4 ms·

Why do we “need less personal car ownership?” It’s not clear to me why that’s a key goal. I also think that’s just not going to happen, not until the flying cat

Why do we “need less personal car ownership?” It’s not clear to me why that’s a key goal. I also think that’s just not going to happen, not until the flying cats with cities in the skies is a reality.

alistairSH 4y ago
Owning a car is massively expensive at a personal level… Purchase cost, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, space to store it. Minimum a few hundred $/month for an “asset” that sits idle most of the day. Owning cars is massively expensive at a societal level… Storage space - so much asphalt for parking (both at destinations and at home). Pollution - production/raw materials, emissions during use, eventually disposal. Injuries to drivers, pedestrians, animals. All that money could go to education, health care, recreation, etc. I’m not saying ban cars. But align incentives towards fewer cars and less driving. Many cities are already making some progress - DC, NYC, Seattle, Portland are all adding transit alternatives at a rapid rate and seeing reduced car usage. But then Houston and some others are doing the opposite and continuing to sprawl and pave everything. Edit - And yes, some people live in rural areas and need cars (trains and buses don’t scale in rural areas). But, the suburban sprawl we have today? We can do better. Less single-use, single-family zoning. More bike lanes and walking paths (preferably both separated from cars). More light commercial/retail. Just thinking about my own neighborhood (Reston VA), there is an intersection 0.5 mile down the road that should (IMO) have a corner market and a cafe. There are thousands of residents who could walk there for milk, eggs, or a snack. Instead, they all have to drive to the strip mall 2 miles down the road. A little planning in advance would have made a difference here, but with current zoning, we’re stuck with what we have - you couldn’t buy a corner lot and build a shop if you wanted.
- danny_codes 4y ago
  I don't know about the rural-need-car argument. In Switzerland even little villages have rail connections. Imo it's about planning and values. America just doesn't value spending on general welfare. We'd prefer to have wealth hoarded behind closed gates it seems.
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    What’s the regather size difference between Switzerland and the US?
    - danny_codes 4y ago
      You can take China as a more size equivalent example if you like. Land size doesn't really matter though, it's where you decide to build (aka, density and land use).
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    This confuses many things in an attempt to reach an incorrect conclusion. The USA is massive - on the same scale as continental Europe. Every village in Switzerland has a rail connection. How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus?
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus? Seems like you are making their point
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    Do you know how big Texas is? Texas is almost twice as big as Germany. Switzerland is 11% the size of Germany.
    - danny_codes 4y ago
      Size doesn't really matter. It's where and how you develop. Take Dallas for example. You drive for 2 hours at full highway speed, and you're still in Dallas. Why? Because it's built for cars and around cheap, suburban growth. Let's say instead Dallas was built around rail. You'd see a completely different development pattern. Shopping, business, and recreation would be concentrated around metro/rail stops. Dallas would be a city instead of a blob of suburbs. People would live near rail, facilitating their easy transport to recreation, shops, and their jobs. The absolute size of your area isn't really relevant, it's where you allocate the population. Suburbia is the worst allocation. Texas is in for a painful correction once they figure that out. Though more likely it'll just de-populate/be abandoned once the infrastructure maintenance bills come due in 30 year and other cities built out sane rail-based density.
warning26 4y ago
Personally I am very excited for the urban flying cats
- chihuahua 4y ago
  Are they like flying squirrels, who can glide up to 300ft, or more like birds?

alistairSH 4y ago

Owning a car is massively expensive at a personal level… Purchase cost, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, space to store it. Minimum a few hundred $/month for an “asset” that sits idle most of the day. Owning cars is massively expensive at a societal level… Storage space - so much asphalt for parking (both at destinations and at home). Pollution - production/raw materials, emissions during use, eventually disposal. Injuries to drivers, pedestrians, animals. All that money could go to education, health care, recreation, etc. I’m not saying ban cars. But align incentives towards fewer cars and less driving. Many cities are already making some progress - DC, NYC, Seattle, Portland are all adding transit alternatives at a rapid rate and seeing reduced car usage. But then Houston and some others are doing the opposite and continuing to sprawl and pave everything. Edit - And yes, some people live in rural areas and need cars (trains and buses don’t scale in rural areas). But, the suburban sprawl we have today? We can do better. Less single-use, single-family zoning. More bike lanes and walking paths (preferably both separated from cars). More light commercial/retail. Just thinking about my own neighborhood (Reston VA), there is an intersection 0.5 mile down the road that should (IMO) have a corner market and a cafe. There are thousands of residents who could walk there for milk, eggs, or a snack. Instead, they all have to drive to the strip mall 2 miles down the road. A little planning in advance would have made a difference here, but with current zoning, we’re stuck with what we have - you couldn’t buy a corner lot and build a shop if you wanted.

danny_codes 4y ago
I don't know about the rural-need-car argument. In Switzerland even little villages have rail connections. Imo it's about planning and values. America just doesn't value spending on general welfare. We'd prefer to have wealth hoarded behind closed gates it seems.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  What’s the regather size difference between Switzerland and the US?
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    You can take China as a more size equivalent example if you like. Land size doesn't really matter though, it's where you decide to build (aka, density and land use).
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  This confuses many things in an attempt to reach an incorrect conclusion. The USA is massive - on the same scale as continental Europe. Every village in Switzerland has a rail connection. How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus?
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus? Seems like you are making their point
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Do you know how big Texas is? Texas is almost twice as big as Germany. Switzerland is 11% the size of Germany.
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    Size doesn't really matter. It's where and how you develop. Take Dallas for example. You drive for 2 hours at full highway speed, and you're still in Dallas. Why? Because it's built for cars and around cheap, suburban growth. Let's say instead Dallas was built around rail. You'd see a completely different development pattern. Shopping, business, and recreation would be concentrated around metro/rail stops. Dallas would be a city instead of a blob of suburbs. People would live near rail, facilitating their easy transport to recreation, shops, and their jobs. The absolute size of your area isn't really relevant, it's where you allocate the population. Suburbia is the worst allocation. Texas is in for a painful correction once they figure that out. Though more likely it'll just de-populate/be abandoned once the infrastructure maintenance bills come due in 30 year and other cities built out sane rail-based density.

warning26 4y ago

Personally I am very excited for the urban flying cats

chihuahua 4y ago
Are they like flying squirrels, who can glide up to 300ft, or more like birds?