6 ms·

the last mile problem can be solved in a million different ways: bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses... Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to sa

the last mile problem can be solved in a million different ways: bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses... Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet.

umvi 7y ago
It's easy to say "use trains" when you live in a highly dense area. But America-the-continent is massive and not very dense on average. I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  They would be if the negative externalities of autos were priced in; trains aren't viable in America because autos are subsidized via substantial non-internalized negative externalities.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    That is not why trains are not viable in America. Trains are far more heavily subsidized than autos, for example, on a per-passenger mile basis. Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays. I think that trains being less fuel efficient than cars with 2 occupants also is a good reason why “non-internalized negative externalities” have a hard time helping trains catch up in the final accounting. If you can cite a study which supports your claim I would be very interested to read it. However, I don’t think the science of accounting for PM2.5 tire and brake dust is at the point where we can calculate the economic cost.
    - Steltek 7y ago
      TIL gas taxes paid for Boston's Big Dig. What states actually reap a surplus from personal auto fees? Meanwhile, are you including in your thought process any of the following? - Public land permanently dedicated to roads, highways, parking lots, etc - Parking minimums in zoning codes - Police resources dedicated to traffic enforcement - Wars of aggression fought to preserve oil prices - Oil industry subsidies - Innocent deaths and crippling lifetime injuries caused by automobiles - Massive declining public health due to sedentary lifestyles (sitting on your butt in a driver's seat)
      - wcunning 7y ago
        In order: Public land will be permanently dedicated to rails and stations and things, if you want to cover the same area with transit access, you'll need similar, if not the same public land. Parking minimums are not about being pro-car so much as being about anti-poor. This is a subsidy to entrenched interests, not to cars. Police make money from traffic enforcement. Many departments get their whole budget from that. Many towns get their whole budget, above and beyond the PD, from it. Eliminate cars tomorrow and you bankrupt a huge percentage of non-major cities and all small towns. Wars of aggression over oil are likely over due to fracking and oil sands, but I'll grant that they were bad while they were happening. Now, how are your predominantly diesel trains going to be powered without oil? Oil subsidies are a problem. I would love to see congestion pricing and an end to all subsidies for transit, trains, buses, cars, bikes and pedestrian behaviors. We do not and never will again live in that world. Deaths due to automobiles are at a record low per passenger mile and continuing to fall. Every time we make roads and cars and esp new cars more expensive, these rise as people limp their dangerous old clunker along a bit more. Weirdly, the requirements for safety technology cause people to drive older, less fuel efficient cars and the requirements for better emissions cause people to drive older, less safe cars all due to rising prices. Perhaps we should subsidize the removal of old cars (cash for clunkers)? I don't think you can blame sedentary lifestyles on driving. That's a step too far -- it's a factor, but it's by no means the biggest or the most consistent. I doubt that we'd be able to attribute anywhere near enough health problem to only and specifically long commutes to even really price this externality.
        labawi 7y ago
        1) Single occupant car transport is the least space efficient mode of travel in wide use, with wide margins. That even includes dedicated rail, if reasonably frequented, as in a moderately dense city. 2) Phrase it as you may, parking minimums raise cost of housing and/or disperse the cities increasing distances traveled, turning cheap options of walking or cycling into requisite car travel, which again widens roads, increasing distances... 3) No idea if true. Even so, less cars and less oil should leave more available resources for more useful things. Bad funding schemes are an argument, but I would consider it a sufficient one. 4) Yes they were bad. Probably still are. Trains can be electrified and no idea how that relates to wars. 5) I agree car subsidies are bad. Not sure about feasibility or seriousness of proposed end on pedestrian subsidies. Would you stop building sidewalks? Roads? 6) I will deflect to a more pressing concern and argue car travel inflicted pollution collectively does significantly more harm to health and quality of life of most residents, than the few, yet no less tragic traffic accidents. How about we don't incentivize car usage, including all the reasons that make it convenient, useful and often almost unavoidable, like zoning, parking, wide roads, cheap fuel etc? Car is a car, and in this instance, newer cars may be even worse polluters with their tire particulate. 7) Sedentary life style is not about length of commute. If you don't own a powered personal transporter, you will almost certainly either walk more or cycle more or at least stand on your motorized scooter as you do want to get somewhere.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays. I'm not talking infrastructure externalities, I'm talking about environmental externalities, especially (but not exclusively) tailpipe emissions.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Nobody is arguing that there needs to be a subway with hourly service between Denver and Boise. There is no excuse for the coasts, south, and midwest not to have better train service. If you exclude Alaska and the Mountain States, the US has the same population density as Europe.
