4 ms·

"it is not clear if there is a way." This is what the car lobby wants you to think. The transformation to a better and more livable city free from overwhelming

by JoshGG 3y ago

"it is not clear if there is a way." This is what the car lobby wants you to think. The transformation to a better and more livable city free from overwhelming car traffic is closer and faster than you imagine. The primary challenge is the power of the car-industrial complex both inside and outside government and the continued work to destroy and hobble other forms of transit.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Not everyone lives in a city. And certainly not everyone lives in an LA/NYC city. The city I live in is modest in size, 250k-300k depending on who you ask. It will never be a walkable city. Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something. It will never have a subway. Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size. My in-laws live in a township of about 6000 an hour away. Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong. Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus, when it'd add 20 minutes of irritation to my day? It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better. I'd be shocked if there's a non-coastal city or town anywhere in North America that supports your vision.
- tjr225 3y ago
  [dead]
- bluGill 3y ago
  Cities of 200k have good transit in some areas. Look around for inspiration. Most of them do not have English as the native language so it can be hard finding them
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    I have no desire to be "inspired". Others may wander around hoping to have epiphanies about how everyone else should live, but I don't care how others live as long as they leave me alone. I don't want them to make themselves miserable making it better for me... It's enough that they don't make things worse for me specifically and spitefully. I do wonder why that wouldn't be good enough for you.
    - quadrangle 3y ago
      I think HN is generally a community that celebrates learning and changing-our-minds rather than resist any suggestions in those directions. You don't live in isolation as is, your car and roads and the rest of your context didn't come to be through others leaving you alone.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Some changes would make your life better. The naive way most English speakers do transit is worse, but that doesn't mean transit itself would make your life worse if done in a different way.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        It may be the case that on average everyone's life would be better. But this seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how averages work. Someone's quality of life increases, someone else's goes down. And maybe theirs doesn't go down as much as someone eles's goes up... so the average is up. But if you're the one poor schmuck whose quality of life goes down. Then it sucks to be you. I can already see that I am in that group. No thanks. In the US, public transit will always be an awful, reeking experience unless the cost of that transit rules out those who vandalize, defecate, and litter. It may be different in Japan or Belgium or some place like that... but engineering solutions don't fix sociological problems.
        quadrangle 3y ago
        The same status quo that has lousy public transit is the status quo that gets us a lot of "those who vandalize, defecate, and litter". There's no reason we are stuck with that stuff being rampant. There's a strong case that the inequities in our economic system set us up to get those results even.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something. One could say the same about Singapore yet they find ways to make it work. > It will never have a subway. 250k-300k is about the right size for a small tram network - compare e.g. Ghent. > Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. That's fine if there's no need for them. > It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size. Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then. > Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong. If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars. But generally as cities grow they reach a point where space is at a premium and cars take up too much of it. Again if we look at Ghent as a good example for a city that size, they have a car-free zone but it's only a few blocks around the very centre (there's a larger zone around it where cars are permitted but subject to emission requirements). It works well, makes for a really nice city centre that you can actually live in. > Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss? > It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better. Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult? Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Singapore didn't "find ways to make it work". They built that city from the ground up into what it is now. My city can't time-travel back 100 years and get a do-over. This point of yours is purely asinine. >> Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. >That's fine if there's no need for them. So you're just incapable of comprehending simple things, or is it a refusal to understand them when doing so would be inconvenient for your argument? This is a rough description of density. For any half-assed New Yorker scheme to be even marginally viable, I would have had to have described a far different density. Something like Some Sim City 2000 arcology. > Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then. So go for it. Literally none of the rest of us care. Build a gigantic wall around those big cities too. 500ft tall, topped with razor wire. Tell all the inhabitants that it's to keep us rednecks out. We'll thank you for it. > If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars. Every third comment here is about how they want to get rid of cars far beyond whatever traffic problems it might cause you. I doubt the intention of your movement, such as it is, to only ban them in city centers. Just a year ago, we saw this movement pop up out of nowhere, and I have my doubts that it arose organically. > What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss? How do you propose that? Any anti-piss-stink policy would subvert your other social policies. > Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult? Because this is all so transparent. > Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem a I wish I lived in a reality where purposely ignoring every possible problem was not only expected but celebrated. > and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them. I have zero interest in trying to solve the intractable problems your wishful thinking has dreamed up. I have even less interest than that in doing so for free. Offer me salary of $250,000/year with well-defined bonuses, and I can grind through at least a few of them.
alwayslikethis 3y ago
It's easy in places that became dominated by cars after the fact, like Netherlands and Japan in the 70s or many other European and Asian cities today, but much of American suburbia is designed for cars. There might just not be viable options other than cars or motor vehicles. Corner shops are unviable because a relatively low number of people live within a walking or biking distance.

