5 ms·

The solution to the US' car problem is not as simple as "less cars is good! Just fix your cities!". Cities have been designed around the automobile for decades

The solution to the US' car problem is not as simple as "less cars is good! Just fix your cities!". Cities have been designed around the automobile for decades to the point where, in a lot of places, you literally can't do anything without a car or walking over a mile. NYC and DC manage fine because there's subway systems, but the vast majority of cities are not like that.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
right, but the solution to that is to redesign cities.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Don't get me wrong; I wish we were less car-dependent too, but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Cars are too deeply ingrained in American culture, and Europeans bragging about their cities isn't going to change that. Not to mention how massive the US is! We have states (California and Texas) that are larger than over half of the European countries.
  - whiplash451 4y ago
    Not sure why you are being downvoted systematically on this thread. I think your point is very valid.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ouid 4y ago
    long distance travel is even better suited to mass transit, as it's more laminar.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Based on the track record of most of the demographics I see pushing for improvement I fear we'll wind up with some hellscape that combines the worst of both.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    I don't see why states are especially relevant. Europe on a whole is really big, but still has way better public transit than the US.
- kansface 4y ago
  I'd guess the vast majority of cities Netherlands predate cars by centuries. They were already "designed" without cars in mind. That is not true in the US, and doubly so for the post war, suburban construction boon.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    The US absolutely tore up cities to make them more car friendly. Redlining and slum clearing were used as justifications to knock down entire neighborhoods to put more roads in. Most old American cities started as port towns with streetcar suburbs, and then they tore the trains out. We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false. Yes, the fifties and sixties caused huge redesigns, but we can undo those.
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      > We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false. It's not. Cities have literally been created from nothing in the last few decades. Just because NYC, Atlanta, DC, etc. are old are have a history of redlining does not mean that every city does. Case in point: the cities around where I grew up were built in the last 3 decades. Those cities didn't have a choice but to have zoning laws and miles of road.
      - turtledove 4y ago
        I mean, sure. Some places have become urban centers recently and that's fair. But coast to coast, our biggest population centers were all established and built up before car centric planning. I live in Seattle, for instance, which used to have a network of rails. They've all been torn out and we're just now putting them back.
        kansface 4y ago
        Seattle is geographically constrained. Most/all of the old cities (and metros) have sprawled to ungodly degrees like atlanta or la. How do you undo 70 years of development (ie, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) spent on sprawling?
dijit 4y ago
Defeatism isn't the answer either. Like the parent said, there was a big push all across europe for cars to be the norm[0]; the US just had more space to continue this deleterious activity. But it can be reversed. It just takes effort and deliberate will. [0]: Jay Foreman has some fun videos on cycling in London, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohSeOYheXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohSeOYheXg
- whiplash451 4y ago
  I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really solutions there.
  - javier123454321 4y ago
    But they are. We have several a millenia of history on how to construct cities in a way that is scale appropriate to us as humans. We choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that applying the same principles, we cannot achieve the same thing in the US. The formula is simple. Build out the core of each city that compromises a metropolitan area so that it is pedestrian first. You do that by building out multi family mixed used housing in the core. Then you ensure there are a lot of buses/bike lanes/trains that get you in and out of there, rinse, repeat. It tends towards happier, healthier people that spends more. Look up the statistics on that.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      Prince Charles (I know) has a book on this topic. It is called “Harmony” and it is really, really good. https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/0007348037 https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/00073...
    - whiplash451 4y ago
      If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Plus, you cannot “reboot” Atlanta to match your cute vision of a core city in the snap of a finger. I am not saying nothing can be done. I am saying that it is a lot harder that books and papers and studies make it seem.
erikpt-work 4y ago
This ^^^^^^ Without viable mass transit in most American cities the "less cars" mentality falls flat. As a society ruled by "NIMBY" we just don't have the social will, nor seem to care enough about one another to move anything productive forward. As another comment said, the nations that reduced dependence on autos did no decades ago. These towns/cities/suburbs were literally built around a society where everyone has a car. Very difficult/impossible to change at this point without a major catastrophe or other externally influencing event.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  It's a catch-22. If you don't get cars out of the way public transit will fail. As was pointed out we've ripped up plenty of cities to make them more car friendly and we can absolutely do the same for people. I don't think a major catastrophe is required at all. We're already at the point where a huge chunk of our infrastructure is already in dire need of repair and/or replacement. This is a perfect opportunity for improvement.
turtledove 4y ago
These cities removed transit systems and housing to build roads and parking. It will take time, but doing the reverse is totally possible. Most cities were filled with streetcars and dense housing at one point.
trgn 4y ago
The model for American walkability and density is not DC or NYC, it's places like Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, Ashville, the feel of older streetcar suburbs and small college towns, ... None of those have subway systems, all of them are aspirational urban environments. None of them ban cars, but in all of them car traffic is slower and and more gentle. Certainly, _any_ neighborhood built before the 30s can emulate those. Later suburban developments can dial in such densification as well. The main issue working against this is that the public realm is completely degraded because it only accommodates car traffic. Other ways of getting around are bullied out by high speed, dangerous cars. It's a textbook example of a vicious circle. The fact that there are a few urban areas in the US where owning a car is a drag due to parking issues, should not hold back meaningful improvements and efforts to break out of it anywhere else.
- syntheweave 4y ago
  It's why I believe L4 self-driving is the tech that will actually reverse car dependency. If robotaxi fleets become preferred to car ownership(which would occur through the resulting economies of scale in a centralized fleet driving people to save money), the aggressive drivers stop ruling the road, replaced with polite "Three Laws" drivers; then the traffic starts downscaling because most urban trip making will work in smaller scooter or smart-car style vehicles which will benefit from continuing improvements to EV tech, and the services will optimize to cost; you'll still have the larger options available, but they appear on-demand, which makes all the difference when you're thinking about how to service a family of four. Cargo trips are already shifting in favor of autonomous delivery; two weeks ago, Wal-Mart went from testing drone delivery services to expanding them to multiple US states, and they project making 1 million deliveries this year. So some critical threshold will occur where it becomes obvious that you have a vast unused road infrastructure, because the total urban fleet has consolidated into something that is physically smaller and literally less road-dependent, and nobody is there to prop up car ownership politically except a few enthusiasts and people living out of their cars. At that point downsizing is imminent everywhere. It only took 20 years for cars to overtake horses in the industrialized world, and the bulk of it happened in 10. It'll happen faster this time.
drewcoo 4y ago
Try fixing the cities. Cities and suburbs are most of the population. Biggest bang for the buck. And places where mass transit can work. It's not an "until the last home in rural Montana is near a subway stop we're not finished" kind of problem.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

