4 ms·

Yes, that's a very good summary of what happened. I'm aware of those factors, but I still think we took a wrong turn. Maybe not in the US due to the population

Yes, that's a very good summary of what happened. I'm aware of those factors, but I still think we took a wrong turn. Maybe not in the US due to the population sparsity and sprawl, but in Spain and many other European countries, if we could connect every town or city of more than 10K people by either rail, light rail or tram (instead of having spent billions on highways), that would cover 80% of the population. A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile. Pollution and emissions would be much less of a problem, and quality of life in cities much better. But that's what happens with gradient descent, it can lead you to a local minimum...

toyg 9y ago
If it can make you feel better, I know a lot of Italian cities are going back to trams in dedicated lanes. This is on the back of the clear advantages enjoyed by those cities (Rome, Milan) who didn't actually rip out all tracks after the last war. There is an element of busywork too: local officials are always elected by promising change, they have to be seen doing something. So on odd years they put in something, and in even years they take it out...
golergka 9y ago
> A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile. They wouldn't need it, but I bet that majority would still want it.
- lmm 9y ago
  In Europe? I doubt it. The car doesn't quite have the same cultural significance as a symbol of adulthood/independence here, at least not to the younger generation.
  - wott 9y ago
    That's what they pretend. However, the reality is this: * car sales do not drop, they oscillate depending on various governments subventions; * vehicle fleet keeps rising (albeit slowly because the market is saturated); * car owning per household has always been and is still on the rise (despite household size constantly decreasing); * the distance travelled with cars keeps rising as well. And visually, the amount of cars parked in the streets and along roadsides becomes insane. You already thought it was full 30 years ago, but now it is fuller. Oh, and the cars become bigger every year. Not American-big, but still, on the way to it. For example, pickup trucks never took off in the French countryside in the last 50 years, not a single bit; but for a couple of years, it has started :-/
    - toyg 9y ago
      Three elements: 1) "suburbia" is now a thing in Europe too. Regular people cannot afford to live in city centres, they are the preserve of the wealthy. As population grows, more and more people are pushed further out, and they adopt suburbanization: big malls that cannot be reached if not by car, semi-detached houses in gated communities, etc etc. That's a lifestyle built for cars. 2) People will buy what manufacturers will sell. In a global market, car models are increasingly built with more than one country in mind. Inevitably, US tastes loom large. 3) The Hollywood influence cannot be underestimated.
zmk_ 9y ago
Welcome to the Netherlands then. Most people ride trains between the cities. It does help, however, that most of the population lives in cities that are 30-40 minutes away on a train.
- smitherfield 9y ago
  The Netherlands is approximately the same land area and population density as the NYC metropolitan area[1], so it is (as you say) a very different environment from the entire US or even Spain. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/NY_Metropolitan_Area.png/1024px-NY_Metropolitan_Area.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/NY...
  - deanCommie 9y ago
    That's a bit of an exaggeration. Here are the areas overlaid: https://imgur.com/a/s9pq7 https://imgur.com/a/s9pq7 It's more like the area from New York to Boston
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      Well, since smitherfield used the CSA (combined statistical area) it's actually rather close. 34,493 km^2 for the New York CSA, while Netherlands is 41,543 km^2. So about 83% of the size of the Netherlands.
walterstucco 9y ago
It would just move workers and/or students Not a big leap forward, being the vast majority of public transport users People that need to move outside of going back and forth from a fixed place still would prefer a car For obvious ease You don't bring your girlfriend by the sea at night on a tram , you don't go to visit grandma with four kids on a tram, you don't walk 5 km from the station to the place you have to go by using a tram, unless you're forced to BTW trams are really expensive to build, expensive to ride for more than short distances and maintenance is on the public, while car maintenance is on the owners. We need better private transport, not better public ones They're already ok, if you enjoy suffering rush hours congestion
polartx 9y ago
> that would cover 80% of the population. A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile I'm sensing a bit of a Catch-22 in this hypothetical: How would the success of Uber-like services been impacted if 80% of the population no longer needed cars?
- rtkwe 9y ago
  I still have the urge to put an asterisk by success for Uber because they're just burning piles of money still.
clacke2 9y ago
> Uber-like services That's a convoluted, backwards and very funny way of saying "taxi". :-D

