5 ms·

Something I've come to realize is that the automobile industries in each country play an important role. Switzerland and the Netherlands don't have any major c

by 205guy 7y ago

Something I've come to realize is that the automobile industries in each country play an important role. Switzerland and the Netherlands don't have any major car manufacturing, though I do bet they have some suppliers. And it doesn't even have to be a direct influence (like the LA streetcar story), it's just a background of economics, priorities, and zeitgeist. Politicians and planners won't be as tempted to go against cars when some non-negligeable percentage of their economy (already fragile) is based on car manufacturing. European countries with large auto manufacturers like France, Germany, and England (also Spain and Italy) still have better transit and town planning than the US (due to history and density), but they won't be as actively seeking car-less solutions (at least until there is total gridlock in the hyper-center). But I think even there, people are realizing that in the suburbs and between towns you need cars, but if you're going to the city center, you're much better off with transit and walking.

asdff 7y ago
The sad part is that this thinking gets entrenched in certain populations. People loose idealistic thinking and prefer to stick with the status quo. Even sadder that these certain populations are more likely to vote than those that would stand to benefit from public transport. It comes as no surprise that politicians lean so heavy on NIMBY policies when in CA 2/3 of homeowners vote compared to 1/3 of renters. Politicians are listening to those who've elected them, so if we want change and functional transport more people have to vote in local elections.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > The sad part is that this thinking gets entrenched in certain populations. People loose idealistic thinking and prefer to stick with the status quo. Even sadder that these certain populations are more likely to vote than those that would stand to benefit from public transport. The status quo actually works on some level. Idealistic thinking often leads to thinking that big disruptive changes will make things better when there are always vastly more ways to make things worse than better. Idealistic thinking is far from an unalloyed good.
- BigJono 7y ago
  I mean, this sounds good in theory but we have mandatory voting in Australia and all the same problems anyway. There's barely any correlation between people's votes and their interests, unless those interests are so simplified that they can be exploited (i.e everyone voting over and over to lower taxes no matter what they lose in return). Even if you could get all the renters in California to vote, half of them will probably support more roads and urban sprawl anyway.
- journalctl 7y ago
  I still find it wild that the CA state legislature is arguably the most progressive state legislature in the country... until someone wants to build some apartments.
blue_devil 7y ago
>>that the automobile industries in each country play an important role. This. Like the articles states, it's thanks to lots of local resident activists that Zurich got rid of the car-centric urban design. Same for Amsterdam - the protests there was triggered by a string of child deaths in car accidents. There is _no_ city _inherently_ unsuitable to becoming less car-centric. Yes, some factors like density may facilitate it, but ultimately it requires civic responsibility to win over entrenched interests or just plain human psychological short-sightedness.
md_ 7y ago
Switzerland has fairly high rates of car ownership per capita: 716/1000, vs 811/1000 for the US, according to Wikipedia. The Swiss rate of car ownership far exceeds that of Germany (561), France (478), or even an auto-oriented country like Italy (625). I think that calls into question your hypothesis: first, direct ownership by voters seems like it should have at least as great an effect on politicians' behavior toward auto transit as would the existence of domestic auto manufacturing, and, second, it demonstrates that Switzerland's car-unfriendly urban planning (and, moreover, extremely high rail density nationwide) does not result in a crippling of the domestic auto market. Of course, this has to be viewed through the lens of wealth; Switzerland also has the highest wealth per capita in the world, so of course people can afford to keep a cheap Maserati for weekend trips. Given that confounding variable, direct comparisons are hard. (But I also don't really understand the comparisons you make to other European cities; Italian inter-city transit is heavily car-based, but large cities like Milan have quite functional urban transit, and large cities and small towns alike have limited-traffic zones. Paris certainly has large thoroughfares, but I don't think there has been a lot of widening; the Champs Élysées predates automobiles and serves more as a venue for parades and the like than as a functional high-throughput road.) So, hard to compare data apples-to-apples, but I think your assumption that urban planning is heavily responsive to the presence of a domestic auto industry is not entirely credible.

by 205guy 7y ago

asdff 7y ago

The sad part is that this thinking gets entrenched in certain populations. People loose idealistic thinking and prefer to stick with the status quo. Even sadder that these certain populations are more likely to vote than those that would stand to benefit from public transport. It comes as no surprise that politicians lean so heavy on NIMBY policies when in CA 2/3 of homeowners vote compared to 1/3 of renters. Politicians are listening to those who've elected them, so if we want change and functional transport more people have to vote in local elections.

barry-cotter 7y ago
> The sad part is that this thinking gets entrenched in certain populations. People loose idealistic thinking and prefer to stick with the status quo. Even sadder that these certain populations are more likely to vote than those that would stand to benefit from public transport. The status quo actually works on some level. Idealistic thinking often leads to thinking that big disruptive changes will make things better when there are always vastly more ways to make things worse than better. Idealistic thinking is far from an unalloyed good.
BigJono 7y ago
I mean, this sounds good in theory but we have mandatory voting in Australia and all the same problems anyway. There's barely any correlation between people's votes and their interests, unless those interests are so simplified that they can be exploited (i.e everyone voting over and over to lower taxes no matter what they lose in return). Even if you could get all the renters in California to vote, half of them will probably support more roads and urban sprawl anyway.
journalctl 7y ago
I still find it wild that the CA state legislature is arguably the most progressive state legislature in the country... until someone wants to build some apartments.

blue_devil 7y ago

>>that the automobile industries in each country play an important role. This. Like the articles states, it's thanks to lots of local resident activists that Zurich got rid of the car-centric urban design. Same for Amsterdam - the protests there was triggered by a string of child deaths in car accidents. There is _no_ city _inherently_ unsuitable to becoming less car-centric. Yes, some factors like density may facilitate it, but ultimately it requires civic responsibility to win over entrenched interests or just plain human psychological short-sightedness.

md_ 7y ago

Switzerland has fairly high rates of car ownership per capita: 716/1000, vs 811/1000 for the US, according to Wikipedia. The Swiss rate of car ownership far exceeds that of Germany (561), France (478), or even an auto-oriented country like Italy (625). I think that calls into question your hypothesis: first, direct ownership by voters seems like it should have at least as great an effect on politicians' behavior toward auto transit as would the existence of domestic auto manufacturing, and, second, it demonstrates that Switzerland's car-unfriendly urban planning (and, moreover, extremely high rail density nationwide) does not result in a crippling of the domestic auto market. Of course, this has to be viewed through the lens of wealth; Switzerland also has the highest wealth per capita in the world, so of course people can afford to keep a cheap Maserati for weekend trips. Given that confounding variable, direct comparisons are hard. (But I also don't really understand the comparisons you make to other European cities; Italian inter-city transit is heavily car-based, but large cities like Milan have quite functional urban transit, and large cities and small towns alike have limited-traffic zones. Paris certainly has large thoroughfares, but I don't think there has been a lot of widening; the Champs Élysées predates automobiles and serves more as a venue for parades and the like than as a functional high-throughput road.) So, hard to compare data apples-to-apples, but I think your assumption that urban planning is heavily responsive to the presence of a domestic auto industry is not entirely credible.