6 ms·

I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. The US is huge compared to any similarly developed country. Is the answer huge cities right next to thousands of

by pc86 2y ago

I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. The US is huge compared to any similarly developed country. Is the answer huge cities right next to thousands of square miles of untouched nature? That hasn't happened in any society on the planet. It sounds like you just want everyone to live in a city and take public transit everywhere but cities are awful for your mental health[0] and most people in the US do not want to live in a major urban area. You can't have a huge geography and rural or suburban life without private vehicles. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7892359/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7892359/

yossi_peti 2y ago
If people want to live in rural areas, that's fine by me. They don't particularly contribute to the problems with car-centric infrastructure in the US. The main complaints are how most cities in the US are designed in ways that are hostile to anybody who doesn't have a car, such as: - making it difficult to get around safely by bike - zoning restrictions that force development to be clumped in certain areas - underdeveloped public transport with infrequent stops and limited range - parking space requirements that limit development - food deserts where people have to drive long distances to get groceries There are many places in the world that have solved these problems. I don't get why it's so inconceivable to solve them in the US.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Japan is awesome like this, they have amazing highways and rail. Tokyo in my option is a bit too car friendly but it’s still very walkable and rideable.
  - kulahan 2y ago
    Japan is an extremely small island. I don’t think a lot of their experience would apply to us. China may be a better example.
    - nercury 2y ago
      Extremely small island that stretches from New York to Atlanta..
    - ludsan 2y ago
      Honshu is the 7th largest island in the world. It's area is a little more than 1/3 of texas.
      - kulahan 2y ago
        The fact that it barely measures up to our second largest state would reinforce my point.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      LA to San Fran could be doing a lot better is what you’re saying ?
  - m1n1 2y ago
    If that system existed in America, what would it take to keep it as clean and as safe? (Edit: I visited Japan and loved the train system)
- Ostrogoth 2y ago
  As someone who recently bought a house (and used to live in an apartment), those were some of the reasons why I opted out of apartment life. I would prefer to live in a denser urban area if other amenities and quality of life benefits came with it, but they don’t in my city. Even if you live close to the city core, there are either extremely limited or entirely nonexistent options for groceries, fitness and recreation, coffee shops, affordable eateries, non-alcohol entertainment and art, etc in most neighborhoods. You would still have to drive most of the time anyway. Most of the denser areas closer to downtown can also be quite dangerous for pedestrians after dark. The few places that have denser housing with those amenities within (safe) walking access are exorbitantly more expensive. Meanwhile apartment and townhome developments are now springing up everywhere in my area of town, but without any amenities to go with them, leading to even more vehicle congestion on the local streets as people try to escape the neighborhood and reach the highways.
lelandbatey 2y ago
The US being huge has no bearing on the requirement that I have to own a car to get to work every day, or to go to the grocery store, or to take kids to school. I live in a more suburban area than I used to and having to pilot a huge deadly vehicle everywhere is vastly more stressful than just walking to handle my groceries. Note that the study you link to there is from 1994 and only controlled for the following criteria: sex, age, social class, marital status, unemployment, chronic illness and region of residence. Those aren't the things that put folks on edge about cities in 1994 or in the preceding years. 30 years on from 1994 and now in a different world, many of us are wondering why we're locked out of some of the benefits of a bit more density. No ones saying we abandon all beyond our city walls to nature, instead they'll be farmland or productive rural activities like we already use them for. But we don't need every city of 500k people to mean that there's a 15 mile radius circle of strip malls in every direction.
- anonym29 2y ago
  >having to pilot a huge deadly vehicle everywhere is vastly more stressful than just walking to handle my groceries. That's a nice luxury to have. I take it you're fortunate enough to live in a very temperate area with palatable weather year-round, rather than somewhere that gets 110° F in the summer, or ice storms in the winter? Not everyone can afford to live on the beautiful, comfortable, and exorbitantly expensive cities along the west coast.
  - felipellrocha 2y ago
    Have people not lived in those places in the past?
    - anonym29 2y ago
      They have, but if you mean before the introduction of the automobile, it was in an era where nobody had to commute to get groceries because a majority of the population were subsistence farmers.
      - 2y ago
rbetts 2y ago
The US is large - but roughly 1 in 10 residents live around LA or NYC. As much as it is large, it is also non-uniform.
xyst 2y ago
Love how you cite a study performed in the _UK_ in _1994_ as irrefutable evidence that cities are "awful" for your mental health. Yet more recent studies in the US indicate exactly the opposite. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34315817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34315817/ (2021)
dopidopHN 2y ago
It’s not about rural places. It’s about how cities are centered around car. Cities in the us are basically highway with warehouse around it. It’s hard to navigate without a car, and public transportation are a afterthought.
felipellrocha 2y ago
I love how you claim that there doesn’t exist, while at the same time mentioning a (very old) study that would imply an alternative exists so that such study can take place. If you go to anywhere in Europe you will find plenty of places that prove the opposite.
p_j_w 2y ago
>I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. We could start by making people who choose rural or suburban life pay the costs of such a life rather than foisting them on everyone else. Roads should either be toll roads or entirely paid for by gas taxes and vehicle registration costs. Gas taxes should have to include the cost of removing the pollutants from the environment.
- gustavus 2y ago
  Setting aside the shocking myopia of this comment (it turns out most of your food that magically appears in grocery stores comes from those useless rural yokels that use these roads) A major driver of the interstate highway project was military in consideration because of the importance of logistics in being able to move troops around the country.
  - nayuki 2y ago
    > your food that magically appears in grocery stores comes from those useless rural yokels that use these roads That's fine. Roll those costs into the price of food. That way, the amount of road tax you pay is proportional to how much goods and services you consume. Meanwhile, the status quo is that everyone pays into the road system regardless of how much or little they use it - even if they don't own a car. Roads have to get paid for no matter what. The only choice we have as a society is between taxing everyone versus taxing only the users.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Roads have to get paid for no matter what. The only choice we have as a society is between taxing everyone versus taxing only the users. Exactly right, but proving the opposite of what you request. Once roads are built they're a sunk cost. Roads have to be resurfaced as a result weather damage regardless of how many people drive on them. Road capacity that exists and isn't used is lost. The incremental cost of an additional car driving down a road, the actual wear caused by the act, is trivial. Far less than the pro rata share of building or maintaining the road, or than existing gas tax, or the cost of even the collections infrastructure for road tolls. But the use has value to the driver and plausibly to others in society (e.g. their customers/employers/friends), so we don't want to discourage it unless its value is less than the incremental cost, since the cost of building the road and most of the maintenance is a sunk cost. Which leads to the conclusion that the sunk cost of the road should be shared by everybody, since everybody benefits from having products delivered and emergency services even if they don't have a car.