right, but the solution to that is to redesign cities.

colejohnson66 4y ago
Don't get me wrong; I wish we were less car-dependent too, but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Cars are too deeply ingrained in American culture, and Europeans bragging about their cities isn't going to change that. Not to mention how massive the US is! We have states (California and Texas) that are larger than over half of the European countries.
- whiplash451 4y ago
  Not sure why you are being downvoted systematically on this thread. I think your point is very valid.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ouid 4y ago
  long distance travel is even better suited to mass transit, as it's more laminar.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Based on the track record of most of the demographics I see pushing for improvement I fear we'll wind up with some hellscape that combines the worst of both.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  I don't see why states are especially relevant. Europe on a whole is really big, but still has way better public transit than the US.
kansface 4y ago
I'd guess the vast majority of cities Netherlands predate cars by centuries. They were already "designed" without cars in mind. That is not true in the US, and doubly so for the post war, suburban construction boon.
- turtledove 4y ago
  The US absolutely tore up cities to make them more car friendly. Redlining and slum clearing were used as justifications to knock down entire neighborhoods to put more roads in. Most old American cities started as port towns with streetcar suburbs, and then they tore the trains out. We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false. Yes, the fifties and sixties caused huge redesigns, but we can undo those.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    > We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false. It's not. Cities have literally been created from nothing in the last few decades. Just because NYC, Atlanta, DC, etc. are old are have a history of redlining does not mean that every city does. Case in point: the cities around where I grew up were built in the last 3 decades. Those cities didn't have a choice but to have zoning laws and miles of road.
    - turtledove 4y ago
      I mean, sure. Some places have become urban centers recently and that's fair. But coast to coast, our biggest population centers were all established and built up before car centric planning. I live in Seattle, for instance, which used to have a network of rails. They've all been torn out and we're just now putting them back.
      - kansface 4y ago
        Seattle is geographically constrained. Most/all of the old cities (and metros) have sprawled to ungodly degrees like atlanta or la. How do you undo 70 years of development (ie, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) spent on sprawling?

