reduced options for consumers.
- mangodrunk 10y ago
  Not necessarily, and there could be potential for there to be more options. When you have those really large warehouses to buy groceries, they tend to limit the number of brands for a particular item. Also, at what cost does it come at when you have these large stores? Maybe the price might be slightly lower, but in the end is it making our lives better? Having many options isn't always a good thing.
  - mason240 10y ago
    I thought of a variety of ways to respond to this, but really this make for a great pro-car argument on it's own.
- lis 10y ago
  Anecdata as a counter example: Germany has a really high density of stores (I am living in Berlin and have ~10 supermarkets within 1km distance) and is also known for its extremely cheap groceries. The margins of the supermarket chains are razor thin, but the high density of stores is one of the reasons why you don't need a car at all in bigger German cities - in addition to good public transport.
shams93 10y ago
In los angeles you hit spots that are impossible to pass on foot you cant just walk across the city over on la cienega the side walk cuts off and its cars and trucks only no bikes either. I lost both my front teeth and broke a foot being hit by a car.

by curryst 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once is an enormous upgrade to quality of life.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
If it's more efficient for you to make one trip to the store rather than several, it's even more efficient for the store to send one truck to make deliveries to many people in one trip. Even more so if enough people do so that the store can switch from a storefront laid out for customers (with cashiers, displays, and tags on shelves) to a warehouse.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  That's true. But they don't. Safeway has a long-running delivery program, but they sure aren't pushing it very hard. The system in Shanghai, where you might expect delivery to be popular, is that supermarkets operate their own buses which stop near your home. It solves the "the store is far away" problem, but it does nothing for the "I need more food than I can personally carry" problem.
  - mixmastamyk 10y ago
    That's called a cart, see above.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      No, you can't take a grocery cart on a bus.
      - mixmastamyk 10y ago
        Not true, in Los Angeles at least, outside of rush hour. You moved the goal post also. In the thread above we are talking about a 10-minute walk.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        No, we're not talking about a 10-minute walk. You responded to my comment 'It solves the "the store is far away" problem, but it does nothing for the "I need more food than I can personally carry" problem.' A cart is not actually responsive to that, because it reintroduces the other problem.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
        > There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house?
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        If you want to respond to that comment, respond to that comment.
      - a_t48 10y ago
        Yes you can. I see it in SF, all the time.
davidw 10y ago
> I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. We mostly walked or biked to the local grocery store in Italy. It led to more fresh food, as you buy stuff in smaller quantities and eat it right away. A large backpack is fine for moving stuff. It worked for our family of 4.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  So... You can't eat when you're hungry, because you don't keep food at home. A huge portion of your week is suddenly devoted to shuttling back and forth between home and the grocery store. And you think that's not a massive inconvenience?
  - davidw 10y ago
    We had food at home, and went to the store 2/3 times a week. It was 5 minutes away by bike, so popping over was no problem, and it meant more fresh fruit and vegetables in our diet, too, which was nice. It was not an inconvenience, nor a "huge portion of my week". It was a small store that was quick to go through and get what I needed, not something like Costco. We did bulk buying elsewhere for other stuff, too, and took the car. It's nice to have the choice.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    That's not what was said at all. Nowhere do they say they don't keep food at home.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Eating what food you buy right away precludes storing food at home.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        "right away" doesn't mean the instant you get home. It's more like the next two to three days. Yes, in an urban environment you generally have less stored food. But usually not zero stored food. You also have less space to store it in, which makes shopping every other day more convenient. Trading off time for space and whatever conveniences urban living might provide you.
zephjc 10y ago
I think that depends on what your trip from home to the store is. Is it a pleasant 10 minute trip on down a country road or in an exciting, bustling city, or is it a 10 minute trip along a despotic road with nothing going on and which screams "cars only! no humans allowed!"? I prefer getting smaller grocery loads more frequently when the store is nearby, but when the trip is an ordeal, you go fewer big trips to avoid that as much as possible. A pleasant 15-20 minute walk to a store is much nicer than a 10 minute drive through an oppressive roadscape.
mixmastamyk 10y ago
A grocery cart is the classical solution, e.g.: https://www.amazon.com/Whitmor-6318-2678-Deluxe-Rolling-Utility/dp/B001DZ4QTC https://www.amazon.com/Whitmor-6318-2678-Deluxe-Rolling-Util... They do make bigger ones, but much bigger and you're better off with a second person. > Being able to do it all at once is an enormous upgrade to quality of life. Another perspective, a ten minute walk a few times a week is much better for quality of health (therefore life) than taking a car everywhere.
hammock 10y ago
Spoken like someone who has never lived in a city. If the store is a 10min walk away, you go a few times a week. And/or you use one of those old lady carts.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Seriously, read my comment. I've lived exactly like that. It's awful.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Then you did something wrong. Don’t you pass on the way from school/uni/work to home by a store anyway? just hop out of the bus, buy stuff, and walk the rest.
phyzome 10y ago
That's me! Our closest supermarket is 10-15 minutes away. I have: - Carried the bags - Used a backpack - Used a push-cart (can carry groceries for 5 people for a week) - Biked (with panniers) - Biked (with a trailer -- can carry groceries for 10 people for a week) - Jogged, when I just needed something small on short notice for a cooking project! It's totally fine, because our neighborhood is very walkable.
rvense 10y ago
I live in the centre of a largish city in Europe. Here there's a few supermarkets less than five minutes away on foot, and the last one closes at ten every day of the week. They're also on the way to and from most other places I go. Usually I just buy what I need for tonight and tomorrow on my way home, or go after dinner when I'm likely to want a quick walk anyway. Of course, I don't have kids and am generally not a very busy person, so it might not work for everyone.
- rand1012 10y ago
  I think a 24 hour economy should be a design goal of this city.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Because the serfs working in all the 24 hour establishments don't themselves need a life. There are also noise issues in mixed use neighborhoods as seem to be being advocated for. And business volumes don't justify 24 hour operation of most businesses.
exDM69 10y ago
> Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I've carried 30+ kg of groceries on my bike panniers, about 15 to 30 min of ride to the store. Regular city bike with off-the-shelf panniers, not a cargo bike (which would easily take 100+ kg). But quite honestly, I'd much rather get the groceries delivered to my home. I sometimes do but the websites to order the food are so bad that it takes more time to fill the order form that it's faster to ride to the store. Bike is my primary means of transport for 8 months of the year because my city is awfully designed traffic-wise (if you need to cross the town east-west). A moderately fast bike ride beats any form of transport (including a car) on my daily commute.
rfrey 10y ago
A surprising (to me) benefit of going from a car-based life for 35 years to a car-less life is that more frequent grocery trips have given me incentive to move away from processed foods to fresher foods. Shopping once every 7 or 10 days obviates the advantage of the freshest produce, meat, etc. but when I'm shopping every couple days it makes a difference, and I've enjoyed cooking and eating more.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? A collapsible grocery cart (similar to a collapsible stroller), and insulated reusable grocery bags.
eropple 10y ago
I can carry a full week of groceries home in one of these (from a grocery store a 15 minute walk away): https://www.amazon.com/UTG-Environment-Molle-3-Day-Deployment/dp/B004RNDSR8 https://www.amazon.com/UTG-Environment-Molle-3-Day-Deploymen... (Sometimes if I'll buy eggs I'll carry those in a separate bag. How difficult.)
tirant 10y ago
You can perfectly do it by walking or by bike. But still, how are you going to buy fresh meat/fish or even some fruits/vegetables by shopping only once a week? I go shopping usually 3 times a week, and it is a very enjoyable and relaxing activity.

