3 ms·

Nothing alienated me more growing up in the Midwest than my anxiety around driving. Moving to a city with public transit made me actually feel like a human.

superkuh 5y ago
This is a good point. Highly dense urban areas can and should move to public transit. They have the critical mass of people all wanting to go to the same general locations. But as of now about half of the US population does not live in highly dense urban areas. In much of where this half of the population live mass transit just doesn't make sense because things are spread out and no one needs to go to the places other people do in enough numbers. So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a requirement and no change in the design of cities (not where they live) is going to change that. This is not a universal American problem yet. Urbanization continues steadily but it will be a long time before the arguments of this article apply to the majority of the US population.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  America has very roughly 200M suburbanites, 100M urbanites and 50M rural. IMO only the 50M cannot support mass transit.
- milkytron 5y ago
  > So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a requirement and no change in the design of cities (not where they live) is going to change that. For many more suburban areas, taxes are not high enough to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance, subsidies are required. Typically, developers pay the up front cost for infrastructure when building a new development, so the city avoids having to install infra, but then the maintenance costs end up kicking the city in the butt in 30-50 years. If they don't continue growing by building more housing and attracting businesses, places enter decline. Suburban housing is very attractive to Americans, but over time becomes very expensive to keep up. Eventually, these suburban towns will need to adapt and allow better uses of their land, or they'll need to become so expensive that the taxes can cover the ongoing maintenance. Cities can absolutely transform a car dependent area into a more productive one with additional transportation options. It'll require a lot of change, likely to zoning and possibly a land value tax instead of property tax. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but there are already plenty of examples of towns/cities going bankrupt because of their infrastructure maintenance obligations.
- screye 5y ago
  It is as the saying goes : "build and they will come" 60% of trips in the US are less than 6 miles. Electric bikes and road bikes are perfect for this kind of trip. I used to do almost all my trips in Boston on bike. However, I just moved to Bellevue and even though I want to, biking feels.incredibly unsafe. I know a good few people who would love to do their daily commute on bikes, but they are understandably scared to do so. When bike lanes are added, they are done with so little thought that it is almost more dangerous to be on them than not (cambridge MA has been doing a stellar job tho) There is a wierd conundrum at the core of american discourse right now. Housing is too expensive, but there is also too much space between places (requiring cars). The US refuses to welcome housing/zoning laws that will allow for densification. On the other hand, they allow for sprawling cities like pheonix or houston to expand to grotesque amounts. Biking + mass transit is very doable in many parts of the US. Parking minimums can be replaced with parking outside urban cores and taking public transportation after that. Building housing on parking lots would quicky begin densifying neighborhoods. When the simple act of living requires 3 cars in a house and driving 10 miles to get groceries, maybe it is time to stop.incentivizing that lifestyle and urban development approach. All of this being said, US public transportation/pedestrian/biking infrastructure is bad even when compared to similar cities. Cities the size of NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, etc in other developed countries fare significantly better on all of the aforementioned factors. Maybe the US could start by catching up first and talk about 'doing better' later.
  - twelve40 5y ago
    Safe lanes are just one part of the problem. If we target to have people do 60% of their trips on bikes, there are questions like, where do you park the bike so that it doesn't get stolen? (i'm having a bicycle stolen in my family pretty much every year for the last 5 years) What do you do if you don't want to be sweaty? (yes, it's a thing!) and/or have to change into nicer clothes. Or what do you do if you are running late and 6 miles can be covered in 5 minutes instead of 30 minutes? What if you have to get a bunch of groceries or have to get from work to kindergarten to pick up two kids? Yes, sounds boring, but these are real-life questions.

superkuh 5y ago

This is a good point. Highly dense urban areas can and should move to public transit. They have the critical mass of people all wanting to go to the same general locations. But as of now about half of the US population does not live in highly dense urban areas. In much of where this half of the population live mass transit just doesn't make sense because things are spread out and no one needs to go to the places other people do in enough numbers. So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a requirement and no change in the design of cities (not where they live) is going to change that. This is not a universal American problem yet. Urbanization continues steadily but it will be a long time before the arguments of this article apply to the majority of the US population.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
America has very roughly 200M suburbanites, 100M urbanites and 50M rural. IMO only the 50M cannot support mass transit.
milkytron 5y ago
> So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a requirement and no change in the design of cities (not where they live) is going to change that. For many more suburban areas, taxes are not high enough to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance, subsidies are required. Typically, developers pay the up front cost for infrastructure when building a new development, so the city avoids having to install infra, but then the maintenance costs end up kicking the city in the butt in 30-50 years. If they don't continue growing by building more housing and attracting businesses, places enter decline. Suburban housing is very attractive to Americans, but over time becomes very expensive to keep up. Eventually, these suburban towns will need to adapt and allow better uses of their land, or they'll need to become so expensive that the taxes can cover the ongoing maintenance. Cities can absolutely transform a car dependent area into a more productive one with additional transportation options. It'll require a lot of change, likely to zoning and possibly a land value tax instead of property tax. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but there are already plenty of examples of towns/cities going bankrupt because of their infrastructure maintenance obligations.
screye 5y ago
It is as the saying goes : "build and they will come" 60% of trips in the US are less than 6 miles. Electric bikes and road bikes are perfect for this kind of trip. I used to do almost all my trips in Boston on bike. However, I just moved to Bellevue and even though I want to, biking feels.incredibly unsafe. I know a good few people who would love to do their daily commute on bikes, but they are understandably scared to do so. When bike lanes are added, they are done with so little thought that it is almost more dangerous to be on them than not (cambridge MA has been doing a stellar job tho) There is a wierd conundrum at the core of american discourse right now. Housing is too expensive, but there is also too much space between places (requiring cars). The US refuses to welcome housing/zoning laws that will allow for densification. On the other hand, they allow for sprawling cities like pheonix or houston to expand to grotesque amounts. Biking + mass transit is very doable in many parts of the US. Parking minimums can be replaced with parking outside urban cores and taking public transportation after that. Building housing on parking lots would quicky begin densifying neighborhoods. When the simple act of living requires 3 cars in a house and driving 10 miles to get groceries, maybe it is time to stop.incentivizing that lifestyle and urban development approach. All of this being said, US public transportation/pedestrian/biking infrastructure is bad even when compared to similar cities. Cities the size of NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, etc in other developed countries fare significantly better on all of the aforementioned factors. Maybe the US could start by catching up first and talk about 'doing better' later.
- twelve40 5y ago
  Safe lanes are just one part of the problem. If we target to have people do 60% of their trips on bikes, there are questions like, where do you park the bike so that it doesn't get stolen? (i'm having a bicycle stolen in my family pretty much every year for the last 5 years) What do you do if you don't want to be sweaty? (yes, it's a thing!) and/or have to change into nicer clothes. Or what do you do if you are running late and 6 miles can be covered in 5 minutes instead of 30 minutes? What if you have to get a bunch of groceries or have to get from work to kindergarten to pick up two kids? Yes, sounds boring, but these are real-life questions.