  - jumpingmice 7y ago
    This is often overlooked by people with superficial understanding of American geography. Ohio has the same population density as Spain, and a higher per-capita GSP, but none of Ohio’s cities enjoys rail service of any kind.
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      Setting aside whether is is reasonable to judge the density of the US by only measuring dense areas, Ohio does have rail service. Amtrak serves Toledo, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. And there is heavy and light commuter rail in Cleveland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Rapid_Transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Rapid_Transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_railroads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_railroads You are on to something though, in that Columbus, the largest city in Ohio, and several of the other major cities are not served. The major cities of Columbus, Akron and Dayton do not have Amtrak service. Columbus is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. without passenger rail service. Columbus last had service with the National Limited in 1979. Dayton (which lost service in 1979) and Akron (which lost service in 2005) are the eleventh and twelfth.[2]
- devmunchies 7y ago
  but at least half of the country lives in a dense area. surely it'd be a start to remove the need for cars in cities > 200,000 people.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  I don't expect trains or rail to take over every middle-sized town, but the 1-2 million+ cities should all be (and many are) looking at revitalizing downtown areas for greater density and walkability. And it would be great for tightly connected metro areas to have high speed rail between them.
- technofiend 7y ago
  >I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan. In my opinion I think rail would displace a great deal of airline traffic because air travel security is such a chore, airlines have done their very best to squeeze out every last nickel and concerns about how green air travel is or is not. Add in the fact that there is far more room per passenger in a train and with dining cars (which are slowly dying) the food can be much better. The biggest downside to rail travel in the US is the rail lines are owned by and geared for freight train operators. You really need completely separate lines (as you have in Japan) to compete on speed, but then competing on price would be difficult since it means building entirely new infrastructure. It could require government subsidy and in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.
    - jumpingmice 7y ago
      This is such a tired argument and reflects your superficial comprehension of this topic. Yes, NY to LA is too far for rail service. It is the same distance from Paris to Moscow. Nobody takes trains between Paris and Moscow. However the territory between Paris and Moscow, including both Paris and Moscow, enjoy very robust rail service. The fact that the USA happens to be a large and unified political jurisdiction in no way detracts from the fact that we have local and regional opportunities to establish passenger rail networks.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        Since you have a new account, I'll vouch for your comment to keep it alive, but please get rid of that disparaging attitude on HN. If you're going within a city, then home->dest time is roughly equal to home->station->train->station->dest, so if you're going to use a car anyway then you might as well just drive all the way, with more comfort, privacy, and convenience. Stations within walking distance are not realistic except in very dense urban areas like NY (which already has subways). If you're going between cities, traffic is actually not much of an issue so it's again the same equation. Once distance increases to the point of a train being faster (even with stops), air travel then starts to become a better option. Rail requires density. American cities are very spread out and internally sparse internally. Last mile is a serious problem, and that's before considering politics, real-estate, security and defense issues, pricing models, taxes, and other factors. Meanwhile roads are cheap and give people ultimate flexibility. We would all love better transport, but pretending it's simple just because some other country somewhere has some trains isn't very useful.
- jellicle 7y ago
  82% of the US population lives in urban areas. Most Americans look out their front door to see a dense metropolis with thousands of people per square mile. The upshot of this is that quite a modest train network could easily serve 50%+ of Americans. Once that's done, then you can come back and complain about how it's hard to run trains to that one guy who lives in a shack somewhere, and I'll agree with you. Think of it like the interstate highway system. Yes, not every single American has a highway running to their door. But a heck of lot of people make daily use of the system and 100% of the population benefits from it.
bradlys 7y ago
Unless you live more than a mile away... Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas near train tracks where getting off the train and getting home is <10 minutes. Obviously, it makes sense for those who do but most of America is sprawly and isn't designed for rail transit efficiency. I'd appreciate good quite rail but it isn't anywhere near feasible in these sprawly landscapes.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  > Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas but MOST of the people do live (or around) densely populated areas, no? (just checked - google says 82% of US population is in urban areas). Addressing issues for most of the people first would have the most impact.
  - petschge 7y ago