by JoshGG 3y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Not everyone lives in a city. And certainly not everyone lives in an LA/NYC city. The city I live in is modest in size, 250k-300k depending on who you ask. It will never be a walkable city. Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something. It will never have a subway. Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size. My in-laws live in a township of about 6000 an hour away. Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong. Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus, when it'd add 20 minutes of irritation to my day? It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better. I'd be shocked if there's a non-coastal city or town anywhere in North America that supports your vision.

tjr225 3y ago
[dead]
bluGill 3y ago
Cities of 200k have good transit in some areas. Look around for inspiration. Most of them do not have English as the native language so it can be hard finding them
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I have no desire to be "inspired". Others may wander around hoping to have epiphanies about how everyone else should live, but I don't care how others live as long as they leave me alone. I don't want them to make themselves miserable making it better for me... It's enough that they don't make things worse for me specifically and spitefully. I do wonder why that wouldn't be good enough for you.
  - quadrangle 3y ago
    I think HN is generally a community that celebrates learning and changing-our-minds rather than resist any suggestions in those directions. You don't live in isolation as is, your car and roads and the rest of your context didn't come to be through others leaving you alone.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Some changes would make your life better. The naive way most English speakers do transit is worse, but that doesn't mean transit itself would make your life worse if done in a different way.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      It may be the case that on average everyone's life would be better. But this seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how averages work. Someone's quality of life increases, someone else's goes down. And maybe theirs doesn't go down as much as someone eles's goes up... so the average is up. But if you're the one poor schmuck whose quality of life goes down. Then it sucks to be you. I can already see that I am in that group. No thanks. In the US, public transit will always be an awful, reeking experience unless the cost of that transit rules out those who vandalize, defecate, and litter. It may be different in Japan or Belgium or some place like that... but engineering solutions don't fix sociological problems.
      - quadrangle 3y ago
        The same status quo that has lousy public transit is the status quo that gets us a lot of "those who vandalize, defecate, and litter". There's no reason we are stuck with that stuff being rampant. There's a strong case that the inequities in our economic system set us up to get those results even.
lmm 3y ago
> Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something. One could say the same about Singapore yet they find ways to make it work. > It will never have a subway. 250k-300k is about the right size for a small tram network - compare e.g. Ghent. > Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. That's fine if there's no need for them. > It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size. Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then. > Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong. If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars. But generally as cities grow they reach a point where space is at a premium and cars take up too much of it. Again if we look at Ghent as a good example for a city that size, they have a car-free zone but it's only a few blocks around the very centre (there's a larger zone around it where cars are permitted but subject to emission requirements). It works well, makes for a really nice city centre that you can actually live in. > Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss? > It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better. Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult? Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Singapore didn't "find ways to make it work". They built that city from the ground up into what it is now. My city can't time-travel back 100 years and get a do-over. This point of yours is purely asinine. >> Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. >That's fine if there's no need for them. So you're just incapable of comprehending simple things, or is it a refusal to understand them when doing so would be inconvenient for your argument? This is a rough description of density. For any half-assed New Yorker scheme to be even marginally viable, I would have had to have described a far different density. Something like Some Sim City 2000 arcology. > Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then. So go for it. Literally none of the rest of us care. Build a gigantic wall around those big cities too. 500ft tall, topped with razor wire. Tell all the inhabitants that it's to keep us rednecks out. We'll thank you for it. > If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars. Every third comment here is about how they want to get rid of cars far beyond whatever traffic problems it might cause you. I doubt the intention of your movement, such as it is, to only ban them in city centers. Just a year ago, we saw this movement pop up out of nowhere, and I have my doubts that it arose organically. > What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss? How do you propose that? Any anti-piss-stink policy would subvert your other social policies. > Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult? Because this is all so transparent. > Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem a I wish I lived in a reality where purposely ignoring every possible problem was not only expected but celebrated. > and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them. I have zero interest in trying to solve the intractable problems your wishful thinking has dreamed up. I have even less interest than that in doing so for free. Offer me salary of $250,000/year with well-defined bonuses, and I can grind through at least a few of them.

alwayslikethis 3y ago

It's easy in places that became dominated by cars after the fact, like Netherlands and Japan in the 70s or many other European and Asian cities today, but much of American suburbia is designed for cars. There might just not be viable options other than cars or motor vehicles. Corner shops are unviable because a relatively low number of people live within a walking or biking distance.