4 ms·

This video might be relevant to your described scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ Notice how in

by dangus 4y ago

This video might be relevant to your described scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ Notice how in The Netherlands, despite making bikes, transit, and pedestrians welcome in this suburban business park near the airport, you can still drive there if you want. Yes, if you lived in The Netherlands, you could drive to this business park shown in the video in your personal vehicle. There's a parking garage right there, and even though the infrastructure is pedestrian and bicycle focused and prioritized, the cars don't have to wait long at the traffic signal or endure crazy traffic. Why is that? Because there are fewer cars. Why are there fewer cars? Because there are viable alternatives. Essentially, having better public transit, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure actually makes life better for drivers, too! The thing is, in North America, in most places you don't actually have any sort of choice on whether you want to drive or not. If you don't drive, your entire environment is hostile to your very existence, and public transit is just for the poor and desperate. You must buy a car whether you want to or not. That's not really choice or freedom. You're saying that you would choose a personal vehicle, but does that choice have the potential to change if the surrounding circumstances change? So, it's perfectly fine that you'd prefer to own an automobile. You're free to pay the close to $10,000 a year it costs for the average person to own a new car according to AAA. I personally wouldn't make that choice if I had a better one available, but if I live in suburban America the choice has been made for me. > Electrification and self-driving systems (and the resulting fleets of cheap automated taxis) will go a long way towards reducing the waste inherent to automobiles. This is what's so frustrating about talking about the future of the transportation with people who can't imagine a world that lessens the emphasis on car-scale infrastructure. The waste problem with automobiles has already been solved. It has been solved by not using them as much. This isn't a hypothetical. We have living, working examples of how to use cars less often in small towns, medium sized suburbs, and big cities. Making cars self-driving is putting lipstick on a pig. It's like taking high blood pressure drugs instead of losing weight.

mrshadowgoose 4y ago
I'm very familiar with the stark difference between North American and European transit systems. I've actually visited the Netherlands multiple times, and many other European cities. Totally agree that we generally do public transit miserably in NA, and have a lot of room for improvement. All I was getting at with my original comment is that "trains for everyone" is as ridiculous of a concept as "cars for everyone". > You're saying that you would choose a personal vehicle, but does that choice have the potential to change if the surrounding circumstances change? Sure, as mentioned, if severe artificial barriers are put up to car usage, I would begrudgingly change. Absent that, no, I like my personal space. I like not getting rained on, not getting snowed on and not walking through -30C temperatures. Currently, I can get into a personal vehicle inside a garage, and proceed directly to my workplace's garage. Buses and trains will never match that, at least, not in the city I live in. > Making cars self-driving is putting lipstick on a pig. It's like taking high blood pressure drugs instead of losing weight. It's tremendously frustrating to constantly butt up against the foregone conclusion of "car is intrinsically bad no matter what". Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Is usage of a vehicle bad if one is not sharing the interior of it with a certain number of other people at any given time? At the end of the day, I am a strong believer in enabling people to live their lives the way they want to, when reasonably practical. To cover most of the population, this means building pedestrian and cyclist friendly infrastructure, public transit, and supporting the safe and efficient use of personal vehicles too. And there's nothing stopping this from all coexisting, as you've already stated.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  > Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Urban designs that encourage (practically require) walking a few more kilometres/miles a day would add years to healthy lifespan at a population level. So if you prefix "Health and" to Safety, then yes, cars are intrinsically worse than most alternatives. Also, the environmental impact of cars does not just come from their emissions. Spreading cities out requires longer (and thicker) wires, longer pipes, and more maintenance of roads and berms, and it causes more soil loss. Self driving and electric motors (I am guessing these are what you refer to with "we are poised to address") can't solve these problems. In transport the choices are not between "good" and "bad", they are between bad with one set of disadvantages, and bad with another set of disadvantages. To me, urban designs that require less transport overall are to be preferred.

by dangus 4y ago

mrshadowgoose 4y ago

I'm very familiar with the stark difference between North American and European transit systems. I've actually visited the Netherlands multiple times, and many other European cities. Totally agree that we generally do public transit miserably in NA, and have a lot of room for improvement. All I was getting at with my original comment is that "trains for everyone" is as ridiculous of a concept as "cars for everyone". > You're saying that you would choose a personal vehicle, but does that choice have the potential to change if the surrounding circumstances change? Sure, as mentioned, if severe artificial barriers are put up to car usage, I would begrudgingly change. Absent that, no, I like my personal space. I like not getting rained on, not getting snowed on and not walking through -30C temperatures. Currently, I can get into a personal vehicle inside a garage, and proceed directly to my workplace's garage. Buses and trains will never match that, at least, not in the city I live in. > Making cars self-driving is putting lipstick on a pig. It's like taking high blood pressure drugs instead of losing weight. It's tremendously frustrating to constantly butt up against the foregone conclusion of "car is intrinsically bad no matter what". Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Is usage of a vehicle bad if one is not sharing the interior of it with a certain number of other people at any given time? At the end of the day, I am a strong believer in enabling people to live their lives the way they want to, when reasonably practical. To cover most of the population, this means building pedestrian and cyclist friendly infrastructure, public transit, and supporting the safe and efficient use of personal vehicles too. And there's nothing stopping this from all coexisting, as you've already stated.

tuatoru 4y ago
> Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Urban designs that encourage (practically require) walking a few more kilometres/miles a day would add years to healthy lifespan at a population level. So if you prefix "Health and" to Safety, then yes, cars are intrinsically worse than most alternatives. Also, the environmental impact of cars does not just come from their emissions. Spreading cities out requires longer (and thicker) wires, longer pipes, and more maintenance of roads and berms, and it causes more soil loss. Self driving and electric motors (I am guessing these are what you refer to with "we are poised to address") can't solve these problems. In transport the choices are not between "good" and "bad", they are between bad with one set of disadvantages, and bad with another set of disadvantages. To me, urban designs that require less transport overall are to be preferred.