4 ms·

> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You should

by rtlfe 5y ago

> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    As I said: > If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners I can, and frequently do, walk to my nearest supermarket. But I know for a fact that if cars disappeared for a day then it would be unable to open its doors. These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. I live 9 miles away from my office though, so that would be a lot more difficult. > In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home I’m sure if you wanted to undo 80+ years of economic development, we’d be able to recreate that society… that economic development is of course one of the positive externalities you’re choosing to ignore. So if this is your agenda, I’d suggest you try to figure out how catastrophically devastating that would be for the economy first.
    - rtlfe 5y ago
      > These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. That's completely backward. Here are two different takes on how cities subsidize suburbs and rural areas. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-cities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
      - AmericanChopper 5y ago
        That’s really a completely different topic. I’m talking about the positive economic externalities of private vehicle ownership. Those massively beneficial externalities exist for cities whether rural areas exist or not. Any analysis of the externalities of vehicle ownership is simply agenda-driven nonsense if it doesn’t account for that.
        thanatos519 5y ago
        The agenda is not manufacturing more vehicles than we need. Those privately-owned vehicles are idle most of the time. In rural areas, if you need a ride, book it in advance and it will arrive 5 minutes before you need it. In the city, walk 2 minutes to the nearest vehicle, and drive it to your home if you need to pick something up. Public transit should include automobiles.
        rtlfe 5y ago
        It's the same thing. Private car ownership requires suburbs and suburbs require car ownership. In properly dense city areas (not single family zones that technically are within the limits of a city) car ownership is impractical and there's very little of it.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        This seems obviously falsifiable to me. There are many cities worldwide where private vehicle ownership (and use) is a fraction of what it is in common US cities (though of course, NYC would be an example that is actually within the US). Are you suggesting that London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul or NYC are in some way suffering because less people there own and/or use private vehicles for transportation? As so many have pointed out in this sub-thread, and so many other places, the pattern of US urban and suburban development for the last 80 years has essentially assumed the predominance of private vehicle ownership and use. It's not a surprise, therefore, that within these patterns of developments, car ownership and use brings significant benefits (even if it also causes significant negative externalities). However, what is also true is that these patterns of development severely penalize lack of car ownership in a way that not even old world cities do. My sister who lives in London leaves her car parked for roughly 95% of the time and moves around by mass transit. If she had no vehicle (like her daughter, also in London), her life would change very little. By contrast, the resident of most US cities and essentially all suburbs who attempts to live without a car will be hamstrung in most areas of their life.
- wasmitnetzen 5y ago
  You ignore bikes and usable public transport, which a lot of places in the world have.

by rtlfe 5y ago

AmericanChopper 5y ago

It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.

rtlfe 5y ago
> wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  As I said: > If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners I can, and frequently do, walk to my nearest supermarket. But I know for a fact that if cars disappeared for a day then it would be unable to open its doors. These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. I live 9 miles away from my office though, so that would be a lot more difficult. > In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home I’m sure if you wanted to undo 80+ years of economic development, we’d be able to recreate that society… that economic development is of course one of the positive externalities you’re choosing to ignore. So if this is your agenda, I’d suggest you try to figure out how catastrophically devastating that would be for the economy first.
  - rtlfe 5y ago
    > These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. That's completely backward. Here are two different takes on how cities subsidize suburbs and rural areas. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-cities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      That’s really a completely different topic. I’m talking about the positive economic externalities of private vehicle ownership. Those massively beneficial externalities exist for cities whether rural areas exist or not. Any analysis of the externalities of vehicle ownership is simply agenda-driven nonsense if it doesn’t account for that.
      - thanatos519 5y ago
        The agenda is not manufacturing more vehicles than we need. Those privately-owned vehicles are idle most of the time. In rural areas, if you need a ride, book it in advance and it will arrive 5 minutes before you need it. In the city, walk 2 minutes to the nearest vehicle, and drive it to your home if you need to pick something up. Public transit should include automobiles.
      - rtlfe 5y ago
        It's the same thing. Private car ownership requires suburbs and suburbs require car ownership. In properly dense city areas (not single family zones that technically are within the limits of a city) car ownership is impractical and there's very little of it.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        This seems obviously falsifiable to me. There are many cities worldwide where private vehicle ownership (and use) is a fraction of what it is in common US cities (though of course, NYC would be an example that is actually within the US). Are you suggesting that London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul or NYC are in some way suffering because less people there own and/or use private vehicles for transportation? As so many have pointed out in this sub-thread, and so many other places, the pattern of US urban and suburban development for the last 80 years has essentially assumed the predominance of private vehicle ownership and use. It's not a surprise, therefore, that within these patterns of developments, car ownership and use brings significant benefits (even if it also causes significant negative externalities). However, what is also true is that these patterns of development severely penalize lack of car ownership in a way that not even old world cities do. My sister who lives in London leaves her car parked for roughly 95% of the time and moves around by mass transit. If she had no vehicle (like her daughter, also in London), her life would change very little. By contrast, the resident of most US cities and essentially all suburbs who attempts to live without a car will be hamstrung in most areas of their life.
wasmitnetzen 5y ago
You ignore bikes and usable public transport, which a lot of places in the world have.