dijit 4y ago

Defeatism isn't the answer either. Like the parent said, there was a big push all across europe for cars to be the norm[0]; the US just had more space to continue this deleterious activity. But it can be reversed. It just takes effort and deliberate will. [0]: Jay Foreman has some fun videos on cycling in London, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohSeOYheXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gohSeOYheXg

whiplash451 4y ago
I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really solutions there.
- javier123454321 4y ago
  But they are. We have several a millenia of history on how to construct cities in a way that is scale appropriate to us as humans. We choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that applying the same principles, we cannot achieve the same thing in the US. The formula is simple. Build out the core of each city that compromises a metropolitan area so that it is pedestrian first. You do that by building out multi family mixed used housing in the core. Then you ensure there are a lot of buses/bike lanes/trains that get you in and out of there, rinse, repeat. It tends towards happier, healthier people that spends more. Look up the statistics on that.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    Prince Charles (I know) has a book on this topic. It is called “Harmony” and it is really, really good. https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/0007348037 https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/00073...
  - whiplash451 4y ago
    If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Plus, you cannot “reboot” Atlanta to match your cute vision of a core city in the snap of a finger. I am not saying nothing can be done. I am saying that it is a lot harder that books and papers and studies make it seem.

erikpt-work 4y ago

This ^^^^^^ Without viable mass transit in most American cities the "less cars" mentality falls flat. As a society ruled by "NIMBY" we just don't have the social will, nor seem to care enough about one another to move anything productive forward. As another comment said, the nations that reduced dependence on autos did no decades ago. These towns/cities/suburbs were literally built around a society where everyone has a car. Very difficult/impossible to change at this point without a major catastrophe or other externally influencing event.

inferiorhuman 4y ago
It's a catch-22. If you don't get cars out of the way public transit will fail. As was pointed out we've ripped up plenty of cities to make them more car friendly and we can absolutely do the same for people. I don't think a major catastrophe is required at all. We're already at the point where a huge chunk of our infrastructure is already in dire need of repair and/or replacement. This is a perfect opportunity for improvement.

turtledove 4y ago

These cities removed transit systems and housing to build roads and parking. It will take time, but doing the reverse is totally possible. Most cities were filled with streetcars and dense housing at one point.

trgn 4y ago

The model for American walkability and density is not DC or NYC, it's places like Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, Ashville, the feel of older streetcar suburbs and small college towns, ... None of those have subway systems, all of them are aspirational urban environments. None of them ban cars, but in all of them car traffic is slower and and more gentle. Certainly, _any_ neighborhood built before the 30s can emulate those. Later suburban developments can dial in such densification as well. The main issue working against this is that the public realm is completely degraded because it only accommodates car traffic. Other ways of getting around are bullied out by high speed, dangerous cars. It's a textbook example of a vicious circle. The fact that there are a few urban areas in the US where owning a car is a drag due to parking issues, should not hold back meaningful improvements and efforts to break out of it anywhere else.

syntheweave 4y ago
It's why I believe L4 self-driving is the tech that will actually reverse car dependency. If robotaxi fleets become preferred to car ownership(which would occur through the resulting economies of scale in a centralized fleet driving people to save money), the aggressive drivers stop ruling the road, replaced with polite "Three Laws" drivers; then the traffic starts downscaling because most urban trip making will work in smaller scooter or smart-car style vehicles which will benefit from continuing improvements to EV tech, and the services will optimize to cost; you'll still have the larger options available, but they appear on-demand, which makes all the difference when you're thinking about how to service a family of four. Cargo trips are already shifting in favor of autonomous delivery; two weeks ago, Wal-Mart went from testing drone delivery services to expanding them to multiple US states, and they project making 1 million deliveries this year. So some critical threshold will occur where it becomes obvious that you have a vast unused road infrastructure, because the total urban fleet has consolidated into something that is physically smaller and literally less road-dependent, and nobody is there to prop up car ownership politically except a few enthusiasts and people living out of their cars. At that point downsizing is imminent everywhere. It only took 20 years for cars to overtake horses in the industrialized world, and the bulk of it happened in 10. It'll happen faster this time.

drewcoo 4y ago

Try fixing the cities. Cities and suburbs are most of the population. Biggest bang for the buck. And places where mass transit can work. It's not an "until the last home in rural Montana is near a subway stop we're not finished" kind of problem.