by pc86 2y ago

yossi_peti 2y ago

If people want to live in rural areas, that's fine by me. They don't particularly contribute to the problems with car-centric infrastructure in the US. The main complaints are how most cities in the US are designed in ways that are hostile to anybody who doesn't have a car, such as: - making it difficult to get around safely by bike - zoning restrictions that force development to be clumped in certain areas - underdeveloped public transport with infrequent stops and limited range - parking space requirements that limit development - food deserts where people have to drive long distances to get groceries There are many places in the world that have solved these problems. I don't get why it's so inconceivable to solve them in the US.

bamboozled 2y ago
Japan is awesome like this, they have amazing highways and rail. Tokyo in my option is a bit too car friendly but it’s still very walkable and rideable.
- kulahan 2y ago
  Japan is an extremely small island. I don’t think a lot of their experience would apply to us. China may be a better example.
  - nercury 2y ago
    Extremely small island that stretches from New York to Atlanta..
  - ludsan 2y ago
    Honshu is the 7th largest island in the world. It's area is a little more than 1/3 of texas.
    - kulahan 2y ago
      The fact that it barely measures up to our second largest state would reinforce my point.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    LA to San Fran could be doing a lot better is what you’re saying ?
- m1n1 2y ago
  If that system existed in America, what would it take to keep it as clean and as safe? (Edit: I visited Japan and loved the train system)
Ostrogoth 2y ago
As someone who recently bought a house (and used to live in an apartment), those were some of the reasons why I opted out of apartment life. I would prefer to live in a denser urban area if other amenities and quality of life benefits came with it, but they don’t in my city. Even if you live close to the city core, there are either extremely limited or entirely nonexistent options for groceries, fitness and recreation, coffee shops, affordable eateries, non-alcohol entertainment and art, etc in most neighborhoods. You would still have to drive most of the time anyway. Most of the denser areas closer to downtown can also be quite dangerous for pedestrians after dark. The few places that have denser housing with those amenities within (safe) walking access are exorbitantly more expensive. Meanwhile apartment and townhome developments are now springing up everywhere in my area of town, but without any amenities to go with them, leading to even more vehicle congestion on the local streets as people try to escape the neighborhood and reach the highways.

