4 ms·

old cities: built dense for walking, because cars didn't exist. new cities: built dense for walking and public transit because private car ownership isn't that

by blt 8y ago

old cities: built dense for walking, because cars didn't exist. new cities: built dense for walking and public transit because private car ownership isn't that common in China 20th century USA cities: built for cars. Sprawl makes public transit too expensive because it requires many lines with low ridership. Wide roads, long distances, and cars flying around everywhere makes walking scary. Driving becomes the only attractive mode of transportation. The problem is deeply embedded in the urban layout and the culture. It will take decades of destruction & rebuilding, plus a huge cultural shift, before USA cities can be fixed.

brezina 8y ago
The core of san francisco, probably 30% of the city's 49 sq mile landmass, and where 60%+ of the population lives, was built before cars existed. Most of SF was a walking/horse city, and then a walking/streetcar/cablecar city.
- lemoncucumber 8y ago
  It's no coincidence that SF is the only part of the Bay Area where it's truly viable to live without a car.
  - usaar333 8y ago
    True, alongside downtown Berkeley, Oakland, and Palo Alto (maybe a few others) Nonetheless, mass transit in SF is still pretty crappy. Muni is notoriously unreliable and slow (it's often faster to jog than take Muni -- to say nothing of biking).
    - api_or_ipa 8y ago
      > Palo Alto As someone who lived in Palo Alto for almost a year without a car... there is so much to be desired for public transit. Outside of the few blocks near University, it quickly becomes a walking wasteland. My bike, on the other-hand, was a divine gift from the heaven and, when combined with CalTrain, enabled a fairly large world-bubble.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
wutbrodo 8y ago
This isn't quite true for many of the big cities of interest. There was an active high-modernist effort in the ~70s to destroy the walkable, transitable, livable parts of many American cities and cut freeways across them like big ugly neighborhood-destroying scars. Even transit wastelands like LA had an actual urban core (that they're now rebuilding), as well as a relatively extensive network of streetcars.
- bsder 8y ago
  > cut freeways across them like big ugly neighborhood-destroying scars. Not like. The goal was to destroy neighborhoods--mostly lower socio-economic areas in order to displace the undesirable people away from land that was beginning to appreciate in value. Freeways are located in very specific spots--close enough to the rich areas to be useful but far enough into the poor areas in order to minimize cost/maximize displacement.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  Los Angeles area had very advanced light railway system including Los Angeles Railway and Pacific Electric Railway Company up until 1960s. Check the map of Pacific Electric Railway Company, and you can see a railway running on the beach from Hermosa Beach up to Santa Monica. The famous Venice Beach Bike Path was originally what the Pacific Electric Railway Company rail used to be. Can you imagine light rails ON the beach in SoCal? All the rails were torn up after lobbying by oil/tire companies. :(
  - crucini 8y ago
    I've heard that story plenty of times, but I have my doubts, which increase over time. I think people simply didn't like streetcars once buses were available. I think streetcars were seen as a horrible, dangerous, inconvenient technology with massive infrastructure costs. The first crack in my belief was a comment by a former Baltimore fire chief (I think) who had worked as a streetcar and bus driver earlier. He talked about how scary it was to operate a streetcar with its very poor braking, and how during the transition period every operator was jumping at the chance to become a bus driver. I'm sure there's a grain of truth in there, about lobbying - but was it really the decisive factor? Could Amazon lobby and get Ebay shut down? Did landline phones fade away because of lobbying from the cellular industry? Streetcars were a very cool idea but unfortunately motor buses were better in every objective way.
cbhl 8y ago
Also add: - years of racism (then: buses are only for white people. now: buses are only for poor people of color, and thus should not be funded.) - a history of destruction happening primarily in neighbourhoods of ethnic minorities (e.g. the razing of SoMa in the 80s)
wh-uws 8y ago
Years too long also. We'll have self driving cars long before we could restructure many of our cities to have effective public transit.
- campercoder 8y ago
  will self driving cars avoid the problem of congestion? Or will congestion get 4x worse?
Jommi 8y ago
Low Private car ownership isnt a cultural thing in China, it's qutie heavily regulated and coming from above. e.g. getting a license plate takes ages, at certain days only certain license plates can drive.

