5 ms·

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rura

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs than those in rural areas.

denni9th 4y ago
No one has said we should eliminate cars entirely. Cars make sense in rural areas, we should use them there. Cars don't make sense in cities, so we need alternatives.
mtalantikite 4y ago
I don't think anyone is advocating that rural America, or even most of exurban America, should be accessible by public transit. It's just that we literally only have one city in the entire United States that has a massive subway and bus system that operates 24 hours, which allows you to live without a car. It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.
- deltarholamda 4y ago
  >It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country. Yes, but remember that density is not without its problems as well. Socially of course, but also practically--density requires more competent urban management for things like sewer and water, which the US is famous for being awful at. In the not so distant past, even rural places had (limited) access to public transportation. My mother lived way out in the sticks, but there was a road nearby. The bus would stop for anybody standing on the side of the highway to take them into town or back. This was in the 1940s-50s.
  - ThatGeoGuy 4y ago
    This seems like scare-mongering, or FUD, in my humble opinion. The reason that sewage and water is so hard to get right in the United States is in part due to sprawl, as well as the lack of political will to actually maintain infrastructure once it is built. A bit of a deflection I'll admit but - look at the NY subway. It barely receives the funding to keep basic maintenance afloat. Compared to equivalently sized systems in Europe it fails because there's a massive political diaspora to overcome since culturally taking transit is "for the poors" (you know what that translates to) and we can't be giving them anything. Similar holds true for sewage and water (for water, look at Flint Michigan). Housing, transportation, zoning, etc. are all the same problem. The reasons we fail at them are all connected and without taking a holistic approach we likely will remain bad at it. Pointing to any one thing and claiming "well even if we do that we'll still suck at 99% of everything else" isn't really a helpful description of reality, it just means there's more work to do. I guess what I would really push back on in your argument is the point that higher density requires higher competence. At some meaningless level, sure, we have engineers that have to solve harder problems. But the reasons that the US is bad at a lot of urbanist policies isn't because we lack competency (you could just hire people from overseas) - it's because we've allowed ourselves to build a system that incentivizes that incompetency at multiple levels through restrictive zoning, endless veto privileges a la "community feedback" / NIMBYism, car culture and the social disdain for what is perceived as normal in other countries (trains, bikes), etc. This isn't a problem with the US geographically or its people, and the problems have solutions. I think if you talk to most people in cities they probably agree wholly or in part on a lot of fronts, even if there's still a prevailing "got mine" attitude depending on where you ask.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > In the not so distant past, even rural places had (limited) access to public transportation Actually, rural America has fantastic public transportation - if you're attending public school. Everyone else is SOL.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  I don't think we need that level of density to warrant public transit. Singapore has one of the best public transit systems in the world (highest customer satisfaction rate), at 1/5th the density of NYC.
  - mtalantikite 4y ago
    Oh absolutely, I just love living in NYC and whenever I think of where else I'd live my answer is always a city that isn't in the US. In a country this big you'd think there'd be more than one of us.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  NYC only maintains their system because it's subsidized by non-residents.
travisporter 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy. You can have single family homes with walkable shops/schools. I visited Nashville recently. Developers can pay a small fee to not put in sidewalks. Kids, adults and pets walk on the road in million dollar home neighborhoods. People don’t even have the option to walk because of ingrained car culture.
ocschwar 4y ago
Take a look at European rural areas some time. 1. Commercial production of food and timber begins literally at the city line around most European cities. There's not the ring of suburban hellsscape. One one block, there's a city. And the next, farms begin. 2. Rural European villages are also compactly built. If you work for farmers or just want to live among farmers, you still might not need a car for your daily necessities. 3. Even if you are a farmer, you have the option of living in the village and commuting to your fields. Your machine barn is also right near the village, which means you are not the only person watching it day to day. And since you commute to your fields, leasing them to your neighbor for a season is easily done as a matter of course. Want to take a sabbatical? Walk next door, sign some papers. Done. Europe does farm country better too.
jjk166 4y ago
Europe also has substantial rural areas, and they drive cars there. No one is saying we should abolish all cars and all car infrastructure. But things like residential only zoning and stroads that take a useful tool such as a car and make it a vital necessity are dumb.

