3 ms·

The United States is not Spain. Nitpick all you want - the vast majority of populated places in the US will never ban cars, at least for the foreseeable future.

huebomont 8y ago
Not because they can't though. Because they think they can't. Most cities in the US could do this with some adjustments to public transit, and by managing regional transit much better - for example it's insane that the default for suburban rail line stations is the "park and ride" - huge parking lot surrounding the train station, rather than using that area for residential development close to transit.
- responseguy 8y ago
  I wonder how much space could be allocated to residential development though. Here (Portland Oregon) The park and ride infrastructure isn't that built out (Or maybe it is and I just haven't noticed it???). I dont believe you could move all the people that need to drive into the city to work, into the new residential development provided by that conversion.
  - huebomont 8y ago
    That's not the idea as much as moving parking away from IMMEDIATELY next to the station - and improving bus links to rail transit.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  No... because they literally can't without massive upheaval of where schools, offices and shops are located.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Shops can move with the times, schools can continue to have buses to get kids there and offices can stay where they are as long as they'd like. Banning vehicles has been shown to greatly increase shopping revenue and improve the healthiness of the area, so if a few businesses suffer, poor them... I'll not shed a tear for the strip malls.
  - jodrellblank 8y ago
    "They literally can't change, because that would involve having to actually change". They only want change that doesn't involve money, effort or change, or what?
  - huebomont 8y ago
    Where in my comment do I suggest moving the suburbs? Nothing in your comment would be a result of anything in mine.
bertil 8y ago
corndoge, it sounds like you assume that (an unnamed) we has to be in the United States. I’m going to sorely disappoint you there… However, if you want to talk about the United States, I would agree with you that it’s going to be expensive to shift the suburban sprawl away from personal vehicles. As much as that particular urbanisation failure is seen as typically American, it’s far from the exclusive option there. You will be surprised to learn that there are dozens of millions of Americans living in cities dense enough to justify not using cars as the default transport mode (“banning” isn’t a very accurate description of what that city did). https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in-the-united-states.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in... Electric scooters or bikes, typically the dockless kind, combined with existing (but re-inforced) public transport sounds doable, especially if you invest the same order of magnitude as local authorities spend on highways. That would require little investment (most of it would be private and from people keen on giving away billions).
- corndoge 8y ago
  it sounds like you assume that (an unnamed) we *has* to be in the United States. I wouldn't say this to anyone on hn who uses "we" without a qualifier because I assume as a matter of course that everyone on this website is aware that there are non American users. The pedantry here isn't appreciated. I’m going to sorely disappoint you there… You will be surprised

huebomont 8y ago

Not because they can't though. Because they think they can't. Most cities in the US could do this with some adjustments to public transit, and by managing regional transit much better - for example it's insane that the default for suburban rail line stations is the "park and ride" - huge parking lot surrounding the train station, rather than using that area for residential development close to transit.

responseguy 8y ago
I wonder how much space could be allocated to residential development though. Here (Portland Oregon) The park and ride infrastructure isn't that built out (Or maybe it is and I just haven't noticed it???). I dont believe you could move all the people that need to drive into the city to work, into the new residential development provided by that conversion.
- huebomont 8y ago
  That's not the idea as much as moving parking away from IMMEDIATELY next to the station - and improving bus links to rail transit.
eanzenberg 8y ago
No... because they literally can't without massive upheaval of where schools, offices and shops are located.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Shops can move with the times, schools can continue to have buses to get kids there and offices can stay where they are as long as they'd like. Banning vehicles has been shown to greatly increase shopping revenue and improve the healthiness of the area, so if a few businesses suffer, poor them... I'll not shed a tear for the strip malls.
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  "They literally can't change, because that would involve having to actually change". They only want change that doesn't involve money, effort or change, or what?
- huebomont 8y ago
  Where in my comment do I suggest moving the suburbs? Nothing in your comment would be a result of anything in mine.

bertil 8y ago

corndoge, it sounds like you assume that (an unnamed) we has to be in the United States. I’m going to sorely disappoint you there… However, if you want to talk about the United States, I would agree with you that it’s going to be expensive to shift the suburban sprawl away from personal vehicles. As much as that particular urbanisation failure is seen as typically American, it’s far from the exclusive option there. You will be surprised to learn that there are dozens of millions of Americans living in cities dense enough to justify not using cars as the default transport mode (“banning” isn’t a very accurate description of what that city did). https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in-the-united-states.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in... Electric scooters or bikes, typically the dockless kind, combined with existing (but re-inforced) public transport sounds doable, especially if you invest the same order of magnitude as local authorities spend on highways. That would require little investment (most of it would be private and from people keen on giving away billions).

corndoge 8y ago
it sounds like you assume that (an unnamed) we *has* to be in the United States. I wouldn't say this to anyone on hn who uses "we" without a qualifier because I assume as a matter of course that everyone on this website is aware that there are non American users. The pedantry here isn't appreciated. I’m going to sorely disappoint you there… You will be surprised