4 ms·

If a city does not overbuild and reach high density beyond the capacity of infrastructure, then cars remain by far the best mode of transport. They are point to

If a city does not overbuild and reach high density beyond the capacity of infrastructure, then cars remain by far the best mode of transport. They are point to point, with no wait times, no schedules, no stops, with higher travel speeds, and can take you outside of the city core to other destinations. The time saved and ability to take people and things directly to any destination leads to a far richer life than we could live otherwise. The negatives of cars seem exaggerated by articles like this and urbanist activists in general. I live in a city with mostly cars and don’t notice either the pollution or noise. Modern cars have very little pollution simply due to regulation, and I certainly don’t smell any pollution when I ride in bike lanes on busy streets. The noise is also pretty negligent unless you live right next to the highway, which most people don’t. Cars today are also incredibly safe, with only around 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled, and provide far more utility back to society than this minor cost. Additionally with driver assistance technologies becoming standard, their safety will increase dramatically. Cars bring more communities together because neighborhoods are more accessible to each other. These daily articles pushing an anti-car sentiment ultimately seem very one sided and childishly idealistic. For example this particular article doesn’t mention what the trade offs are in Slovenia. It claims residents adapted but has no data to establish if they are happy or unhappy with changes, if they are even the same residents as before, if living within a 15 minute radius has limited their choices, if how they spend time has changed for the worse, and so on. It similarly lacks data for those who live outside this core area but used to visit it regularly before the changes. It’s hard to draw any useful conclusion from such a simplistic and biased take.

satyrnein 5y ago
If a city does not overbuild and reach high density beyond the capacity of infrastructure, then cars remain by far the best mode of transport. This sounds a little like, "if we optimize for cars, then cars are optimal."
SantalBlush 5y ago
You lost me at "no stops." I've been stuck in traffic for far too many hours of my life to take a statement like that seriously. There I am, sitting there in my car, staring out at an ocean of vehicles that are moving at a crawl while trying to travel in the same direction. Why are we all stuck there? Because somebody a mile ahead tried to change lanes while sending a text. There goes my freedom of transportation, along with my sanity.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  You make a good point, and I acknowledge there can be traffic that can cause the equivalents of stops. However where I am, even with the impact of rush hour traffic, commuting by car is roughly twice as fast as taking a bus or the subway or biking. It really comes down to what the level of population density is and the proportion of that density to the available road infrastructure. Beyond a certain number, density just doesn’t make sense anyways. Many desirable things like parks don’t scale to keep up with infinite density. You end up having to look outside your immediate neighborhood for those amenities, but then that takes up more time than a less-dense place where you can drive to destinations. What I am getting to, is that balance is needed. I think making a small amount of room for bike lanes is fine, but banning cars and getting rid of most parking spaces goes too far.
slyall 5y ago
So what is this car paradise city you live in where everyone can get where they need with "with no wait times, no schedules, no stops, with higher travel speeds" and I assume no parking problems at your destination? Cause all the car-centric cities out there struggling to scale and building the "one more freeway to solve congestion" would love to study your city that got it right.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I was talking about Seattle in that instance. And it comes down to not creating congestion and contention for things like parking spaces in the first place. Many cities run into scalability problems because they overbuild (both commercial and residential) and take density to an unnecessarily high level. Density isn’t a good thing, and virtually no one seeks it out as a positive trait in and of itself. The actual benefits of a city - like good restaurants, amenities, events, and so on - can be had at a much lower density than the level at which it makes transit a problem. To answer your final point, I would ask why cities need to scale further at all? Unchecked growth shouldn’t be a goal. Seattle in the 2000s had a population density of around 3000 per square kilometer, which was plenty enough to sustain a city but not so much that it brings all the negative problems with it. The density is slightly higher than that today but not as high as Barcelona, which is at 16000 per square kilometer.
  - Texaner 5y ago
    You need density so that normal people can still afford to live there. Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      > Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts. Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice. One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.

satyrnein 5y ago

If a city does not overbuild and reach high density beyond the capacity of infrastructure, then cars remain by far the best mode of transport. This sounds a little like, "if we optimize for cars, then cars are optimal."

SantalBlush 5y ago

You lost me at "no stops." I've been stuck in traffic for far too many hours of my life to take a statement like that seriously. There I am, sitting there in my car, staring out at an ocean of vehicles that are moving at a crawl while trying to travel in the same direction. Why are we all stuck there? Because somebody a mile ahead tried to change lanes while sending a text. There goes my freedom of transportation, along with my sanity.

throwawaysea 5y ago
You make a good point, and I acknowledge there can be traffic that can cause the equivalents of stops. However where I am, even with the impact of rush hour traffic, commuting by car is roughly twice as fast as taking a bus or the subway or biking. It really comes down to what the level of population density is and the proportion of that density to the available road infrastructure. Beyond a certain number, density just doesn’t make sense anyways. Many desirable things like parks don’t scale to keep up with infinite density. You end up having to look outside your immediate neighborhood for those amenities, but then that takes up more time than a less-dense place where you can drive to destinations. What I am getting to, is that balance is needed. I think making a small amount of room for bike lanes is fine, but banning cars and getting rid of most parking spaces goes too far.

slyall 5y ago

So what is this car paradise city you live in where everyone can get where they need with "with no wait times, no schedules, no stops, with higher travel speeds" and I assume no parking problems at your destination? Cause all the car-centric cities out there struggling to scale and building the "one more freeway to solve congestion" would love to study your city that got it right.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I was talking about Seattle in that instance. And it comes down to not creating congestion and contention for things like parking spaces in the first place. Many cities run into scalability problems because they overbuild (both commercial and residential) and take density to an unnecessarily high level. Density isn’t a good thing, and virtually no one seeks it out as a positive trait in and of itself. The actual benefits of a city - like good restaurants, amenities, events, and so on - can be had at a much lower density than the level at which it makes transit a problem. To answer your final point, I would ask why cities need to scale further at all? Unchecked growth shouldn’t be a goal. Seattle in the 2000s had a population density of around 3000 per square kilometer, which was plenty enough to sustain a city but not so much that it brings all the negative problems with it. The density is slightly higher than that today but not as high as Barcelona, which is at 16000 per square kilometer.
- Texaner 5y ago
  You need density so that normal people can still afford to live there. Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts. Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice. One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.