4 ms·

This seems plausible to me, but the principle holds here that correlation is not causation. "People are happier and healthier, and even wealthier when they’re

by mym1990 3y ago

This seems plausible to me, but the principle holds here that correlation is not causation. "People are happier and healthier, and even wealthier when they’re living in a walkable neighborhood." From my experience(so sample size 1), walkable neighborhoods in the US are usually not the affordable ones. Banning cars seems like a bad design...just design cities where cars are de-incentivized(small lanes, less parking, high fees, special permits, whatever) and provide some infrastructure for those that really need them.

bombcar 3y ago
Wealthier people are happier, build thing that can only be used by wealthy people - voila! A happiness machine! Public transit takes decades to take hold - because you have to build the lines and then wait for the density to increase around them. If you try to go the other way, the people have to use cars first and then the car is perpetual. But if you are willing to work those decades, you can finally get something pretty impressive - the San Diego Trolley runs 7.5 min separation on its main line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDMmgpvIDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDMmgpvIDk
- mym1990 3y ago
  Public transit in the US takes decades because it already starts at a disadvantage vs European/Asian countries due to public perception. It takes decades because the procurement process is mired in red tape. "The best time to start something was yesterday, the 2nd best time is today" can be applied here. If something taking a long time is a deterrent, it will never get done(or take 20 years to get it done).
alistairSH 3y ago
The average cost of car ownership is somewhere around $10k/year (from AAA). That buys a lot of extra stuff in a higher COL area (but no, it's won't close the entire gap between a rural town and SV or NYC). In addition to cutting car ownerships costs borne by residents, there are savings at the community level. Less road maintenance, less real estate used for parking (and put to better economic use), etc. Very few people want to literally ban cars at neighbrhood/town scale. Most just want them de-emphasized, with certain roads closed/redeveloped for foot/bike/transit.
- mym1990 3y ago
  I'm totally onboard with you, not sure if you're re-affirming what I said or interpreted it differently, but in this case the developer literally wants to ban cars.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Reaffirming, plus adding the cost to own a car, which I think gets overlooked by many people.
pchristensen 3y ago
There is no parking in this 16 acre development. That's very different from a city banning cars.

bombcar 3y ago

Wealthier people are happier, build thing that can only be used by wealthy people - voila! A happiness machine! Public transit takes decades to take hold - because you have to build the lines and then wait for the density to increase around them. If you try to go the other way, the people have to use cars first and then the car is perpetual. But if you are willing to work those decades, you can finally get something pretty impressive - the San Diego Trolley runs 7.5 min separation on its main line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDMmgpvIDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDMmgpvIDk

mym1990 3y ago
Public transit in the US takes decades because it already starts at a disadvantage vs European/Asian countries due to public perception. It takes decades because the procurement process is mired in red tape. "The best time to start something was yesterday, the 2nd best time is today" can be applied here. If something taking a long time is a deterrent, it will never get done(or take 20 years to get it done).

alistairSH 3y ago

The average cost of car ownership is somewhere around $10k/year (from AAA). That buys a lot of extra stuff in a higher COL area (but no, it's won't close the entire gap between a rural town and SV or NYC). In addition to cutting car ownerships costs borne by residents, there are savings at the community level. Less road maintenance, less real estate used for parking (and put to better economic use), etc. Very few people want to literally ban cars at neighbrhood/town scale. Most just want them de-emphasized, with certain roads closed/redeveloped for foot/bike/transit.

mym1990 3y ago
I'm totally onboard with you, not sure if you're re-affirming what I said or interpreted it differently, but in this case the developer literally wants to ban cars.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Reaffirming, plus adding the cost to own a car, which I think gets overlooked by many people.

pchristensen 3y ago

There is no parking in this 16 acre development. That's very different from a city banning cars.