5 ms·

What happens is people have to spend more of their free time in transit (and be much less comfortable in transit), or more of their money for housing that is cl

What happens is people have to spend more of their free time in transit (and be much less comfortable in transit), or more of their money for housing that is closer to their destinations. This is time and money that is no longer available for the other things people want. The businesses don't close. People cope. Their quality of life just declines. This is sort of necessarily true - people wouldn't be choosing to drive unless they felt it was better than alternatives. Taking away that option is necessarily forcing them into worse alternatives.

enoch_r 10y ago
> This is sort of necessarily true - people wouldn't be choosing to drive unless they felt it was better than alternatives. Taking away that option is necessarily forcing them into worse alternatives. This is absolutely not "necessarily true." It's possible that driving has large negative externalities and requires large public expenditures, to the extent that while for any individual trip we'd be happier driving, we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving. I love living in a car-unfriendly place, because while it might be less pleasant and more stressful when I do have to drive, it's wonderful to be able to walk or ride my bike to the grocery store, work, parks, playgrounds, etc.
- superuser2 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by car-unfriendly design.
  - enoch_r 10y ago
    One could just as easily say "I have no doubt that you love traveling the speed limit through your neighborhood, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by enforcement and design." Even when I drive safely, there are costs borne by others when I drive--if nothing else, I make the street less pleasant and useful for my neighbors and their children and I make transportation more dangerous/stressful for cyclists and pedestrians. Second, this is a bizarre way to use the word "coercion." It isn't like our existing infrastructure is some neutral ideal and I prefer "car-unfriendly" designs--spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god, it's a government subsidy for a particular behavior. Living in Orange County without a car, getting around involved walking or biking along busy, unpleasant multilane arterials with 45+mph speed limits (quieter streets were inevitably cul de sacs that spit you right back out into the meat grinder). I didn't think "hm, I find driving pleasant, so I will drive." I decided that driving would be dramatically less likely to result in my sudden death than riding--on streets like that. People in Amsterdam choose to bike because they feel it's better than the alternatives. People in LA choose to drive for the exact same reason. If you think the difference is the amount of "coercion" they face, then you need to be able to explain why my current neighbors are being "coerced" while my former neighbors in OC are not.
    - chris_7 10y ago
      > spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god Is this a thing they're actually doing? Surely induced demand is well-known by now?
    - superuser2 10y ago
      Okay, I guess >we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive. Far more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip, physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from cars was pretty good. There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you lived in them, and I didn't. It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else. I guess people in LA are being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time. The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.
tobltobs 10y ago
I guess it depends on your experience. In most Europeans cities you are faster with public transport, bike or even by foot. > Their quality of life just declines. In my experience and imho this article comes to the same conclusion life gets better for most if you ban cars from the city.
- superuser2 10y ago
  If it were true that other modes of transportation are always better for the people using them, banning cars would be a no-op as there would not be any.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    I didn't say "always". But apart from that, people do not always choose the most optimal solution for a problem. There are many reasons people might be using cars in a city although they are not the optimal way of transportation. They could be lazy, want to show off their new BMW, don't like sit close to strangers, have a broken feet, do have to transport something heavy, ...
  - chris_7 10y ago
    The presense of drivers inherently make other forms of transportation worse. Drivers often kill cyclists (seemingly for the fun of it, sometimes, see the case of Matthew Van Ohlen). Drivers intrude on crosswalks, and honk their car's at people that dare cross with the light. Drivers occupy the majority of the allocated street space, despite being a minority of street users.
    - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
      The presence of buses inherently makes other forms of transportation worse. Buses will often kill cyclists. Buses intrude on crosswalks and honk their horns at people who dare cross the light. The presence of pedestrians inherently makes other forms of transportation worse. Pedestrians commit most murders. Pedestrian intrude on spaces for motor and bicycle traffic. They cross the street without thought for other traffic. I could go on.

enoch_r 10y ago

> This is sort of necessarily true - people wouldn't be choosing to drive unless they felt it was better than alternatives. Taking away that option is necessarily forcing them into worse alternatives. This is absolutely not "necessarily true." It's possible that driving has large negative externalities and requires large public expenditures, to the extent that while for any individual trip we'd be happier driving, we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving. I love living in a car-unfriendly place, because while it might be less pleasant and more stressful when I do have to drive, it's wonderful to be able to walk or ride my bike to the grocery store, work, parks, playgrounds, etc.

superuser2 10y ago
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by car-unfriendly design.
- enoch_r 10y ago
  One could just as easily say "I have no doubt that you love traveling the speed limit through your neighborhood, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by enforcement and design." Even when I drive safely, there are costs borne by others when I drive--if nothing else, I make the street less pleasant and useful for my neighbors and their children and I make transportation more dangerous/stressful for cyclists and pedestrians. Second, this is a bizarre way to use the word "coercion." It isn't like our existing infrastructure is some neutral ideal and I prefer "car-unfriendly" designs--spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god, it's a government subsidy for a particular behavior. Living in Orange County without a car, getting around involved walking or biking along busy, unpleasant multilane arterials with 45+mph speed limits (quieter streets were inevitably cul de sacs that spit you right back out into the meat grinder). I didn't think "hm, I find driving pleasant, so I will drive." I decided that driving would be dramatically less likely to result in my sudden death than riding--on streets like that. People in Amsterdam choose to bike because they feel it's better than the alternatives. People in LA choose to drive for the exact same reason. If you think the difference is the amount of "coercion" they face, then you need to be able to explain why my current neighbors are being "coerced" while my former neighbors in OC are not.
  - chris_7 10y ago
    > spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a gift from god Is this a thing they're actually doing? Surely induced demand is well-known by now?
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Okay, I guess >we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive. Far more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip, physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from cars was pretty good. There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you lived in them, and I didn't. It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else. I guess people in LA are being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time. The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.

tobltobs 10y ago

I guess it depends on your experience. In most Europeans cities you are faster with public transport, bike or even by foot. > Their quality of life just declines. In my experience and imho this article comes to the same conclusion life gets better for most if you ban cars from the city.

superuser2 10y ago
If it were true that other modes of transportation are always better for the people using them, banning cars would be a no-op as there would not be any.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  I didn't say "always". But apart from that, people do not always choose the most optimal solution for a problem. There are many reasons people might be using cars in a city although they are not the optimal way of transportation. They could be lazy, want to show off their new BMW, don't like sit close to strangers, have a broken feet, do have to transport something heavy, ...
- chris_7 10y ago
  The presense of drivers inherently make other forms of transportation worse. Drivers often kill cyclists (seemingly for the fun of it, sometimes, see the case of Matthew Van Ohlen). Drivers intrude on crosswalks, and honk their car's at people that dare cross with the light. Drivers occupy the majority of the allocated street space, despite being a minority of street users.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    The presence of buses inherently makes other forms of transportation worse. Buses will often kill cyclists. Buses intrude on crosswalks and honk their horns at people who dare cross the light. The presence of pedestrians inherently makes other forms of transportation worse. Pedestrians commit most murders. Pedestrian intrude on spaces for motor and bicycle traffic. They cross the street without thought for other traffic. I could go on.