by blt 8y ago

brezina 8y ago

The core of san francisco, probably 30% of the city's 49 sq mile landmass, and where 60%+ of the population lives, was built before cars existed. Most of SF was a walking/horse city, and then a walking/streetcar/cablecar city.

lemoncucumber 8y ago
It's no coincidence that SF is the only part of the Bay Area where it's truly viable to live without a car.
- usaar333 8y ago
  True, alongside downtown Berkeley, Oakland, and Palo Alto (maybe a few others) Nonetheless, mass transit in SF is still pretty crappy. Muni is notoriously unreliable and slow (it's often faster to jog than take Muni -- to say nothing of biking).
  - api_or_ipa 8y ago
    > Palo Alto As someone who lived in Palo Alto for almost a year without a car... there is so much to be desired for public transit. Outside of the few blocks near University, it quickly becomes a walking wasteland. My bike, on the other-hand, was a divine gift from the heaven and, when combined with CalTrain, enabled a fairly large world-bubble.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

wutbrodo 8y ago

This isn't quite true for many of the big cities of interest. There was an active high-modernist effort in the ~70s to destroy the walkable, transitable, livable parts of many American cities and cut freeways across them like big ugly neighborhood-destroying scars. Even transit wastelands like LA had an actual urban core (that they're now rebuilding), as well as a relatively extensive network of streetcars.

bsder 8y ago
> cut freeways across them like big ugly neighborhood-destroying scars. Not like. The goal was to destroy neighborhoods--mostly lower socio-economic areas in order to displace the undesirable people away from land that was beginning to appreciate in value. Freeways are located in very specific spots--close enough to the rich areas to be useful but far enough into the poor areas in order to minimize cost/maximize displacement.
dba7dba 8y ago
Los Angeles area had very advanced light railway system including Los Angeles Railway and Pacific Electric Railway Company up until 1960s. Check the map of Pacific Electric Railway Company, and you can see a railway running on the beach from Hermosa Beach up to Santa Monica. The famous Venice Beach Bike Path was originally what the Pacific Electric Railway Company rail used to be. Can you imagine light rails ON the beach in SoCal? All the rails were torn up after lobbying by oil/tire companies. :(
- crucini 8y ago
  I've heard that story plenty of times, but I have my doubts, which increase over time. I think people simply didn't like streetcars once buses were available. I think streetcars were seen as a horrible, dangerous, inconvenient technology with massive infrastructure costs. The first crack in my belief was a comment by a former Baltimore fire chief (I think) who had worked as a streetcar and bus driver earlier. He talked about how scary it was to operate a streetcar with its very poor braking, and how during the transition period every operator was jumping at the chance to become a bus driver. I'm sure there's a grain of truth in there, about lobbying - but was it really the decisive factor? Could Amazon lobby and get Ebay shut down? Did landline phones fade away because of lobbying from the cellular industry? Streetcars were a very cool idea but unfortunately motor buses were better in every objective way.

cbhl 8y ago

Also add: - years of racism (then: buses are only for white people. now: buses are only for poor people of color, and thus should not be funded.) - a history of destruction happening primarily in neighbourhoods of ethnic minorities (e.g. the razing of SoMa in the 80s)

wh-uws 8y ago

Years too long also. We'll have self driving cars long before we could restructure many of our cities to have effective public transit.

campercoder 8y ago
will self driving cars avoid the problem of congestion? Or will congestion get 4x worse?

Jommi 8y ago

Low Private car ownership isnt a cultural thing in China, it's qutie heavily regulated and coming from above. e.g. getting a license plate takes ages, at certain days only certain license plates can drive.