9 ms·

I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict.

ummonk 5y ago
Except in really small towns.
8note 5y ago
It sounds like the Netherlands has it figure out? Split out streets and roads. Roads are for driving fast, and streets are for destinations, slow driving, and walking.
- mrgordon 5y ago
  Most Americans would say the Netherlands is tough for driving I think because the cars are smaller, the lanes are smaller, there is light rail everywhere, many pedestrians and bikers everywhere, etc. I think all these decisions are why the Netherlands are so lovely and most of America is seemingly highways, strip malls, and suburbs. One of the most popular Dutch vacations is biking around the country and camping instead of staying at hotels. It’s quite far from American car culture in that regard.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > One of the most popular Dutch vacations is biking around the country and camping instead of staying at hotels. It’s quite far from American car culture in that regard. American car culture is to go on vacation to drive up camping spots. You can't actually camp in many places without a car. There isn't really public transit from Seattle to Mt. Ranier national park, for example, and the distances is too far and the terrain too hilly for just biking it (the Netherlands is lucky to be flat, in this regard).
    - mrgordon 5y ago
      Yes being flat does help for sure. In much of Europe I think they solve this problem with trains or sometimes buses to get to the parks or outlying areas. For example, much of Italy is hill towns and no one wants to walk up huge hills to get to each town but you can typically get there with transit. The United States admittedly is quite large and spread out but if we started to connect more things with transit then I think it would stop feeling so much this way. Like why couldn’t there be a connection from San Francisco to Tahoe that doesn’t involve driving? It’s a very very popular weekend trip and a train would be great for moving skis and other equipment. If you live near Seattle, you’re lucky to have some of the better planning in the United States and some of the more open-minded people with regards to transit, camping, etc. In a place like Florida, for example, it is fairly common to meet people who’ve never been camping unless maybe you count a music festival. The priority is often air conditioning, a nice hotel room towering over the beach, etc. which is not what the Dutch seek out for the most part
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        We have lots of choices, but driving is the norm. There is a train near Ranier, it’s still operable (steam train!) but is now for tourism. Let’s hope it reopens. Switzerland has trains and postal buses to serve its mountain villages and make tourism easy. The distances involved are a bit greater out west, however.
        mrgordon 5y ago
        Yes I was delighted to learn in Switzerland that before my flight out I could take my suitcases to any train station in the country and they would route them to the airport for me and make sure they made it on the plane. It’s some truly incredible infrastructure!
CapricornNoble 5y ago
Japan manages it pretty well. The mass transit system of Tokyo is well known. But the city is also zoned such that walking or biking from an apartment/house/hotel to a restaurant, supermarket, or even a major park or museum is easy and fairly safe. The roads are clean and well-maintained, and traffic really isn't that bad. Street parking is rarely allowed, but small parking lots are numerous albeit expensive. Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets, leaving the roads to the owners of luxury cars and driving aficionados who don't mind paying the tax premium to subsidize their vehicular access. I pay $450/yr in road taxes, kei car drivers pay maybe $75, and someone with a big-displacement engine like a Lexus IS-F or a Mercedes AMG probably pays $800-$1000 every year. I'm totally ok with this system. I spent 3 weeks in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia and HATED how I couldn't walk to anything....but the roads are also of absolutely terrible quality (potholes everywhere) and are mostly straight and boring highway travel, so they aren't even fun to drive. Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. If I LIVED in Tokyo, I would still own my sports cars there, as I love the freedom of being able to travel longer distances, at any time, with privacy and storage capacity. I'm in another region of Japan where the public transit is almost non-existent but the walking-friendly zoning helps to compensate. I don't NEED a car to get to the convenience store or the supermarket, but they definitely make life 100x easier, especially since the weather here is terrible more often than not. So I'd say Japan is proof that walkability and driveability are not in "irresolvable conflict".
- aix1 5y ago
  > Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? > Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? Public transportation is much denser ( even a paltry bus can fit at least 30 people vs a car which occupies slightly less space, but usually has a single person in it), and bikes take much less space. You can fit 4 bikes in the space of a single standard sedan; and a small bus is what, 2-3 sedans but 30 times the capacity?
throw0101a 5y ago
> I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict. Plenty of places that were built pre-WW2 have people walking for groceries and such, cycling and taking transit to work, and yet still have cars (street parking and back yard garages) for other longer distance errands: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb Two go-to examples I use in these types of discussion in a particular neighbourhood I know; larger houses: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... More modest: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...
- antb123 5y ago
  After living in Europe for a while Toronto is "ok" but still very car dependent. I would point to Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, etc) and parts of France and Germany as places that have cars but maintain walkable, bikeable cities.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Toronto is one example of where neighbourhoods were built that are not Manhattan- and Hong Kong-level densities, but are still not entirely car dependent. They were built semi-recently, and not some long-ago time period that is unrealistic to try to recreate. They also have recognizable architecture that is not from the Middle Ages or Napoleonic age. You can explore some of these neighbourhoods (in Toronto and elsewhere) and realistically visualize similar houses being built today. Of course Toronto suffered from the same automobile malaise as many other North American cities, first in the 'inner suburbs' (North York, Scarborough), and later in the "905".
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Well I think there are cultural differences and that Europe is not the only acceptable model. Both america and Canada are bigger and wilder than Europe. Cars are nice and a necessity to live in both countries. The neighborhood here is a good example of a walkable neighborhood that is also uniquely north American. That's okay. We don't need to replicate Europe when we have perfectly good, culturally appropriate models here. The neighborhood here is exactly like my neighborhoods. It's lovely. I don't need to have old town Prague levels of walkability to be happy. Quite the opposite, where I am is perfect

Except in really small towns.

