10 ms·

I agree. I don’t see why we have to force ourselves to live with 2-3 car households, insane taxes to pay for the upkeep of roads, and dependency on oil, gas, pl

I agree. I don’t see why we have to force ourselves to live with 2-3 car households, insane taxes to pay for the upkeep of roads, and dependency on oil, gas, plastic, car manufacturers, and all of this other stuff when we could just build better neighborhoods. It’s mind-blowing. Americans in particular go to Europe “wow it’s so awesome here I could totally live here!!” And then it’s like they land back home and their mind is wiped clean. We don’t have to not have cars either. Why not 1 car per household for most people and most of your day-to-day activities within a few miles? You could bike, ride a street car, walk, any number of things. You can still live in rural areas and have a truck. I like trucks and acreage too! Just stop dictating that we have to have life this specific, obviously bad way.

Victerius 5y ago
In order to have neighborhoods where cars are not required, you need density. That means fewer single family homes and more apartments. Many Americans have underdeveloped social skills and don't want to be/live near other people. Fortunately, in a country of 330M people, it is impossible for every household to be kings of their little kingdom, as house prices are teaching us. And, yes, I attribute the desire of some to go out of their way to avoid the company of others entirely on underdeveloped social skills. We are humans, not wild beasts, and we should not shun our fellow humans.
- antattack 5y ago
  Many Americans have noisy and inconsiderate neighbors.
  - geraldwhen 5y ago
    I hated every apartment I ever lived in. Dear god, why do apartments allow dogs? Or music at 3am. Or anything. When I bought my first house, the first thing I noticed was the silence. I could finally relax.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Yea until spring time. Then it’s endless lawn mowers, leaf blowers, drag racing, dirt bikes, and all sorts of other loud noises. Can’t keep the windows open because it’s too loud.
    - hombre_fatal 5y ago
      HOAs get a lot of hate, but they were the only recourse I had against neighbors who became hostile when I tried talking to them politely about their 24/7 barking dog in the adjacent lawn. It’s weird how socially acceptable it is to have a pet noisemaker in your backyard, and how socially unacceptable it is to have an issue with it.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Why can't that problem be something that local governments fix with actual laws? Why do we need organizations that have most of the power of a government, but none of the accountability or checks and balances?
        hombre_fatal 5y ago
        My friend said that when he lived in Brisbane, the police will actually come out with a volume meter and log the noise, talk to the dog owners, and ultimately take action if nothing is done. https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community-and-safety/pets-and-livestock/keeping-a-pet-in-brisbane/animal-noise https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community-and-safety/pets-an...
        geraldwhen 5y ago
        I doubt most would characterize the actions of US police as "accountable." Regardless, police don't handle noise complaints where I live. Presumably they don't want to bother with the paperwork.
    - occz 5y ago
      There's a fairly simple solution to the issue of excessive noise from neighbours in apartments: have rules for when noise can be made and when noise cannot be made, and enforce them with fines/eviction.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > In order to have neighborhoods where cars are not required, you need density. That means fewer single family homes and more apartments. Yes but not in the way you’re describing. Apartments would be part of the single family home neighborhood. Which is good. People who are single for example can live in the community and meet people. Which brings me to the next point: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9b/26/379b266652e0a2013c0cff83b4011bfa.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9b/26/379b266652e0a2013c0c... > Many Americans have underdeveloped social skills and don't want to be/live near other people. Right. Because we choose to live in suburbs and make it so we are this way. We could just, ya know, not do this? It’s like saying well I’m not using Google because Ask Jeeves has conditioned me to use a crappy search engine. Well… just stop then?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'd like to see some sources on the reason for having underdeveloped social skills. Sure, exposure to situations is necessary to an extent. You still have shy urbanites as well as kind/inviting rural people. I would venture a guess that much of it is culture based (eg southern hospitality, NYC has a reputation for being gruff/big personalities, etc)