davidw 10y ago

> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this, but they aren't allowed to function any more in most cities in the US because of the amount of rules and regulations about what can be built where.

st3v3r 10y ago
No, markets are a great way of finding what makes the most money for those who build the stores. That may be "the best" solution that is also aligned with the interests of the people who live there, but it might not be.
- davidw 10y ago
  Central planning has been a colossal failure both in terms of the economy at large, and in terms of urban planning. If someone can make money by building a store, that's great, what's wrong with it? Zoning should be about keeping truly noxious activities away from residential areas, not about keeping a corner store away from where people could possibly walk to it.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Ah, I took a different take on your original post. I'll leave my original reply, as I still agree with the point, but I see where you're going with this and heartily agree. One of my main complaints with where I live is that it's a round-trip hour to walk to any store, yet $DEITY forbid that we put a corner store anywhere in my neighborhood lest a developer be prevented from plopping another house on that plot.
    - davidw 10y ago
      Yeah, my point is that it's impossible to say a priori what the mix of stores and single family houses and apartments and barber shops and other things should be, and where they should all be located. Markets are a good way of dealing with complex problems like that. They're not perfect, but better than the alternatives.

galdosdi 10y ago

> The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true. Your statement is only true for low speed roads. At higher speeds, it is impossible or unsafe for anyone to use the road unless they are also going at an equally high speed. So in practice, cars do NOT function as a lowest common denominator, but actively drive out other means of transportation because the roads they prefer -- high speed roads -- cannot be safely used by pedestrians or cyclists!