    I will repeat a comment that I have made on HN before: 50% of the US population live in just 35 metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Boston, MA; San Bernardino, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Orange County, CA; San Diego, CA; Nassau, NY; St. Louis, IL; Baltimore, MD; Seattle, WA; Tampa, FL; Oakland, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Newark, NJ; Portland, OR; Kansas City, MO; San Francisco, CA; Fort Worth, TX; San Jose, CA; Cincinnati, OH; Orlando, FL; Sacramento, CA; Fort Lauderdale, FL) that together have 173328 square miles. That is a density of 654 inhabitants per square mile or 253 inhabitants per square kilometer. Compare that with the 232 inhabitants per square kilometer in Germany, or the 118 inhabitants per square kilometer in France. And yes you can live without a car even in rural Germany (at least if you don't have kids). The 20 densest metropolitan areas contain 25% of the US population and have 400 inhabitants per square kilometer, comparable to the 416 inhabitants per square kilometer averaged over the Netherlands. The lack of public transport in the US is not a density problem. That is just the excuse because people don't want to change. And before anybody says "but the density in German cities is much higher": I lived for years in a German district with a density of 217 inhabitants per square kilometer, without needing a car.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
You don't even need to go that far. Eliminating car culture is how you'd make a city I'd actually enjoy living in.
manigandham 7y ago
You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your home to a station. This makes trains unviable for most inner-city travel outside of some lightrail in dense urban areas. For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  Subways are one of the most effective inner-city travel systems available. I'd consider that a train system.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    I'm always reminded of this when I visit Toronto— the last time I was there, my partner and I were going to see a small concert in the west end, and I groaned as Google Maps told me it would be a 40 minute trip by TTC, including the walk at both ends. Usually we would have taken the subway, but for whatever reason I was feeling lazy this time so we drove. It was almost a half-hour trip across downtown through the tail end of rush hour, and then ten minutes of circling the block looking at parking lots and garages that were already full, and then another ten minutes of walking back to the venue from the street parking we finally found several blocks away. And no, the solution is not "build more parking", the solution is to further incentivise mass transit use. For example, in this case, I probably would have been dissuaded from driving if Google Maps had not only incorporate traffic delays into its estimate, but also highlighted that the apparently plentiful nearby parking lots were all likely to be full at the time of my planned arrival.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      If you remove the parking situation from large-scale events, then the travel time is the same if not faster with the car, while providing more freedom and comfort. That's why many people choose it. Unless you within walking distance of a station, you're going to get in a car anyway and at that point it's usually faster and cheap to drive. That's the fundamental calculus that prevents large-scale train construction in CA cities.
reaperducer 7y ago
bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses Three of those four fail to address the tire issue, which is at the root of this problem.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  They significantly reduce it, though, because that + trains means eliminating car traffic that is not last mile, i.e. almost all of it.
- bradlys 7y ago
  4 of 5 use traditional tires. Walking uses "plastics" as well if you're using normal shoes with rubber/"plastic" soles.
merpnderp 7y ago
Non optional says whom? I'm rather excited about the new Tesla batteries and the possibilities of traveling more for less money per mile. You can live in relative poverty compared to today and ride a bike and only travel in a highly ordered and grating manner, but I'll support nuclear power and have fun around town in a 750hp electric.
zaroth 7y ago
> Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet. That could work, or you know, we could continue research and development of tires with better PM2.5 ratings and vehicles that run on sustainable energy. I wonder which could be done without a multi-trillion dollar hit on the global economy?
lotsofpulp 7y ago
The last mile problem can only be solved by eliminating single family detached homes. You can only reduce the amount of energy required to move bodies so much, at some point you have to start reducing the distances traveled.
- seph-reed 7y ago
  I'd rather go with the less people travelling further on bikes route. There's a 1:1 ratio between amount of space (and therefor nature) per person, and the distance we're willing to travel on foot/bike/etc.
  - whyenot 7y ago
    bikes have tires too
    - labawi 7y ago
      and shoes are made of plastics as well Bicycle tires are made of and release much less rubber than cars.
      - seph-reed 7y ago
        Funny enough, it might actually be kind of nice to work towards a world where being barefoot is okay. Would require a lot cleaner cities. Clean bare feet could become a sign of affluence: "I'm so rich, I only walk where it's clean."
  - TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
    I rather go with less people...
- Fricken 7y ago
  The original idea of the suburbs, prior to the model-T, was for them to be small, walkable villages spread along networks of commuter rail lines.
dmitrygr 7y ago
all but one of those have wheels that would shed the same microplastics.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