    - ericmay 5y ago
      I don’t even know that we do have “underdeveloped social skills” if I’m being truthful. But if we do I think “how we live” is probably a good starting point since so many people are just cooped up all day.
- blindmute 5y ago
  I attribute the desire to go out of their way to spend more money just to live in a cramped box among strangers to be overdeveloped social neurosis. Humans lived for millions of years in large open spaces, owned land de facto, and had ample space (think kilometers) for themselves or their children to run around outside. If you want to live in a box and own nothing, go ahead. I can't imagine going back to living on less than 8k sq meters. The growing population is a virus encroaching on man's ability to own his kingdom, not something to be applauded and smiled about.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I don't even think there's anything wrong with 2-3 car households being the norm in suburbs. I just want single occupancy vehicles banned from city centers, at least in places like Manhattan (where I live). They're dangerous, they're a waste of space, and due to traffic and parking requirements they're usually not even an efficient mode of travel for their owners. If we reserved a few roads in Manhattan for busses, large commercial delivery vehicles, and people with disabilities, and left everything else for bikes, scooters, and pedestrians, transit would be faster and more pleasant for everyone.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > I just want single occupancy vehicles banned from city centers Why be so authoritarian? It's one thing to say "I think single occupancy vehicles are inefficient and bad, so I'm not going to use them", but it's another to say "I think single occupancy vehicles are inefficient and bad, so I'm going to take away everyone else's choice to use them".
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    Cars need roads and parking space, those take away other people's chance to have a quiet, safe, pleasant city center just as much. It's not a matter of one side being authoritarian, there's conflicting interests.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      > right to a quiet, safe, pleasant city center Wait...these are rights now? Who do I sue for not having any of these?
      - Scarblac 5y ago
        I didn't intend to enter that discussion with that word choice, so I changed it.
    - smaryjerry 5y ago
bombcar 5y ago
> Americans in particular go to Europe “wow it’s so awesome here I could totally live here!!” And then it’s like they land back home and their mind is wiped clean. The "tourist" vs "working" views of a city to the side, I think the big solution isn't revamping existing cities at first, it'll be creating pockets of new development with different goals. And there's lots of weird things that affect American suburbs - minimum road width is often tied to service vehicles (specifically fire and garbage trucks); these could be overcome with some thought. I've often wondered if a "carmpromise" city could be built - let's assume a ten minute walk is half a mile. Imagine a strip of city a mile wide where cars are effectively banned. Parking garages at the edges provide car access for those who have them, and the rest is entirely built around walking/biking. Perhaps a tram line runs through the middle. Then those who want cars (basically everyone) can move in without fear, and if some? most? eventually realize they're not using them they can save money by eliminating them.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > minimum road width is often tied to service vehicles (specifically fire and garbage trucks); these could be overcome with some thought. We have fire and garbage trucks in Europe too and we manage to build small scale streets in the suburbs and rural areas without compromising on emergency services. The key difference is we plan these streets for the expected amount of traffic which will be a couple cars per hour at the top and have regular intersections with other streets where, should there be the rare case that a vehicle comes up towards you, there is enough place to act as a bypass. Americans seem to plan all streets as if they would be used at capacity 24/7.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The main thing seems to be requirements to turn around - a normal street here is wide enough to park five fire trucks side by side. It’s way too wide for what we need. To be fair the streets date from before the invention of the car, so maybe it’s something else.
