3 ms·

Yeah basically the reason is that people are imagining their current built environment, which (especially in the US) is often solely and exclusively designed fo

Yeah basically the reason is that people are imagining their current built environment, which (especially in the US) is often solely and exclusively designed for automobiles, and imagine it without cars. It’d be a legitimate nightmare. What we need is gradual but rather aggressive pressure against cars that allow cities to adapt their services and layout. Congestion taxes and getting rid of parking are really great first steps. In the US cars are also a big symbolic thing due to children being pretty much totally incapable of living independent lives until they’re 16 and get a car (or their friends do), also due to aforementioned built environment.

smeej 3y ago
The "gradual" part is hard because so many changes need to happen at once for a lot of these things to be feasible. Being able to get halfway to where I'm going affects me the same way as not being able to get there at all. If you try to limit cars without adding better last-mile options (especially in the U.S. where huge portions of the population don't regularly walk even one mile at a time), people can't get anywhere, but if you try to roll out last-mile options without limiting cars, people either don't use them because they can still use cars, or they get hit by cars. Add to that that everyone seems to feel time-crunched as it is (who do you know who feels like they're getting enough rest and doesn't describe themselves as "busy" any time you ask how things have been?), and the switch from "I could cover a mile in 2 minutes at 30mph vs. 20 mins at 3mph" and no one wants to change.
jjav 3y ago
> getting rid of parking are really great first steps Getting rid of parking in an area where people need cars is the worst possible early step. If you've ever lived in such an area you'd know the chaos it ensures. The way to do it is to make alternatives be more attractive. Most people don't actually want to spend the money on cars and insurance and maintenance. So if you build infrastructure to make alternatives be cheaper and easier, lots of people will use them, organically reducing car usage without forcing misery on anyone.

smeej 3y ago

The "gradual" part is hard because so many changes need to happen at once for a lot of these things to be feasible. Being able to get halfway to where I'm going affects me the same way as not being able to get there at all. If you try to limit cars without adding better last-mile options (especially in the U.S. where huge portions of the population don't regularly walk even one mile at a time), people can't get anywhere, but if you try to roll out last-mile options without limiting cars, people either don't use them because they can still use cars, or they get hit by cars. Add to that that everyone seems to feel time-crunched as it is (who do you know who feels like they're getting enough rest and doesn't describe themselves as "busy" any time you ask how things have been?), and the switch from "I could cover a mile in 2 minutes at 30mph vs. 20 mins at 3mph" and no one wants to change.

jjav 3y ago

> getting rid of parking are really great first steps Getting rid of parking in an area where people need cars is the worst possible early step. If you've ever lived in such an area you'd know the chaos it ensures. The way to do it is to make alternatives be more attractive. Most people don't actually want to spend the money on cars and insurance and maintenance. So if you build infrastructure to make alternatives be cheaper and easier, lots of people will use them, organically reducing car usage without forcing misery on anyone.