toyg 9y ago

If it can make you feel better, I know a lot of Italian cities are going back to trams in dedicated lanes. This is on the back of the clear advantages enjoyed by those cities (Rome, Milan) who didn't actually rip out all tracks after the last war. There is an element of busywork too: local officials are always elected by promising change, they have to be seen doing something. So on odd years they put in something, and in even years they take it out...

golergka 9y ago

> A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile. They wouldn't need it, but I bet that majority would still want it.

lmm 9y ago
In Europe? I doubt it. The car doesn't quite have the same cultural significance as a symbol of adulthood/independence here, at least not to the younger generation.
- wott 9y ago
  That's what they pretend. However, the reality is this: * car sales do not drop, they oscillate depending on various governments subventions; * vehicle fleet keeps rising (albeit slowly because the market is saturated); * car owning per household has always been and is still on the rise (despite household size constantly decreasing); * the distance travelled with cars keeps rising as well. And visually, the amount of cars parked in the streets and along roadsides becomes insane. You already thought it was full 30 years ago, but now it is fuller. Oh, and the cars become bigger every year. Not American-big, but still, on the way to it. For example, pickup trucks never took off in the French countryside in the last 50 years, not a single bit; but for a couple of years, it has started :-/
  - toyg 9y ago
    Three elements: 1) "suburbia" is now a thing in Europe too. Regular people cannot afford to live in city centres, they are the preserve of the wealthy. As population grows, more and more people are pushed further out, and they adopt suburbanization: big malls that cannot be reached if not by car, semi-detached houses in gated communities, etc etc. That's a lifestyle built for cars. 2) People will buy what manufacturers will sell. In a global market, car models are increasingly built with more than one country in mind. Inevitably, US tastes loom large. 3) The Hollywood influence cannot be underestimated.

zmk_ 9y ago

Welcome to the Netherlands then. Most people ride trains between the cities. It does help, however, that most of the population lives in cities that are 30-40 minutes away on a train.

smitherfield 9y ago
The Netherlands is approximately the same land area and population density as the NYC metropolitan area[1], so it is (as you say) a very different environment from the entire US or even Spain. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/NY_Metropolitan_Area.png/1024px-NY_Metropolitan_Area.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/NY...
- deanCommie 9y ago
  That's a bit of an exaggeration. Here are the areas overlaid: https://imgur.com/a/s9pq7 https://imgur.com/a/s9pq7 It's more like the area from New York to Boston
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Well, since smitherfield used the CSA (combined statistical area) it's actually rather close. 34,493 km^2 for the New York CSA, while Netherlands is 41,543 km^2. So about 83% of the size of the Netherlands.

walterstucco 9y ago

It would just move workers and/or students Not a big leap forward, being the vast majority of public transport users People that need to move outside of going back and forth from a fixed place still would prefer a car For obvious ease You don't bring your girlfriend by the sea at night on a tram , you don't go to visit grandma with four kids on a tram, you don't walk 5 km from the station to the place you have to go by using a tram, unless you're forced to BTW trams are really expensive to build, expensive to ride for more than short distances and maintenance is on the public, while car maintenance is on the owners. We need better private transport, not better public ones They're already ok, if you enjoy suffering rush hours congestion

polartx 9y ago

> that would cover 80% of the population. A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile I'm sensing a bit of a Catch-22 in this hypothetical: How would the success of Uber-like services been impacted if 80% of the population no longer needed cars?

rtkwe 9y ago
I still have the urge to put an asterisk by success for Uber because they're just burning piles of money still.

clacke2 9y ago

> Uber-like services That's a convoluted, backwards and very funny way of saying "taxi". :-D