the last mile problem can be solved in a million different ways: bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses... Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet.

umvi 7y ago

It's easy to say "use trains" when you live in a highly dense area. But America-the-continent is massive and not very dense on average. I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan.

dragonwriter 7y ago
They would be if the negative externalities of autos were priced in; trains aren't viable in America because autos are subsidized via substantial non-internalized negative externalities.
- zaroth 7y ago
  That is not why trains are not viable in America. Trains are far more heavily subsidized than autos, for example, on a per-passenger mile basis. Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays. I think that trains being less fuel efficient than cars with 2 occupants also is a good reason why “non-internalized negative externalities” have a hard time helping trains catch up in the final accounting. If you can cite a study which supports your claim I would be very interested to read it. However, I don’t think the science of accounting for PM2.5 tire and brake dust is at the point where we can calculate the economic cost.
  - Steltek 7y ago
    TIL gas taxes paid for Boston's Big Dig. What states actually reap a surplus from personal auto fees? Meanwhile, are you including in your thought process any of the following? - Public land permanently dedicated to roads, highways, parking lots, etc - Parking minimums in zoning codes - Police resources dedicated to traffic enforcement - Wars of aggression fought to preserve oil prices - Oil industry subsidies - Innocent deaths and crippling lifetime injuries caused by automobiles - Massive declining public health due to sedentary lifestyles (sitting on your butt in a driver's seat)
    - wcunning 7y ago
      In order: Public land will be permanently dedicated to rails and stations and things, if you want to cover the same area with transit access, you'll need similar, if not the same public land. Parking minimums are not about being pro-car so much as being about anti-poor. This is a subsidy to entrenched interests, not to cars. Police make money from traffic enforcement. Many departments get their whole budget from that. Many towns get their whole budget, above and beyond the PD, from it. Eliminate cars tomorrow and you bankrupt a huge percentage of non-major cities and all small towns. Wars of aggression over oil are likely over due to fracking and oil sands, but I'll grant that they were bad while they were happening. Now, how are your predominantly diesel trains going to be powered without oil? Oil subsidies are a problem. I would love to see congestion pricing and an end to all subsidies for transit, trains, buses, cars, bikes and pedestrian behaviors. We do not and never will again live in that world. Deaths due to automobiles are at a record low per passenger mile and continuing to fall. Every time we make roads and cars and esp new cars more expensive, these rise as people limp their dangerous old clunker along a bit more. Weirdly, the requirements for safety technology cause people to drive older, less fuel efficient cars and the requirements for better emissions cause people to drive older, less safe cars all due to rising prices. Perhaps we should subsidize the removal of old cars (cash for clunkers)? I don't think you can blame sedentary lifestyles on driving. That's a step too far -- it's a factor, but it's by no means the biggest or the most consistent. I doubt that we'd be able to attribute anywhere near enough health problem to only and specifically long commutes to even really price this externality.
      - labawi 7y ago
        1) Single occupant car transport is the least space efficient mode of travel in wide use, with wide margins. That even includes dedicated rail, if reasonably frequented, as in a moderately dense city. 2) Phrase it as you may, parking minimums raise cost of housing and/or disperse the cities increasing distances traveled, turning cheap options of walking or cycling into requisite car travel, which again widens roads, increasing distances... 3) No idea if true. Even so, less cars and less oil should leave more available resources for more useful things. Bad funding schemes are an argument, but I would consider it a sufficient one. 4) Yes they were bad. Probably still are. Trains can be electrified and no idea how that relates to wars. 5) I agree car subsidies are bad. Not sure about feasibility or seriousness of proposed end on pedestrian subsidies. Would you stop building sidewalks? Roads? 6) I will deflect to a more pressing concern and argue car travel inflicted pollution collectively does significantly more harm to health and quality of life of most residents, than the few, yet no less tragic traffic accidents. How about we don't incentivize car usage, including all the reasons that make it convenient, useful and often almost unavoidable, like zoning, parking, wide roads, cheap fuel etc? Car is a car, and in this instance, newer cars may be even worse polluters with their tire particulate. 7) Sedentary life style is not about length of commute. If you don't own a powered personal transporter, you will almost certainly either walk more or cycle more or at least stand on your motorized scooter as you do want to get somewhere.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays. I'm not talking infrastructure externalities, I'm talking about environmental externalities, especially (but not exclusively) tailpipe emissions.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Nobody is arguing that there needs to be a subway with hourly service between Denver and Boise. There is no excuse for the coasts, south, and midwest not to have better train service. If you exclude Alaska and the Mountain States, the US has the same population density as Europe.