    - mrkstu 5y ago
giantg2 5y ago
"and their mind is wiped clean." Or they realize that most public transit here is unreliable junk. It's almost never on time. This isn't a huge deal until you have to catch a connection/transfer and being late by 5 minutes mens you have to wait another 30-60 minutes for the next one. Or that they completely shut down after something like 1am. Oh, and I good luck to people not losing their job when the system goes on strike and you can get to work for a few days. I would love to have great public transit. Much of these issues are policy or design issues. The policy issues need to be addressed. If only there was some accountability to the public... Just for a fun story, my car broke down and I had to take public transit for a month. It was easier for me to walk 2 miles (no real sidewalk for most of it and busy roads) than to rely on the bus schedule. It took me 1.25 hours to get to work using two trains and a bus, when in the car it would take 20 minutes. So as much as we want good public transit, we can't suddenly start using it if it doesn't exist. People have basically given up on it when schedules are a joke and the whole system can shut down for days or weeks.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  It depends on the city, but in bigger cities it's frequently the traffic from cars that keeps busses from being on time. Separately, there's a chicken-and-egg problem. In order to run busses every five minutes—which is what you really want—you need enough bus riders to fill all those vehicles.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    True, but that's only busses. Rail lines were (are?) commonly 5-15 minutes off schedule depending on the time of day. For people to use the system, they have to trust the system. Depending on the city, rail infrastructure can get you close enough to walk to many places. The stuff that crushes trust even then is the rail lines being off schedule and strikes. Safety can be a major concern too, like the woman who was raped on a SEPTA train recently (WTF). These should be simple asks. Maybe we just need to charge/tax more so they have more money (or maybe we need better people making the decisions with that money).
  - NumberWangMan 5y ago
pcthrowaway 5y ago
Speaking as someone who likes rock climbing and also road trips, I'm not sure what the alternative is. Even in Europe (especially in Europe), you need a 4-wheel drive to access most of the climbing areas. I live in Canada and currently just have a hybrid, but it does limit me in what areas I can drive to for climbing
- ericmay 5y ago
  Simple, we don’t optimize for edge cases. I live in the suburbs. You know how many people around here have 4wd Jeeps for their commute to the office that they have never taken “off road” a single time? The solution is someone like you who does outdoor stuff may shell out for a 4wd vehicle. That’s OK!! You just park it in your neighborhood or in your garage like everyone else. The majority of people who don’t do these activities just walk and bike around and probably take their hatchback to visit someone once in awhile or pick up a larger piece of furniture.
- wasmitnetzen 5y ago
  If you don't go climbing daily, access to good car sharing will do just fine. It is probably cheaper, as you'll only need to shell out for a 4x4 when you actually need it.
- euro_climber123 5y ago
  I don't agree with that statement. Here is a list of top sport-climbing and bouldering destinations that will not require a 4-wheel drive (source: me and my car). - Frankenjura - Elbsandstein - Margalef - Siurana - Chulilla - Albarracin - Finale - Osp - Kalymnos - Leonidio - Ceuse - St Leger - Gorges du Tarn - Les Calanques - Buoux - Fontainebleau As for multi-pitch climbing: almost everything in the Alps is accessible with a normal car and the customary approach (or a cable car).
  - vondur 5y ago
    This isn’t the case here in the US. We have thousands of miles of off road areas that aren’t accessible to non off road vehicles. But I do agree that a large portion of people here in the US that have huge lifted vehicles never go off road.
teddyh 5y ago
> wow it’s so awesome here I could totally live here!! “It’s because they have walkable space and public transportation.” — https://imgur.com/gallery/cuRG7lx https://imgur.com/gallery/cuRG7lx

