10 ms·

The average American likely doesn't want a life without cars. That seems to be an HN obsession seemingly (my perception) fueled by people who have lived and sta

by kodah 4y ago

The average American likely doesn't want a life without cars. That seems to be an HN obsession seemingly (my perception) fueled by people who have lived and stayed in very dense urban areas. Creating larger spaces that aren't made for cars is great, but people will still need long-range individual transportation.

kiba 4y ago
Last time I check, these 'dense' urban area aren't exactly great for anybody but cars.
- kodah 4y ago
  Correct. The car situation is worse there, which is why I think their theories are so whacky when postulated as "get rid of cars" because it fails to be relevant beyond those areas.
- dionidium 4y ago
  As a former resident of Manhattan, this is where I'm most resentful about car supremacy. I truly don't care that there exist car-centric suburbs. Anybody who lives there knows exactly what they're signing up for. What's insane to me is that we allow cars to dominate even our most urban spaces. When I would walk to work through Midtown, my senses were practically assaulted by automobiles. Honking, speeding, stereos blasting, engines revving, cars encroaching on the crosswalk, and on and on. It's an enormous quality of life issue and one of the things I hated most about living in NYC. "Cities are loud and dangerous. This is just life in the big city!" No, no, no, and no. Cars are loud and dangerous. This is a choice. It's not an unavoidable fact of life in cities. We choose to live this way.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Yup, I relate to this so much as someone currently living in Philly. We have basically the same issue even in Center City. Cities aren’t loud, cars are loud: https://youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8 https://youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - trgn 4y ago
    > What's insane to me is that we allow cars to dominate even our most urban spaces NYC would be so much better if it weren't for all the car traffic. It's not the density that's strangling it, it's the car completely degrading the experience. > "Cities are loud and dangerous. This is just life in the big city!" No, no, no, and no. Cars are loud and dangerous. This is a choice. It's not an unavoidable fact of life in cities. We choose to live this way. Yes! Americans have a real lack of imagination when it comes to city life. Makes me sad.
TylerE 4y ago
And are young enough not to being dealing with physical issues/disability.
gernb 4y ago
That's fine. They just need to start paying for their externities and stop relying on being subsidized by the dense urban areas. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
- falcolas 4y ago
  They are. Via the same mechanisms - taxes paid to the county, who maintains that property. Plus, suburbanites bring a lot of money into the cities, even though they don't live there. Cities could incorporate suburbs into their boundaries, yet cities don't want to do that, because despite griping about their lack of paying city taxes, they don't want to pay to maintain/manage those spaces. I really believe the "suburbs cost cities money" statement is overplayed. Between county taxes (which feed back into the cities in those counties) and HOA (for neighborhood maintenance), they are paying for themselves.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    If suburbs were truly paying for themselves, cities would love to incorporate them. As they do in countries where transit oriented suburbs actually do pay for themselves. The truth is that row houses is the lowest density that still can just barely pay for maintenance of the roads, sewers, water lines, gas lines, electricity lines, and everything else. Any lower density than that, and the taxes of the residents can't cover the actual costs anymore.
mminer237 4y ago
I think it's because the young people online are much more drawn to the active, exciting urban lifestyle than the average American. The average American would much rather have the safety, quiet, and just space that comes with suburban living. People want yards to play with their kids, and that sort of spread-out living just necessitates cars. Housing prices aren't high because of cars. Housing prices are high because people want their own personal space. Nobody's going to build a rail system with a thousand subway stations connecting every neighborhood in a US metro area. That would cost like a trillion dollars, plus maintenance. It's just not feasible to cater good public transport to people living that spread out. And no one wants to walk miles to a less-dense rail system or take some slow bus route. And outside of major cities, I've never heard of someone complain about cars. Most people are perfectly happy with cars. Sure they might think trains are cool, but they wouldn't want to move inward for it or pay whatever cost would be necessary for trains to come outward.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  While all that might be true, it is also true that hardly anyone would be willing to cover the true cost of living in rural areas far away from things. In pretty much every country I'm aware of the urban population is strongly subsidising the rural. And that is only covering first order cost (just look at the massive subsidies to get broadband to rural communities), if we would put prizes on second order cost like pollution, CO2... rural living would become unpopular very quickly (the reality already is that there is a massive move into the cities not the other way around).
  - econonut 4y ago
    Could you be specific about how the urban population is subsidizing the rural? Also, where does most of your food come from? What do you mean in regards to CO2? I'd suggest that many people living a rural lifestyle completely offset their CO2 footprint due to carbon sequestration. I know I have enough trees and vegetation on my acreage to completely offset my carbon emissions. But, of course, to counter your argument I really only need to offset the extra emissions that come with driving an extra n miles into the city.
robotnikman 4y ago
With the rising obesity rates in America I feel that doesn't help the situation either. Many would probably rather ride in a climate controlled car than get out of breath and sweaty walking. Which is somewhat sad since more physical activity including walking or biking would help a lot here.
sillystuff 4y ago
I don't want a life without a car within the constraints of the current options for going car-free within the US-- mainly living in a large high density city, and still having to contend with vehicular traffic and pollution. But, I strongly desire life without a car. If there was a 50K population max car-free walkable town with all the necessities available within said town, I would move there in an instant. I've searched for this, in the past, it doesn't exist. I live in the next best, a <50K population town where I can get most necessities via walking/biking, but have to contend with hostile vehicular traffic that is especially daunting on longer routes to the outskirts of town that are only serviced by freeways (like the college I used to work at)-- I am terrified to bicycle on these routes with 85mph traffic brushing past (technically those sections are not "freeways", but are indistinguishable save the signage "begin freeway" [no bikes] "end freeway" [bikes allowed]). For long range travel, expand passenger trains. There is an Amtrak stop in my town, and I travel via Amtrak extensively to visit friends-- it is a very nice way to travel long distances.