- jumpingmice 7y ago
  This is often overlooked by people with superficial understanding of American geography. Ohio has the same population density as Spain, and a higher per-capita GSP, but none of Ohio’s cities enjoys rail service of any kind.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    Setting aside whether is is reasonable to judge the density of the US by only measuring dense areas, Ohio does have rail service. Amtrak serves Toledo, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. And there is heavy and light commuter rail in Cleveland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Rapid_Transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Rapid_Transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_railroads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio_railroads You are on to something though, in that Columbus, the largest city in Ohio, and several of the other major cities are not served. The major cities of Columbus, Akron and Dayton do not have Amtrak service. Columbus is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. without passenger rail service. Columbus last had service with the National Limited in 1979. Dayton (which lost service in 1979) and Akron (which lost service in 2005) are the eleventh and twelfth.[2]
devmunchies 7y ago
but at least half of the country lives in a dense area. surely it'd be a start to remove the need for cars in cities > 200,000 people.
unethical_ban 7y ago
I don't expect trains or rail to take over every middle-sized town, but the 1-2 million+ cities should all be (and many are) looking at revitalizing downtown areas for greater density and walkability. And it would be great for tightly connected metro areas to have high speed rail between them.
technofiend 7y ago
>I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan. In my opinion I think rail would displace a great deal of airline traffic because air travel security is such a chore, airlines have done their very best to squeeze out every last nickel and concerns about how green air travel is or is not. Add in the fact that there is far more room per passenger in a train and with dining cars (which are slowly dying) the food can be much better. The biggest downside to rail travel in the US is the rail lines are owned by and geared for freight train operators. You really need completely separate lines (as you have in Japan) to compete on speed, but then competing on price would be difficult since it means building entirely new infrastructure. It could require government subsidy and in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.
  - jumpingmice 7y ago
    This is such a tired argument and reflects your superficial comprehension of this topic. Yes, NY to LA is too far for rail service. It is the same distance from Paris to Moscow. Nobody takes trains between Paris and Moscow. However the territory between Paris and Moscow, including both Paris and Moscow, enjoy very robust rail service. The fact that the USA happens to be a large and unified political jurisdiction in no way detracts from the fact that we have local and regional opportunities to establish passenger rail networks.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Since you have a new account, I'll vouch for your comment to keep it alive, but please get rid of that disparaging attitude on HN. If you're going within a city, then home->dest time is roughly equal to home->station->train->station->dest, so if you're going to use a car anyway then you might as well just drive all the way, with more comfort, privacy, and convenience. Stations within walking distance are not realistic except in very dense urban areas like NY (which already has subways). If you're going between cities, traffic is actually not much of an issue so it's again the same equation. Once distance increases to the point of a train being faster (even with stops), air travel then starts to become a better option. Rail requires density. American cities are very spread out and internally sparse internally. Last mile is a serious problem, and that's before considering politics, real-estate, security and defense issues, pricing models, taxes, and other factors. Meanwhile roads are cheap and give people ultimate flexibility. We would all love better transport, but pretending it's simple just because some other country somewhere has some trains isn't very useful.
jellicle 7y ago
82% of the US population lives in urban areas. Most Americans look out their front door to see a dense metropolis with thousands of people per square mile. The upshot of this is that quite a modest train network could easily serve 50%+ of Americans. Once that's done, then you can come back and complain about how it's hard to run trains to that one guy who lives in a shack somewhere, and I'll agree with you. Think of it like the interstate highway system. Yes, not every single American has a highway running to their door. But a heck of lot of people make daily use of the system and 100% of the population benefits from it.

