2 ms·

My understanding as an average American (in this context) is that in European cities there are nice, fairly frequent, commuter trains and rail; and often also b

My understanding as an average American (in this context) is that in European cities there are nice, fairly frequent, commuter trains and rail; and often also busses. In the US, mostly the only 'good' bus service is geared for 9-5 workers in big offices in big cities. Anything outside of that tends to run across the economic divide that: people who take the bus _have_ to take the bus, while taking the car is a luxury in time, freedom, and isolation from possibly literally unwashed masses (who might also literally be taking the bus in the summer for a place to have some AC and safety with a seat). The issue is very much related to classism and a lack of social safety nets and inclusion.

CameronNemo 6y ago
Another factor to consider is the age of the cities involved. Most European cities predate cars, while many American cities were built up after or during the the rise of the automobile.
- arethuza 6y ago
  "Most European cities predate cars" I suspect that only applies to the cores of European cities - most have got much larger since the car was invented and the newer areas were definitely designed with cars in mind. e.g. Maps of Edinburgh over a few centuries: https://maps.nls.uk/towns/edinburgh-city.html https://maps.nls.uk/towns/edinburgh-city.html Even in the 1920s Edinburgh was pretty small compared to its current extent.
perl4ever 6y ago
You say classism like it was extrinsic. But the classes (in smaller cities, not like NYC) are people who can afford a car and people who can't, or have some other reason they can't drive. In the sort of place I'm used to, an urban area of about a million people, taking the bus is not logical if you have a car anyway. You don't get an economic benefit if you own and insure a car at all. And you pay a big penalty in time and flexibility. That's what creates the class divide, not something arbitrary in peoples' heads. The people who ride the bus because it's economically rational are inherently the people who have no choice. Talking about general social problems as the source of the issue is misguided, in my opinion.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You're conflating being able to afford a car with having a car. Ideally more people would choose not to have cars. Or, easier, a household could only have one car instead of multiple. And a good transit system can beat many car trips, even for people that do have cars. Especially if parking spaces stop being subsidized.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
dboreham 6y ago
I worked for a few years in London, in a place with no tube (Chelsea). Busses were a pain. Slower than walking in most cases.

CameronNemo 6y ago

Another factor to consider is the age of the cities involved. Most European cities predate cars, while many American cities were built up after or during the the rise of the automobile.

arethuza 6y ago
"Most European cities predate cars" I suspect that only applies to the cores of European cities - most have got much larger since the car was invented and the newer areas were definitely designed with cars in mind. e.g. Maps of Edinburgh over a few centuries: https://maps.nls.uk/towns/edinburgh-city.html https://maps.nls.uk/towns/edinburgh-city.html Even in the 1920s Edinburgh was pretty small compared to its current extent.

perl4ever 6y ago

You say classism like it was extrinsic. But the classes (in smaller cities, not like NYC) are people who can afford a car and people who can't, or have some other reason they can't drive. In the sort of place I'm used to, an urban area of about a million people, taking the bus is not logical if you have a car anyway. You don't get an economic benefit if you own and insure a car at all. And you pay a big penalty in time and flexibility. That's what creates the class divide, not something arbitrary in peoples' heads. The people who ride the bus because it's economically rational are inherently the people who have no choice. Talking about general social problems as the source of the issue is misguided, in my opinion.

Dylan16807 6y ago
You're conflating being able to afford a car with having a car. Ideally more people would choose not to have cars. Or, easier, a household could only have one car instead of multiple. And a good transit system can beat many car trips, even for people that do have cars. Especially if parking spaces stop being subsidized.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dboreham 6y ago

I worked for a few years in London, in a place with no tube (Chelsea). Busses were a pain. Slower than walking in most cases.