3 ms·

One thing people that are against changes to the urban environments miss is that the desire is not for cars to be banned, just deprioritized. The aim is to redu

One thing people that are against changes to the urban environments miss is that the desire is not for cars to be banned, just deprioritized. The aim is to reduce the need for personal vehicles, not eliminate them entirely. There are 289MM cars in the US (.87 cars per person), in The Netherlands there are 8.7MM cars (0.5 cars per person). Even with such a "small" numeric difference, the effects are drastic to livability.

prometheus76 3y ago
Now compare the area of the two countries and the population densities. Now compare the variance in climate across Netherlands vs. the United States. Now compare the variation in altitude within Netherlands vs the variation in altitude in the United States. Now compare when the cities in Netherlands were founded and formed vs the age of cities in America. Are you being intentionally absurd for some reason I'm not seeing?
- zachkatz 3y ago
  This blog post addresses all of your points, which are actually just common misconceptions: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths...
- estebank 3y ago
  The size of a country is irrelevant to this discussion: it is about urban centers. The density of cities in both countries is relevant, and of course they are different: that's precisely what the conversation is about. I remain unconvinced about the argument around climate: when it is too cold to walk less than 15 minutes, roads are also unsafe to drive. What does altitude have to do with anything? San Francisco has plenty of hills, yet people still manage to move around by bike. When a city was founded has little to do with what to do with them going forward. Many american cities were very walkable, and then urban freeways where built in them, displacing people and disconnecting neighborhoods. Amsterdam itself was very car-centric in the 70's, yet they are now considered the biking capital of the world. Cities are living organisms, that can and should change over time. If you don't see how being able to walk when you need milk helps with having a good quality of life then I don't know what to tell you. Edit: the comparison is relevant because it gives us a good idea of what the lower bound of what it realistically means to downsize the usage of cars in urban environments. It's a very clear example of a place where half the population (which includes children!) has a car, but cities are entirely navigable by foot, public transport or bikes.
- ajuc 3y ago
  Climate variance works both ways, and I'm not sure which side is more important. For example harsh winters and big temperature differences make maintenance of motorways significantly more expansive compared to railways and walking paths. Hence you have trans-siberian rail but no trans-siberian motorway network. Also Netherlands did car-centric design in 50s. Then they stopped and reverted it because they realized it sucked.
wintogreen74 3y ago
Why would you seek to change the US vs. relocating your person to The Netherlands though? They're both impactful and costly, but the former is almost impossible while the latter well within the abilities of a motivated actor.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > […] vs. relocating your person to The Netherlands though? Why can't someone want to make where they already are better? Why should someone be expected to accept the status quo?
- zachkatz 3y ago
  > the former is almost impossible When you understand how quickly the Netherlands changed (it used to be just as car-centric at the US), you might change your view about what's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E
  - estebank 3y ago
    I believe the GP is arguing against change because they like the status quo. It is not "go there to get what you want", it's "go there so you don't bother me".
- yowzadave 3y ago
  People always suggest this ("if you like it better in Europe, why don't you move there!"), and it's such a facetious argument. 1. All my friends/family/professional networks are based in the US. Do I need to convince all of them to move with me to the Netherlands? 2. I would need to uproot my children from their schooling and friends and move them to a foreign country. 3. I would have to get a job in NL--perhaps doable for me, but what if you don't have in-demand tech skills and don't already speak Dutch? 4. I would have to work in NL for five continuous years before being eligible for permanent residency. These hurdles are indeed not totally insurmountable for some people, but to pretend like it's a viable option for anyone who wants to live in more functional cities is silly. Why can't we just try to make our cities better? Look around at which cities in the world are working better, and learn from them!

prometheus76 3y ago

Now compare the area of the two countries and the population densities. Now compare the variance in climate across Netherlands vs. the United States. Now compare the variation in altitude within Netherlands vs the variation in altitude in the United States. Now compare when the cities in Netherlands were founded and formed vs the age of cities in America. Are you being intentionally absurd for some reason I'm not seeing?

zachkatz 3y ago
This blog post addresses all of your points, which are actually just common misconceptions: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths...
estebank 3y ago
The size of a country is irrelevant to this discussion: it is about urban centers. The density of cities in both countries is relevant, and of course they are different: that's precisely what the conversation is about. I remain unconvinced about the argument around climate: when it is too cold to walk less than 15 minutes, roads are also unsafe to drive. What does altitude have to do with anything? San Francisco has plenty of hills, yet people still manage to move around by bike. When a city was founded has little to do with what to do with them going forward. Many american cities were very walkable, and then urban freeways where built in them, displacing people and disconnecting neighborhoods. Amsterdam itself was very car-centric in the 70's, yet they are now considered the biking capital of the world. Cities are living organisms, that can and should change over time. If you don't see how being able to walk when you need milk helps with having a good quality of life then I don't know what to tell you. Edit: the comparison is relevant because it gives us a good idea of what the lower bound of what it realistically means to downsize the usage of cars in urban environments. It's a very clear example of a place where half the population (which includes children!) has a car, but cities are entirely navigable by foot, public transport or bikes.
ajuc 3y ago
Climate variance works both ways, and I'm not sure which side is more important. For example harsh winters and big temperature differences make maintenance of motorways significantly more expansive compared to railways and walking paths. Hence you have trans-siberian rail but no trans-siberian motorway network. Also Netherlands did car-centric design in 50s. Then they stopped and reverted it because they realized it sucked.

wintogreen74 3y ago

Why would you seek to change the US vs. relocating your person to The Netherlands though? They're both impactful and costly, but the former is almost impossible while the latter well within the abilities of a motivated actor.

throw0101b 3y ago
> […] vs. relocating your person to The Netherlands though? Why can't someone want to make where they already are better? Why should someone be expected to accept the status quo?
zachkatz 3y ago
> the former is almost impossible When you understand how quickly the Netherlands changed (it used to be just as car-centric at the US), you might change your view about what's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E
- estebank 3y ago
  I believe the GP is arguing against change because they like the status quo. It is not "go there to get what you want", it's "go there so you don't bother me".
yowzadave 3y ago
People always suggest this ("if you like it better in Europe, why don't you move there!"), and it's such a facetious argument. 1. All my friends/family/professional networks are based in the US. Do I need to convince all of them to move with me to the Netherlands? 2. I would need to uproot my children from their schooling and friends and move them to a foreign country. 3. I would have to get a job in NL--perhaps doable for me, but what if you don't have in-demand tech skills and don't already speak Dutch? 4. I would have to work in NL for five continuous years before being eligible for permanent residency. These hurdles are indeed not totally insurmountable for some people, but to pretend like it's a viable option for anyone who wants to live in more functional cities is silly. Why can't we just try to make our cities better? Look around at which cities in the world are working better, and learn from them!