by kodah 4y ago

kiba 4y ago

Last time I check, these 'dense' urban area aren't exactly great for anybody but cars.

kodah 4y ago
Correct. The car situation is worse there, which is why I think their theories are so whacky when postulated as "get rid of cars" because it fails to be relevant beyond those areas.
dionidium 4y ago
As a former resident of Manhattan, this is where I'm most resentful about car supremacy. I truly don't care that there exist car-centric suburbs. Anybody who lives there knows exactly what they're signing up for. What's insane to me is that we allow cars to dominate even our most urban spaces. When I would walk to work through Midtown, my senses were practically assaulted by automobiles. Honking, speeding, stereos blasting, engines revving, cars encroaching on the crosswalk, and on and on. It's an enormous quality of life issue and one of the things I hated most about living in NYC. "Cities are loud and dangerous. This is just life in the big city!" No, no, no, and no. Cars are loud and dangerous. This is a choice. It's not an unavoidable fact of life in cities. We choose to live this way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Yup, I relate to this so much as someone currently living in Philly. We have basically the same issue even in Center City. Cities aren’t loud, cars are loud: https://youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8 https://youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- trgn 4y ago
  > What's insane to me is that we allow cars to dominate even our most urban spaces NYC would be so much better if it weren't for all the car traffic. It's not the density that's strangling it, it's the car completely degrading the experience. > "Cities are loud and dangerous. This is just life in the big city!" No, no, no, and no. Cars are loud and dangerous. This is a choice. It's not an unavoidable fact of life in cities. We choose to live this way. Yes! Americans have a real lack of imagination when it comes to city life. Makes me sad.

TylerE 4y ago

And are young enough not to being dealing with physical issues/disability.

gernb 4y ago

That's fine. They just need to start paying for their externities and stop relying on being subsidized by the dense urban areas. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

falcolas 4y ago
They are. Via the same mechanisms - taxes paid to the county, who maintains that property. Plus, suburbanites bring a lot of money into the cities, even though they don't live there. Cities could incorporate suburbs into their boundaries, yet cities don't want to do that, because despite griping about their lack of paying city taxes, they don't want to pay to maintain/manage those spaces. I really believe the "suburbs cost cities money" statement is overplayed. Between county taxes (which feed back into the cities in those counties) and HOA (for neighborhood maintenance), they are paying for themselves.
- kuschku 4y ago
  If suburbs were truly paying for themselves, cities would love to incorporate them. As they do in countries where transit oriented suburbs actually do pay for themselves. The truth is that row houses is the lowest density that still can just barely pay for maintenance of the roads, sewers, water lines, gas lines, electricity lines, and everything else. Any lower density than that, and the taxes of the residents can't cover the actual costs anymore.

mminer237 4y ago

I think it's because the young people online are much more drawn to the active, exciting urban lifestyle than the average American. The average American would much rather have the safety, quiet, and just space that comes with suburban living. People want yards to play with their kids, and that sort of spread-out living just necessitates cars. Housing prices aren't high because of cars. Housing prices are high because people want their own personal space. Nobody's going to build a rail system with a thousand subway stations connecting every neighborhood in a US metro area. That would cost like a trillion dollars, plus maintenance. It's just not feasible to cater good public transport to people living that spread out. And no one wants to walk miles to a less-dense rail system or take some slow bus route. And outside of major cities, I've never heard of someone complain about cars. Most people are perfectly happy with cars. Sure they might think trains are cool, but they wouldn't want to move inward for it or pay whatever cost would be necessary for trains to come outward.

cycomanic 4y ago
While all that might be true, it is also true that hardly anyone would be willing to cover the true cost of living in rural areas far away from things. In pretty much every country I'm aware of the urban population is strongly subsidising the rural. And that is only covering first order cost (just look at the massive subsidies to get broadband to rural communities), if we would put prizes on second order cost like pollution, CO2... rural living would become unpopular very quickly (the reality already is that there is a massive move into the cities not the other way around).
- econonut 4y ago
  Could you be specific about how the urban population is subsidizing the rural? Also, where does most of your food come from? What do you mean in regards to CO2? I'd suggest that many people living a rural lifestyle completely offset their CO2 footprint due to carbon sequestration. I know I have enough trees and vegetation on my acreage to completely offset my carbon emissions. But, of course, to counter your argument I really only need to offset the extra emissions that come with driving an extra n miles into the city.

robotnikman 4y ago

With the rising obesity rates in America I feel that doesn't help the situation either. Many would probably rather ride in a climate controlled car than get out of breath and sweaty walking. Which is somewhat sad since more physical activity including walking or biking would help a lot here.

sillystuff 4y ago

I don't want a life without a car within the constraints of the current options for going car-free within the US-- mainly living in a large high density city, and still having to contend with vehicular traffic and pollution. But, I strongly desire life without a car. If there was a 50K population max car-free walkable town with all the necessities available within said town, I would move there in an instant. I've searched for this, in the past, it doesn't exist. I live in the next best, a <50K population town where I can get most necessities via walking/biking, but have to contend with hostile vehicular traffic that is especially daunting on longer routes to the outskirts of town that are only serviced by freeways (like the college I used to work at)-- I am terrified to bicycle on these routes with 85mph traffic brushing past (technically those sections are not "freeways", but are indistinguishable save the signage "begin freeway" [no bikes] "end freeway" [bikes allowed]). For long range travel, expand passenger trains. There is an Amtrak stop in my town, and I travel via Amtrak extensively to visit friends-- it is a very nice way to travel long distances.