Victerius 5y ago

In order to have neighborhoods where cars are not required, you need density. That means fewer single family homes and more apartments. Many Americans have underdeveloped social skills and don't want to be/live near other people. Fortunately, in a country of 330M people, it is impossible for every household to be kings of their little kingdom, as house prices are teaching us. And, yes, I attribute the desire of some to go out of their way to avoid the company of others entirely on underdeveloped social skills. We are humans, not wild beasts, and we should not shun our fellow humans.

antattack 5y ago
Many Americans have noisy and inconsiderate neighbors.
- geraldwhen 5y ago
  I hated every apartment I ever lived in. Dear god, why do apartments allow dogs? Or music at 3am. Or anything. When I bought my first house, the first thing I noticed was the silence. I could finally relax.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Yea until spring time. Then it’s endless lawn mowers, leaf blowers, drag racing, dirt bikes, and all sorts of other loud noises. Can’t keep the windows open because it’s too loud.
  - hombre_fatal 5y ago
    HOAs get a lot of hate, but they were the only recourse I had against neighbors who became hostile when I tried talking to them politely about their 24/7 barking dog in the adjacent lawn. It’s weird how socially acceptable it is to have a pet noisemaker in your backyard, and how socially unacceptable it is to have an issue with it.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Why can't that problem be something that local governments fix with actual laws? Why do we need organizations that have most of the power of a government, but none of the accountability or checks and balances?
      - hombre_fatal 5y ago
        My friend said that when he lived in Brisbane, the police will actually come out with a volume meter and log the noise, talk to the dog owners, and ultimately take action if nothing is done. https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community-and-safety/pets-and-livestock/keeping-a-pet-in-brisbane/animal-noise https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community-and-safety/pets-an...
      - geraldwhen 5y ago
        I doubt most would characterize the actions of US police as "accountable." Regardless, police don't handle noise complaints where I live. Presumably they don't want to bother with the paperwork.
  - occz 5y ago
    There's a fairly simple solution to the issue of excessive noise from neighbours in apartments: have rules for when noise can be made and when noise cannot be made, and enforce them with fines/eviction.
ericmay 5y ago
> In order to have neighborhoods where cars are not required, you need density. That means fewer single family homes and more apartments. Yes but not in the way you’re describing. Apartments would be part of the single family home neighborhood. Which is good. People who are single for example can live in the community and meet people. Which brings me to the next point: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9b/26/379b266652e0a2013c0cff83b4011bfa.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9b/26/379b266652e0a2013c0c... > Many Americans have underdeveloped social skills and don't want to be/live near other people. Right. Because we choose to live in suburbs and make it so we are this way. We could just, ya know, not do this? It’s like saying well I’m not using Google because Ask Jeeves has conditioned me to use a crappy search engine. Well… just stop then?
- giantg2 5y ago
  I'd like to see some sources on the reason for having underdeveloped social skills. Sure, exposure to situations is necessary to an extent. You still have shy urbanites as well as kind/inviting rural people. I would venture a guess that much of it is culture based (eg southern hospitality, NYC has a reputation for being gruff/big personalities, etc)
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I don’t even know that we do have “underdeveloped social skills” if I’m being truthful. But if we do I think “how we live” is probably a good starting point since so many people are just cooped up all day.
blindmute 5y ago
I attribute the desire to go out of their way to spend more money just to live in a cramped box among strangers to be overdeveloped social neurosis. Humans lived for millions of years in large open spaces, owned land de facto, and had ample space (think kilometers) for themselves or their children to run around outside. If you want to live in a box and own nothing, go ahead. I can't imagine going back to living on less than 8k sq meters. The growing population is a virus encroaching on man's ability to own his kingdom, not something to be applauded and smiled about.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

I don't even think there's anything wrong with 2-3 car households being the norm in suburbs. I just want single occupancy vehicles banned from city centers, at least in places like Manhattan (where I live). They're dangerous, they're a waste of space, and due to traffic and parking requirements they're usually not even an efficient mode of travel for their owners. If we reserved a few roads in Manhattan for busses, large commercial delivery vehicles, and people with disabilities, and left everything else for bikes, scooters, and pedestrians, transit would be faster and more pleasant for everyone.

josephcsible 5y ago
> I just want single occupancy vehicles banned from city centers Why be so authoritarian? It's one thing to say "I think single occupancy vehicles are inefficient and bad, so I'm not going to use them", but it's another to say "I think single occupancy vehicles are inefficient and bad, so I'm going to take away everyone else's choice to use them".
- Scarblac 5y ago
  Cars need roads and parking space, those take away other people's chance to have a quiet, safe, pleasant city center just as much. It's not a matter of one side being authoritarian, there's conflicting interests.
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    > right to a quiet, safe, pleasant city center Wait...these are rights now? Who do I sue for not having any of these?
    - Scarblac 5y ago
      I didn't intend to enter that discussion with that word choice, so I changed it.
  - smaryjerry 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago

> Americans in particular go to Europe “wow it’s so awesome here I could totally live here!!” And then it’s like they land back home and their mind is wiped clean. The "tourist" vs "working" views of a city to the side, I think the big solution isn't revamping existing cities at first, it'll be creating pockets of new development with different goals. And there's lots of weird things that affect American suburbs - minimum road width is often tied to service vehicles (specifically fire and garbage trucks); these could be overcome with some thought. I've often wondered if a "carmpromise" city could be built - let's assume a ten minute walk is half a mile. Imagine a strip of city a mile wide where cars are effectively banned. Parking garages at the edges provide car access for those who have them, and the rest is entirely built around walking/biking. Perhaps a tram line runs through the middle. Then those who want cars (basically everyone) can move in without fear, and if some? most? eventually realize they're not using them they can save money by eliminating them.