jdavis703 10y ago
There's nothing that stops setting the speed limit on a highway to 25 MPH and allowing non-motorized transit. In San Francisco they did that to a highway along the waterfront, and vehicular traffic still moves fine.
- galdosdi 10y ago
  Exactly right. Jurisdictions need to make these decisions intentionally, or else it is possible to make roads that not all users can use. Manhattan avenues are very similar to this, and are surprisingly usable for all three modes -- they are limited to 25 MPH, and are not limited access freeways, but can feel like one to a motorist in medium or better traffic because they are one way and the signals "travel" up the avenues at 25 MPH -- so as long as you can go the speed limit, you never need to stop, which is great for motorists, yet they're still reasonably usable by pedestrians and cyclists -- it helps that the speed limit is self enforcing in that there's no point in going much faster since then you'll hit a red light. The only thing that could make it better is probably to reduce to 20 MPH.

justinator 10y ago

> Cars are on a pedestal not only because of convenience and speed, but because they're the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator? I don't own a car, and I'm sure many other people in my city don't either, so no: it's not the lowest common denominator for us: walking is. Cars are themselves very expensive and require a massive amount of infrastructure to function. Look around a city and think of all the cars, streets, parking lots, highways, etc, used for cars. Then think how that all impacts any other mode of transportation other than vehicles. Go deeper and imagine a world without those cars - what to do with all this new-found space? The words you're looking for is, "status quo". Cars are on the, "status quo" pedestal. They've replaced everything else because their massively profitable to produce. Damn the long-trail environmental cost of them, or how they've influenced the design of our modern cities.

Kalium 10y ago
Have you considered that with infrastructure in place, cars enable an immense amount of individual flexibility? To my mind, it seems somewhat plausible that cars rose to dominance because they enabled individual flexibility for the masses atop pre-existing and extensible infrastructure.
- justinator 10y ago
  Flexibility? I don't own a car, and haven't for the last decade (and only had a car for maybe a year of my life). This year, I've been driven in a car about four times in > 170 days. So let me talk about flexibility. Think about how much a car costs to buy and own (purchasing, upkeep, insurance, gas, parking, storage) - then put a price on that in hours you work a year. I bet it's a lot! Maybe weeks out of every year. Now, think of not having to work those days, because you don't have car, and those expenses do not apply to you. What would you do with all this time you know have? So many things! I can't even imagine what to do first! Cars enable convenience, not flexibility. But it comes at a huge price: a financial price, an environmental price, and a huge price on the standard of living in the negative direction - not just for people living in fancy cities: the oil field worker, the car factory worker, the people living in third world countries mining some of those conflict materials you all need. There's no free lunch. You can argue about a single car, and how much convenient it is for the individual, but we're talking about something we've produced in the hundreds of millions. There's huge effects of this invention. You know what happens to cars and cities? People live far away from their jobs. Then they talk about their hellish commute. And how much gas costs. And how their neighborhood is boring. And how there's not parking. And how the car needs to go into the shop. And on and on and on. These may all be transparent to you, but without a car, I hear it all the time, and I'm happy - so very happy to be off that spinning wheel. Having lived in Europe a little while (had to do something with all that free time!), intelligent, forward-thinking people, living in cities without cars, because these cities were designed before cars. Other options are created, like public transportation system (and bike sharing schemes) that don't have whatever stigma they have in the states. I don't know for this topic if I'm willing to trade "flexibility" for a massive amount of complexity.

gwbas1c 10y ago

Could do quick delivery of dry goods, and only go to the store for fresh produce that you really want to inspect. I'd love Amazon to drop off a bag of rice by drone.

mason240 10y ago

> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. This would be highly inefficient and result in higher costs of goods and reduced options for consumers.

mangodrunk 10y ago
Not necessarily, and there could be potential for there to be more options. When you have those really large warehouses to buy groceries, they tend to limit the number of brands for a particular item. Also, at what cost does it come at when you have these large stores? Maybe the price might be slightly lower, but in the end is it making our lives better? Having many options isn't always a good thing.
- mason240 10y ago
  I thought of a variety of ways to respond to this, but really this make for a great pro-car argument on it's own.
lis 10y ago
Anecdata as a counter example: Germany has a really high density of stores (I am living in Berlin and have ~10 supermarkets within 1km distance) and is also known for its extremely cheap groceries. The margins of the supermarket chains are razor thin, but the high density of stores is one of the reasons why you don't need a car at all in bigger German cities - in addition to good public transport.

shams93 10y ago

In los angeles you hit spots that are impossible to pass on foot you cant just walk across the city over on la cienega the side walk cuts off and its cars and trucks only no bikes either. I lost both my front teeth and broke a foot being hit by a car.