bradlys 7y ago

Unless you live more than a mile away... Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas near train tracks where getting off the train and getting home is <10 minutes. Obviously, it makes sense for those who do but most of America is sprawly and isn't designed for rail transit efficiency. I'd appreciate good quite rail but it isn't anywhere near feasible in these sprawly landscapes.

allannienhuis 7y ago
> Lots of people don't live in densely populated areas but MOST of the people do live (or around) densely populated areas, no? (just checked - google says 82% of US population is in urban areas). Addressing issues for most of the people first would have the most impact.
- petschge 7y ago
  I will repeat a comment that I have made on HN before: 50% of the US population live in just 35 metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Boston, MA; San Bernardino, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Orange County, CA; San Diego, CA; Nassau, NY; St. Louis, IL; Baltimore, MD; Seattle, WA; Tampa, FL; Oakland, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Newark, NJ; Portland, OR; Kansas City, MO; San Francisco, CA; Fort Worth, TX; San Jose, CA; Cincinnati, OH; Orlando, FL; Sacramento, CA; Fort Lauderdale, FL) that together have 173328 square miles. That is a density of 654 inhabitants per square mile or 253 inhabitants per square kilometer. Compare that with the 232 inhabitants per square kilometer in Germany, or the 118 inhabitants per square kilometer in France. And yes you can live without a car even in rural Germany (at least if you don't have kids). The 20 densest metropolitan areas contain 25% of the US population and have 400 inhabitants per square kilometer, comparable to the 416 inhabitants per square kilometer averaged over the Netherlands. The lack of public transport in the US is not a density problem. That is just the excuse because people don't want to change. And before anybody says "but the density in German cities is much higher": I lived for years in a German district with a density of 217 inhabitants per square kilometer, without needing a car.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

You don't even need to go that far. Eliminating car culture is how you'd make a city I'd actually enjoy living in.

manigandham 7y ago

You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your home to a station. This makes trains unviable for most inner-city travel outside of some lightrail in dense urban areas. For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago
Subways are one of the most effective inner-city travel systems available. I'd consider that a train system.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  I'm always reminded of this when I visit Toronto— the last time I was there, my partner and I were going to see a small concert in the west end, and I groaned as Google Maps told me it would be a 40 minute trip by TTC, including the walk at both ends. Usually we would have taken the subway, but for whatever reason I was feeling lazy this time so we drove. It was almost a half-hour trip across downtown through the tail end of rush hour, and then ten minutes of circling the block looking at parking lots and garages that were already full, and then another ten minutes of walking back to the venue from the street parking we finally found several blocks away. And no, the solution is not "build more parking", the solution is to further incentivise mass transit use. For example, in this case, I probably would have been dissuaded from driving if Google Maps had not only incorporate traffic delays into its estimate, but also highlighted that the apparently plentiful nearby parking lots were all likely to be full at the time of my planned arrival.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    If you remove the parking situation from large-scale events, then the travel time is the same if not faster with the car, while providing more freedom and comfort. That's why many people choose it. Unless you within walking distance of a station, you're going to get in a car anyway and at that point it's usually faster and cheap to drive. That's the fundamental calculus that prevents large-scale train construction in CA cities.

reaperducer 7y ago

bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses Three of those four fail to address the tire issue, which is at the root of this problem.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
They significantly reduce it, though, because that + trains means eliminating car traffic that is not last mile, i.e. almost all of it.
bradlys 7y ago
4 of 5 use traditional tires. Walking uses "plastics" as well if you're using normal shoes with rubber/"plastic" soles.

merpnderp 7y ago

Non optional says whom? I'm rather excited about the new Tesla batteries and the possibilities of traveling more for less money per mile. You can live in relative poverty compared to today and ride a bike and only travel in a highly ordered and grating manner, but I'll support nuclear power and have fun around town in a 750hp electric.

zaroth 7y ago

> Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet. That could work, or you know, we could continue research and development of tires with better PM2.5 ratings and vehicles that run on sustainable energy. I wonder which could be done without a multi-trillion dollar hit on the global economy?

lotsofpulp 7y ago

The last mile problem can only be solved by eliminating single family detached homes. You can only reduce the amount of energy required to move bodies so much, at some point you have to start reducing the distances traveled.

seph-reed 7y ago
I'd rather go with the less people travelling further on bikes route. There's a 1:1 ratio between amount of space (and therefor nature) per person, and the distance we're willing to travel on foot/bike/etc.
- whyenot 7y ago
  bikes have tires too
  - labawi 7y ago
    and shoes are made of plastics as well Bicycle tires are made of and release much less rubber than cars.
    - seph-reed 7y ago
      Funny enough, it might actually be kind of nice to work towards a world where being barefoot is okay. Would require a lot cleaner cities. Clean bare feet could become a sign of affluence: "I'm so rich, I only walk where it's clean."
- TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
  I rather go with less people...
Fricken 7y ago
The original idea of the suburbs, prior to the model-T, was for them to be small, walkable villages spread along networks of commuter rail lines.

dmitrygr 7y ago

all but one of those have wheels that would shed the same microplastics.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]