mschuster91 5y ago
> minimum road width is often tied to service vehicles (specifically fire and garbage trucks); these could be overcome with some thought. We have fire and garbage trucks in Europe too and we manage to build small scale streets in the suburbs and rural areas without compromising on emergency services. The key difference is we plan these streets for the expected amount of traffic which will be a couple cars per hour at the top and have regular intersections with other streets where, should there be the rare case that a vehicle comes up towards you, there is enough place to act as a bypass. Americans seem to plan all streets as if they would be used at capacity 24/7.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The main thing seems to be requirements to turn around - a normal street here is wide enough to park five fire trucks side by side. It’s way too wide for what we need. To be fair the streets date from before the invention of the car, so maybe it’s something else.
  - mrkstu 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"and their mind is wiped clean." Or they realize that most public transit here is unreliable junk. It's almost never on time. This isn't a huge deal until you have to catch a connection/transfer and being late by 5 minutes mens you have to wait another 30-60 minutes for the next one. Or that they completely shut down after something like 1am. Oh, and I good luck to people not losing their job when the system goes on strike and you can get to work for a few days. I would love to have great public transit. Much of these issues are policy or design issues. The policy issues need to be addressed. If only there was some accountability to the public... Just for a fun story, my car broke down and I had to take public transit for a month. It was easier for me to walk 2 miles (no real sidewalk for most of it and busy roads) than to rely on the bus schedule. It took me 1.25 hours to get to work using two trains and a bus, when in the car it would take 20 minutes. So as much as we want good public transit, we can't suddenly start using it if it doesn't exist. People have basically given up on it when schedules are a joke and the whole system can shut down for days or weeks.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
It depends on the city, but in bigger cities it's frequently the traffic from cars that keeps busses from being on time. Separately, there's a chicken-and-egg problem. In order to run busses every five minutes—which is what you really want—you need enough bus riders to fill all those vehicles.
- giantg2 5y ago
  True, but that's only busses. Rail lines were (are?) commonly 5-15 minutes off schedule depending on the time of day. For people to use the system, they have to trust the system. Depending on the city, rail infrastructure can get you close enough to walk to many places. The stuff that crushes trust even then is the rail lines being off schedule and strikes. Safety can be a major concern too, like the woman who was raped on a SEPTA train recently (WTF). These should be simple asks. Maybe we just need to charge/tax more so they have more money (or maybe we need better people making the decisions with that money).
- NumberWangMan 5y ago

pcthrowaway 5y ago

Speaking as someone who likes rock climbing and also road trips, I'm not sure what the alternative is. Even in Europe (especially in Europe), you need a 4-wheel drive to access most of the climbing areas. I live in Canada and currently just have a hybrid, but it does limit me in what areas I can drive to for climbing

ericmay 5y ago
Simple, we don’t optimize for edge cases. I live in the suburbs. You know how many people around here have 4wd Jeeps for their commute to the office that they have never taken “off road” a single time? The solution is someone like you who does outdoor stuff may shell out for a 4wd vehicle. That’s OK!! You just park it in your neighborhood or in your garage like everyone else. The majority of people who don’t do these activities just walk and bike around and probably take their hatchback to visit someone once in awhile or pick up a larger piece of furniture.
wasmitnetzen 5y ago
If you don't go climbing daily, access to good car sharing will do just fine. It is probably cheaper, as you'll only need to shell out for a 4x4 when you actually need it.
euro_climber123 5y ago
I don't agree with that statement. Here is a list of top sport-climbing and bouldering destinations that will not require a 4-wheel drive (source: me and my car). - Frankenjura - Elbsandstein - Margalef - Siurana - Chulilla - Albarracin - Finale - Osp - Kalymnos - Leonidio - Ceuse - St Leger - Gorges du Tarn - Les Calanques - Buoux - Fontainebleau As for multi-pitch climbing: almost everything in the Alps is accessible with a normal car and the customary approach (or a cable car).
- vondur 5y ago
  This isn’t the case here in the US. We have thousands of miles of off road areas that aren’t accessible to non off road vehicles. But I do agree that a large portion of people here in the US that have huge lifted vehicles never go off road.

teddyh 5y ago

> wow it’s so awesome here I could totally live here!! “It’s because they have walkable space and public transportation.” — https://imgur.com/gallery/cuRG7lx https://imgur.com/gallery/cuRG7lx