4 ms·
> still sold on the bs american dream of being stuck all day in a metal box instead As opposed to what, being stuck all day in a larger metal box with dozens o
by zamfi 4y ago
> still sold on the bs american dream of being stuck all day in a metal box instead
As opposed to what, being stuck all day in a larger metal box with dozens of others?
The quality of life solution is to kill the commute, not to kill cars in favor of transit.
Mixed-use zoning, housing policy that makes moving easy instead of extraordinarily expensive or impossible, and remote work -- these should be the focus. Transit is great for the environment, not so great for "being outside and enjoying the real world with other humans".
- tsimionescu 4y agoIf public transit was significantly expanded and given priority over personal transport, it would significantly reduce trip times by massively reducing road congestion for simple geometric reasons. Not to mention, cities designed for not having cars are inherently less prone to congestion as housing, commercial and business areas are more interspersed (instead of everyone moving from the suburbs to downtown and back every day).
- TylerE 4y agoHow is it reducing trip times when every trip now has a 15-30 minute walk on both ends?
- throwaway0x7E6 4y agoand you're still stuck in a confined space with all sorts of vibrant urban characters. not just you, but your mother, wife and children are too. having a car to avoid that alone is worth it. I suspect the recently sprouted anti-car evangelists are genuinely unaware of the big city public transit experience. nobody in their sane mind would preach it otherwise
- zamfi 4y ago> If public transit was significantly expanded and given priority over personal transport, it would significantly reduce trip times That’s the theory, but I think the reality is “induced demand” — the same reason expanding freeways from 5 to 10 lanes doesn’t reduce congestion. Metro areas with transit don’t have shorter commutes time-wise: the average commute in large metros in the US is about 25-35 minutes across a huge range of densities and transit concentrations. Why? The typical argument is that people often want more living space, or cities zone such that housing below a certain threshold size is illegal (and thus the smallest unit you can rent/buy has an inflated price), and residents move far enough that they can afford to live — often, their commutes are 15-30 minutes. Then, they change jobs, but often can’t move closer — because they can’t take their rent control with them, or their property taxes will spike, and the deal with a longer commute. Or, they have kids and need an extra bedroom, and move to the suburbs for the same reasons. > cities designed for not having cars are inherently less prone to congestion Yes, this was my point about mixed zoning!
- quickthrower2 4y agoHigher density living means that commute is on foot or a bicycle, or on a bus or train but not for too long.