lelandbatey 2y ago

The US being huge has no bearing on the requirement that I have to own a car to get to work every day, or to go to the grocery store, or to take kids to school. I live in a more suburban area than I used to and having to pilot a huge deadly vehicle everywhere is vastly more stressful than just walking to handle my groceries. Note that the study you link to there is from 1994 and only controlled for the following criteria: sex, age, social class, marital status, unemployment, chronic illness and region of residence. Those aren't the things that put folks on edge about cities in 1994 or in the preceding years. 30 years on from 1994 and now in a different world, many of us are wondering why we're locked out of some of the benefits of a bit more density. No ones saying we abandon all beyond our city walls to nature, instead they'll be farmland or productive rural activities like we already use them for. But we don't need every city of 500k people to mean that there's a 15 mile radius circle of strip malls in every direction.

anonym29 2y ago
>having to pilot a huge deadly vehicle everywhere is vastly more stressful than just walking to handle my groceries. That's a nice luxury to have. I take it you're fortunate enough to live in a very temperate area with palatable weather year-round, rather than somewhere that gets 110° F in the summer, or ice storms in the winter? Not everyone can afford to live on the beautiful, comfortable, and exorbitantly expensive cities along the west coast.
- felipellrocha 2y ago
  Have people not lived in those places in the past?
  - anonym29 2y ago
    They have, but if you mean before the introduction of the automobile, it was in an era where nobody had to commute to get groceries because a majority of the population were subsistence farmers.
    - 2y ago

rbetts 2y ago

The US is large - but roughly 1 in 10 residents live around LA or NYC. As much as it is large, it is also non-uniform.

xyst 2y ago

Love how you cite a study performed in the _UK_ in _1994_ as irrefutable evidence that cities are "awful" for your mental health. Yet more recent studies in the US indicate exactly the opposite. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34315817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34315817/ (2021)

dopidopHN 2y ago

It’s not about rural places. It’s about how cities are centered around car. Cities in the us are basically highway with warehouse around it. It’s hard to navigate without a car, and public transportation are a afterthought.

felipellrocha 2y ago

I love how you claim that there doesn’t exist, while at the same time mentioning a (very old) study that would imply an alternative exists so that such study can take place. If you go to anywhere in Europe you will find plenty of places that prove the opposite.

p_j_w 2y ago

>I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. We could start by making people who choose rural or suburban life pay the costs of such a life rather than foisting them on everyone else. Roads should either be toll roads or entirely paid for by gas taxes and vehicle registration costs. Gas taxes should have to include the cost of removing the pollutants from the environment.

gustavus 2y ago
Setting aside the shocking myopia of this comment (it turns out most of your food that magically appears in grocery stores comes from those useless rural yokels that use these roads) A major driver of the interstate highway project was military in consideration because of the importance of logistics in being able to move troops around the country.
- nayuki 2y ago
  > your food that magically appears in grocery stores comes from those useless rural yokels that use these roads That's fine. Roll those costs into the price of food. That way, the amount of road tax you pay is proportional to how much goods and services you consume. Meanwhile, the status quo is that everyone pays into the road system regardless of how much or little they use it - even if they don't own a car. Roads have to get paid for no matter what. The only choice we have as a society is between taxing everyone versus taxing only the users.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Roads have to get paid for no matter what. The only choice we have as a society is between taxing everyone versus taxing only the users. Exactly right, but proving the opposite of what you request. Once roads are built they're a sunk cost. Roads have to be resurfaced as a result weather damage regardless of how many people drive on them. Road capacity that exists and isn't used is lost. The incremental cost of an additional car driving down a road, the actual wear caused by the act, is trivial. Far less than the pro rata share of building or maintaining the road, or than existing gas tax, or the cost of even the collections infrastructure for road tolls. But the use has value to the driver and plausibly to others in society (e.g. their customers/employers/friends), so we don't want to discourage it unless its value is less than the incremental cost, since the cost of building the road and most of the maintenance is a sunk cost. Which leads to the conclusion that the sunk cost of the road should be shared by everybody, since everybody benefits from having products delivered and emergency services even if they don't have a car.