3 ms·
> NA’s geography does make it slightly less prone to cycling/walking based transportation How so? You mean the snowy towns or the hilly towns or...? > I think
by caturopath 6y ago
> NA’s geography does make it slightly less prone to cycling/walking based transportation
How so? You mean the snowy towns or the hilly towns or...?
> I think there is also some outcome bias towards cars because they’re a comfortable/ known quantity for most people.
There's a bias toward cars since it's incentivized to drive cars. Our laws mean everything is far apart so trips are far and our transportation infrastructure is almost all fast or long roads. These are choices that prop up cars: if you could go to the grocery store with a short trip without a high risk of being hit by a car, more people would walk or ride a bike there. If transit was convenient, people would take it. People just want to get where they're going: cars are the best way to do that in the US because we have decided to incentivize car use over other options.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoLess density, maybe?
- caturopath 6y agoAh, I took the person to mean our physical geography. Our urban geography is of course the reason for our car use: we've put policy into place so that cars are incentivized and other forms of transportation are disincentivized, with density being a cornerstone of that.
- imtringued 6y agoDensity is one factor but the complete separation of commercial and residential zoning is also a huge factor. In a lot of walkable cities the first floor of most buildings is often reserved for low impact commercial uses like shops or restaurants. I am in a car dependent city (I need the car to go to work) but the fact that there are 3 stores in walking distance helps cut down on the voluntary car trips significantly. Even the weekly trip to a far away store takes 10 minutes at most by car.
- samrmay 6y agoCorrect. Was talking about the sheer size of many countries in NA makes it a much different situation than many countries in Europe. Could've been much clearer so I apologize.
- caturopath 6y agoI don't see what the size of the country has much to do with how we get around in town. No pedestrians or bicyclists die on I-95, and few motorists do to boot. The issue is with cars inside cities, not the space between them. Of course you get between cities with cars, long-distance busses/trains, and flying.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThe size of the country (relative to the population) means that land is relatively cheap. That leads to relatively less dense cities (at least most of them).
- caturopath 6y agoSprawl isn't a natural result of a large country, nor is US land unbelievably cheap (it's all over the place, with some expensive peaks in some high-sprawl areas). Belize and Norway are extremely low density overall in their countries: they have very different house prices, but neither has much sprawl. Sprawl is a result of policy decisions.
- imtringued 6y agoLand isn't cheap if you have to maintain infrastructure around it. Exclusive single family zoning is a pure loss. Single family housing should exist but it should be reserved for those who really want/need it. It's not something everyone should have because it doesn't match people's real needs.
- cycomanic 6y agoI would say the bay area is a pretty good counter argument.