denni9th 4y ago

No one has said we should eliminate cars entirely. Cars make sense in rural areas, we should use them there. Cars don't make sense in cities, so we need alternatives.

mtalantikite 4y ago

I don't think anyone is advocating that rural America, or even most of exurban America, should be accessible by public transit. It's just that we literally only have one city in the entire United States that has a massive subway and bus system that operates 24 hours, which allows you to live without a car. It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.

deltarholamda 4y ago
>It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country. Yes, but remember that density is not without its problems as well. Socially of course, but also practically--density requires more competent urban management for things like sewer and water, which the US is famous for being awful at. In the not so distant past, even rural places had (limited) access to public transportation. My mother lived way out in the sticks, but there was a road nearby. The bus would stop for anybody standing on the side of the highway to take them into town or back. This was in the 1940s-50s.
- ThatGeoGuy 4y ago
  This seems like scare-mongering, or FUD, in my humble opinion. The reason that sewage and water is so hard to get right in the United States is in part due to sprawl, as well as the lack of political will to actually maintain infrastructure once it is built. A bit of a deflection I'll admit but - look at the NY subway. It barely receives the funding to keep basic maintenance afloat. Compared to equivalently sized systems in Europe it fails because there's a massive political diaspora to overcome since culturally taking transit is "for the poors" (you know what that translates to) and we can't be giving them anything. Similar holds true for sewage and water (for water, look at Flint Michigan). Housing, transportation, zoning, etc. are all the same problem. The reasons we fail at them are all connected and without taking a holistic approach we likely will remain bad at it. Pointing to any one thing and claiming "well even if we do that we'll still suck at 99% of everything else" isn't really a helpful description of reality, it just means there's more work to do. I guess what I would really push back on in your argument is the point that higher density requires higher competence. At some meaningless level, sure, we have engineers that have to solve harder problems. But the reasons that the US is bad at a lot of urbanist policies isn't because we lack competency (you could just hire people from overseas) - it's because we've allowed ourselves to build a system that incentivizes that incompetency at multiple levels through restrictive zoning, endless veto privileges a la "community feedback" / NIMBYism, car culture and the social disdain for what is perceived as normal in other countries (trains, bikes), etc. This isn't a problem with the US geographically or its people, and the problems have solutions. I think if you talk to most people in cities they probably agree wholly or in part on a lot of fronts, even if there's still a prevailing "got mine" attitude depending on where you ask.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > In the not so distant past, even rural places had (limited) access to public transportation Actually, rural America has fantastic public transportation - if you're attending public school. Everyone else is SOL.
lostcolony 4y ago
I don't think we need that level of density to warrant public transit. Singapore has one of the best public transit systems in the world (highest customer satisfaction rate), at 1/5th the density of NYC.
- mtalantikite 4y ago
  Oh absolutely, I just love living in NYC and whenever I think of where else I'd live my answer is always a city that isn't in the US. In a country this big you'd think there'd be more than one of us.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
NYC only maintains their system because it's subsidized by non-residents.

travisporter 4y ago

This is a false dichotomy. You can have single family homes with walkable shops/schools. I visited Nashville recently. Developers can pay a small fee to not put in sidewalks. Kids, adults and pets walk on the road in million dollar home neighborhoods. People don’t even have the option to walk because of ingrained car culture.

ocschwar 4y ago

Take a look at European rural areas some time. 1. Commercial production of food and timber begins literally at the city line around most European cities. There's not the ring of suburban hellsscape. One one block, there's a city. And the next, farms begin. 2. Rural European villages are also compactly built. If you work for farmers or just want to live among farmers, you still might not need a car for your daily necessities. 3. Even if you are a farmer, you have the option of living in the village and commuting to your fields. Your machine barn is also right near the village, which means you are not the only person watching it day to day. And since you commute to your fields, leasing them to your neighbor for a season is easily done as a matter of course. Want to take a sabbatical? Walk next door, sign some papers. Done. Europe does farm country better too.

jjk166 4y ago

Europe also has substantial rural areas, and they drive cars there. No one is saying we should abolish all cars and all car infrastructure. But things like residential only zoning and stroads that take a useful tool such as a car and make it a vital necessity are dumb.