4 ms·

Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. I don't know why people keep saying this. Public transportation at scale in most US citi

Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. I don't know why people keep saying this. Public transportation at scale in most US cities would be a nightmare. Los Angeles is a good example of this. People work 50 miles from where they work. They shop 10 or 20 miles away. Etc. Nobody is going to walk five miles to go to a bus or train station. That would be silly. And then, what do I do when I need to take my three German Shepherds to the kennel, or the vet? Or when the family wants to go kayaking at the lake? Private vehicles are not going away. Self driving vehicles might alleviate some of this, but we are likely decades away from that reality.

robertlagrant 5y ago
The OP didn't mention reducing ownership levels. They mentioned reducing usage.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Many EU cities were designed for the car too and made the switch successfully.
ZoomerCretin 5y ago
> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. I don't know why people keep saying this. Public transportation at scale in most US cities would be a nightmare. Counter-point: In spite of car-centric development, every city, suburb, and rural area has good public transportation that runs twice a day and only services minors. It's possible, we just don't fund it. > Los Angeles is a good example of this. People work 50 miles from where they work. They shop 10 or 20 miles away. Etc. Nobody is going to walk five miles to go to a bus or train station. That would be silly. And then, what do I do when I need to take my three German Shepherds to the kennel, or the vet? Or when the family wants to go kayaking at the lake? This is why we must also focus on land-use change (i.e. densification), as it strongly correlates with how well public transportation infrastructure scales.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. Simple example: The neighborhood where I live is relatively new. It was built about 25 years ago. I watched it being built after we effectively chose the lot where we wanted the house built. I visited the construction every single weekend for about a year until the homes were ready to go. I watched was they trenched over half a mile of would-be-roads to install sewage, power and communications lines underground. I watched as they built the roads, sidewalks and, eventually, the homes. I even paid the electrician on the side to run two CAT5 cables (4 total) from the garage to two opposite corners of every room (including the bathrooms). When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. It's easy to wave a hand and say "redesign the cities". Sounds great. Yet, sadly, it is a fantasy. Even a small town would be a grotesquely expensive and logistically impossible undertaking. The best approach would be to do it right with new developments. Not sure we have the leadership necessary to take that approach, at all.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    >When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. Cities and NIMBYs have to go out of their way, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of man-years drafting ever-complex zoning laws and BS lawsuits to block any and all market-driven densification, nearly anywhere and everywhere it happens. > Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. It won't be the government literally tearing down and re-building hundreds of square miles in a one-shot, hundred-trillion dollar effort. It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.).
    - 5y ago
ryukafalz 5y ago
> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. They were, before we bulldozed them to make way for highways and parking lots. Some still are. (Hello from Philadelphia!)
nicoburns 5y ago
> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation So redesign the cities. Obviously this won't happen overnight. But we're likely talking about decades-long timescales for any of these solutions.

robertlagrant 5y ago

The OP didn't mention reducing ownership levels. They mentioned reducing usage.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Many EU cities were designed for the car too and made the switch successfully.

ZoomerCretin 5y ago

> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. I don't know why people keep saying this. Public transportation at scale in most US cities would be a nightmare. Counter-point: In spite of car-centric development, every city, suburb, and rural area has good public transportation that runs twice a day and only services minors. It's possible, we just don't fund it. > Los Angeles is a good example of this. People work 50 miles from where they work. They shop 10 or 20 miles away. Etc. Nobody is going to walk five miles to go to a bus or train station. That would be silly. And then, what do I do when I need to take my three German Shepherds to the kennel, or the vet? Or when the family wants to go kayaking at the lake? This is why we must also focus on land-use change (i.e. densification), as it strongly correlates with how well public transportation infrastructure scales.

robomartin 5y ago
Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. Simple example: The neighborhood where I live is relatively new. It was built about 25 years ago. I watched it being built after we effectively chose the lot where we wanted the house built. I visited the construction every single weekend for about a year until the homes were ready to go. I watched was they trenched over half a mile of would-be-roads to install sewage, power and communications lines underground. I watched as they built the roads, sidewalks and, eventually, the homes. I even paid the electrician on the side to run two CAT5 cables (4 total) from the garage to two opposite corners of every room (including the bathrooms). When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. It's easy to wave a hand and say "redesign the cities". Sounds great. Yet, sadly, it is a fantasy. Even a small town would be a grotesquely expensive and logistically impossible undertaking. The best approach would be to do it right with new developments. Not sure we have the leadership necessary to take that approach, at all.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  >When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. Cities and NIMBYs have to go out of their way, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of man-years drafting ever-complex zoning laws and BS lawsuits to block any and all market-driven densification, nearly anywhere and everywhere it happens. > Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. It won't be the government literally tearing down and re-building hundreds of square miles in a one-shot, hundred-trillion dollar effort. It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.).
  - 5y ago

ryukafalz 5y ago

> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation. They were, before we bulldozed them to make way for highways and parking lots. Some still are. (Hello from Philadelphia!)

nicoburns 5y ago

> Our cities are not designed for European style public transportation So redesign the cities. Obviously this won't happen overnight. But we're likely talking about decades-long timescales for any of these solutions.