4 ms·

I keep hearing this line about how cars are faster because cities 'choose' to make it that way. This isn't a convincing argument to me. Cars are fundamentally a

I keep hearing this line about how cars are faster because cities 'choose' to make it that way. This isn't a convincing argument to me. Cars are fundamentally a faster mode of transportation. Just like walking cannot realize a maximum speed similar to bicycles, neither walking nor biking can realize a maximum speed similar to cars (at least safely). Driving is faster, first and foremost, because cars are faster and not because cities are making other modes slower. The faster travel times that cars unlock is a massive boost to quality of life that many, many people enjoy and take advantage of. That inherent value is why people are willing to pay taxes to fund roads for cars, and why cities have developed road infrastructure. It's not some kind of conspiracy theory to bring down bikes - the reality is that bikes are simply slower and there isn't some deeper level of insight beyond that.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
No, this is incorrect. High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips? No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower. Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs. Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent. Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas. Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores? The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. In an already built city (or neighborhood), removing space for cars isn't going to snuggle the existing buildings together. It will rarely permit another building to be built between existing buildings where that's not possible today.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Making existing buildings somehow move isn't the objective.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

No, this is incorrect. High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips? No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower. Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs. Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent. Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas. Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores? The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.

sokoloff 5y ago
> The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. In an already built city (or neighborhood), removing space for cars isn't going to snuggle the existing buildings together. It will rarely permit another building to be built between existing buildings where that's not possible today.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Making existing buildings somehow move isn't the objective.