It sounds like the Netherlands has it figure out? Split out streets and roads. Roads are for driving fast, and streets are for destinations, slow driving, and walking.

mrgordon 5y ago
Most Americans would say the Netherlands is tough for driving I think because the cars are smaller, the lanes are smaller, there is light rail everywhere, many pedestrians and bikers everywhere, etc. I think all these decisions are why the Netherlands are so lovely and most of America is seemingly highways, strip malls, and suburbs. One of the most popular Dutch vacations is biking around the country and camping instead of staying at hotels. It’s quite far from American car culture in that regard.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > One of the most popular Dutch vacations is biking around the country and camping instead of staying at hotels. It’s quite far from American car culture in that regard. American car culture is to go on vacation to drive up camping spots. You can't actually camp in many places without a car. There isn't really public transit from Seattle to Mt. Ranier national park, for example, and the distances is too far and the terrain too hilly for just biking it (the Netherlands is lucky to be flat, in this regard).
  - mrgordon 5y ago
    Yes being flat does help for sure. In much of Europe I think they solve this problem with trains or sometimes buses to get to the parks or outlying areas. For example, much of Italy is hill towns and no one wants to walk up huge hills to get to each town but you can typically get there with transit. The United States admittedly is quite large and spread out but if we started to connect more things with transit then I think it would stop feeling so much this way. Like why couldn’t there be a connection from San Francisco to Tahoe that doesn’t involve driving? It’s a very very popular weekend trip and a train would be great for moving skis and other equipment. If you live near Seattle, you’re lucky to have some of the better planning in the United States and some of the more open-minded people with regards to transit, camping, etc. In a place like Florida, for example, it is fairly common to meet people who’ve never been camping unless maybe you count a music festival. The priority is often air conditioning, a nice hotel room towering over the beach, etc. which is not what the Dutch seek out for the most part
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      We have lots of choices, but driving is the norm. There is a train near Ranier, it’s still operable (steam train!) but is now for tourism. Let’s hope it reopens. Switzerland has trains and postal buses to serve its mountain villages and make tourism easy. The distances involved are a bit greater out west, however.
      - mrgordon 5y ago
        Yes I was delighted to learn in Switzerland that before my flight out I could take my suitcases to any train station in the country and they would route them to the airport for me and make sure they made it on the plane. It’s some truly incredible infrastructure!

CapricornNoble 5y ago

Japan manages it pretty well. The mass transit system of Tokyo is well known. But the city is also zoned such that walking or biking from an apartment/house/hotel to a restaurant, supermarket, or even a major park or museum is easy and fairly safe. The roads are clean and well-maintained, and traffic really isn't that bad. Street parking is rarely allowed, but small parking lots are numerous albeit expensive. Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets, leaving the roads to the owners of luxury cars and driving aficionados who don't mind paying the tax premium to subsidize their vehicular access. I pay $450/yr in road taxes, kei car drivers pay maybe $75, and someone with a big-displacement engine like a Lexus IS-F or a Mercedes AMG probably pays $800-$1000 every year. I'm totally ok with this system. I spent 3 weeks in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia and HATED how I couldn't walk to anything....but the roads are also of absolutely terrible quality (potholes everywhere) and are mostly straight and boring highway travel, so they aren't even fun to drive. Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. If I LIVED in Tokyo, I would still own my sports cars there, as I love the freedom of being able to travel longer distances, at any time, with privacy and storage capacity. I'm in another region of Japan where the public transit is almost non-existent but the walking-friendly zoning helps to compensate. I don't NEED a car to get to the convenience store or the supermarket, but they definitely make life 100x easier, especially since the weather here is terrible more often than not. So I'd say Japan is proof that walkability and driveability are not in "irresolvable conflict".

aix1 5y ago
> Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? > Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? Public transportation is much denser ( even a paltry bus can fit at least 30 people vs a car which occupies slightly less space, but usually has a single person in it), and bikes take much less space. You can fit 4 bikes in the space of a single standard sedan; and a small bus is what, 2-3 sedans but 30 times the capacity?

throw0101a 5y ago

> I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict. Plenty of places that were built pre-WW2 have people walking for groceries and such, cycling and taking transit to work, and yet still have cars (street parking and back yard garages) for other longer distance errands: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb Two go-to examples I use in these types of discussion in a particular neighbourhood I know; larger houses: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... More modest: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...

antb123 5y ago
After living in Europe for a while Toronto is "ok" but still very car dependent. I would point to Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, etc) and parts of France and Germany as places that have cars but maintain walkable, bikeable cities.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Toronto is one example of where neighbourhoods were built that are not Manhattan- and Hong Kong-level densities, but are still not entirely car dependent. They were built semi-recently, and not some long-ago time period that is unrealistic to try to recreate. They also have recognizable architecture that is not from the Middle Ages or Napoleonic age. You can explore some of these neighbourhoods (in Toronto and elsewhere) and realistically visualize similar houses being built today. Of course Toronto suffered from the same automobile malaise as many other North American cities, first in the 'inner suburbs' (North York, Scarborough), and later in the "905".
- iammisc 5y ago
  Well I think there are cultural differences and that Europe is not the only acceptable model. Both america and Canada are bigger and wilder than Europe. Cars are nice and a necessity to live in both countries. The neighborhood here is a good example of a walkable neighborhood that is also uniquely north American. That's okay. We don't need to replicate Europe when we have perfectly good, culturally appropriate models here. The neighborhood here is exactly like my neighborhoods. It's lovely. I don't need to have old town Prague levels of walkability to be happy. Quite the opposite, where I am is perfect