4 ms·

"the worst symbol of our car-obsessed culture" Nothing against the article, which covers an interesting topic. But this refrain gets tiresome, the railing agai

"the worst symbol of our car-obsessed culture" Nothing against the article, which covers an interesting topic. But this refrain gets tiresome, the railing against our "car obsession." We have a big-ass country. We like to move about it. Many of us don't want or need to live on top of each other. That is all.

psunavy03 2y ago
There is also a subset of people who will go out of their way to dunk on Texas. I'm not Texan myself and feel the place has its pluses and its minuses (some of them huge ones on both sides of the ledger). But sometimes I'm like "come on, really, that's a cheap shot."
mcbutterbunz 2y ago
I'd just love some zoning changes that would allow light commercial in the middle of some neighborhoods so I don't have to drive miles to get a cup of coffee. Could be as simple as adding more pathways between neighborhoods so I don't have to ride my bike on a busy street and almost get hit by someone on their phone. Its not that we're obsessed with cars, its that cars are the only option for reasonable, safe transportation right now.
- heartbreak 2y ago
  > I'd just love some zoning changes that would allow light commercial in the middle of some neighborhoods This describes reality in Houston, and I do not get the impression that you’d like Houston at all.
delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
> We have a big-ass country. We like to move about it. Many of us don't want or need to live on top of each other. That is all. Japan is about the size of the entire Eastern Seaboard. Japan has safe, fast, comfortable and competitively-priced high-speed rail through highly mountainous, earthquake-prone terrain. What's the USA's excuse? No one is asking for a 4500 km-long railway from Los Angeles to New York. But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do. Forget that, not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already). The US has no political will to up its public transport game, and your comment epitomises it.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Huh? You can take a train from New York to Washington. It’s not high speed rail but it’s not even a day trip. You could go there and back in one day and still get stuff done at the other end. It’d be a bit of a long day but nothing outrageous. In fact, the Eastern seaboard is one of the few places in the US where rail travel is a valid option much of the time.
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    Acela from NYC to Washington is a piss-poor excuse of """""""high speed rail""""""", certainly rock bottom dogshit tier travel times when you compare it to other city pairs with similar GDPs and similar distances
- vel0city 2y ago
  It's like you didn't even bother taking a glance before posting so many falsehoods. > not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already). https://www.amtrak.com/acela-train https://www.amtrak.com/acela-train > Acela offers downtown to downtown service between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and other intermediate cities. > But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do. https://www.amtrak.com/crescent-train https://www.amtrak.com/crescent-train > Convenient trips from the Big Apple to the Big Easy. With service from New York City to New Orleans, the Crescent gives travelers a unique window to the beauty and heritage of the American South. You can tour Monticello or enjoy a wine tasting in the charming Virginia college town of Charlottesville. Or enjoy a stroll through the vibrant shopping and dining scene of Underground Atlanta. As you travel further south, you'll reach New Orleans, where you never run out of things to do. From jazz clubs to Cajun restaurants to Mississippi riverboat rides, the city was simply built to entertain. So you'll have to change trains in NY to get to Boston, but one can definitely go from Atlanta to Boston by train. In the end though, practically nobody would take a train from Atlanta to Boston. Even if you made it 200mph HSR, a direct flight would still be faster. And until both ends of that journey really make the city more walkable you're probably going to want to rent a car at your destination anyways so being at an airport at the edge of town versus the train station closer to downtown it doesn't make enough impact for most people. Don't gete wrong I'm generally pro-train for good city pairs, but chances are I'd never take a train from say Dallas to Phoenix or Denver or Chicago. Flying will just practically always be faster. I'd take one to Houston or Austin or San Antonio though.
macNchz 2y ago
My main complaint is that the people who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but sprawl, so now the few remaining places that don't require a car are rare and super expensive. I'm even a car guy—I own a stick shift BMW—I just don't have much interest in getting into it to do literally any activity or errand other than walking around the neighborhood.
- kulahan 2y ago
  I think this is strongly overestimating the ratio of Americans who would be willing to walk to work, but that’s pure conjecture
  - macNchz 2y ago
    Based on the price of houses in walkable/transit accessible parts of older American cities, there’s quite clearly a market for it. Ultimately, many Americans have basically no reference point for what it would be like to not depend on a car—it’s just what they’ve always known—so I’m sure you’re correct in that most would say they weren’t interested in living that way, but that’s not much of a reason to make rules against it.
    - DidYaWipe 2y ago
      That isn't the reason. The reason is that people who don't want to live that way have specifically chosen to live in an area developed in a different way. Why should that be destroyed or vilified? I see the appeal of both kinds of lifestyle. Some of my best friends live in nice Chicago neighborhoods where they don't need cars. They are not rich or even significantly "well-off" by most standards, and their homes did not and do not cost as much as a house in a suburban area. The "rules" prevent profiteers from destroying the standard of living for people who moved AWAY from density. Why should such people be herded around the country, hounded out of their homes for someone else's (increasingly a corporation's) profit? That's akin to black people being herded out of their neighborhoods for the construction of a highway.
brikym 2y ago
The problem is the planning is the same everywhere. People who like walkable cities don't have a choice but to buy a car. It would be nice to have some areas where residential and non-industrial businesses are more mixed to lessen the amount of driving.
legacynl 2y ago
You might be tired of it, but it doesn't come from a place of 'wanting to bash car culture' but rather from a pragmatic look at the real outcomes from the current US transportation philosophy. I don't know if you've noticed but there are some actual real problems that the US is running into. Building stuff is cheap relative to having to maintain it over its lifetime and then eventually replacing it. The more you build the more it costs to maintain it all. That means that from purely an economical perspective there is an optimum where you provide the most transportation for the least amount of money. The US method of building more and more is slowly driving up the cost side of the equation and delivering less and less benefits. That's not hippy-liberal bullshit, but that is just a fact. Just imagine that instead of adding extra lanes, they would build a good train connection between your cities. You could still drive as much as you want but there would be a lot less people on the road.
guywithahat 2y ago
It’s not even that bad. If you go to Houston, there are plenty of parts which are so walking/transit focused you don’t need a car. I’d argue the real reason people have cars is because if rent for a nice 1-bed only costs 700-1500 it doesn’t make sense to not also own a car. When people talk about a city that’s not “car-obsessed”, they’re usually referring to some place where even the wealthy can barely afford a car.

psunavy03 2y ago

There is also a subset of people who will go out of their way to dunk on Texas. I'm not Texan myself and feel the place has its pluses and its minuses (some of them huge ones on both sides of the ledger). But sometimes I'm like "come on, really, that's a cheap shot."

mcbutterbunz 2y ago

I'd just love some zoning changes that would allow light commercial in the middle of some neighborhoods so I don't have to drive miles to get a cup of coffee. Could be as simple as adding more pathways between neighborhoods so I don't have to ride my bike on a busy street and almost get hit by someone on their phone. Its not that we're obsessed with cars, its that cars are the only option for reasonable, safe transportation right now.

heartbreak 2y ago
> I'd just love some zoning changes that would allow light commercial in the middle of some neighborhoods This describes reality in Houston, and I do not get the impression that you’d like Houston at all.

delta_p_delta_x 2y ago

> We have a big-ass country. We like to move about it. Many of us don't want or need to live on top of each other. That is all. Japan is about the size of the entire Eastern Seaboard. Japan has safe, fast, comfortable and competitively-priced high-speed rail through highly mountainous, earthquake-prone terrain. What's the USA's excuse? No one is asking for a 4500 km-long railway from Los Angeles to New York. But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do. Forget that, not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already). The US has no political will to up its public transport game, and your comment epitomises it.

nkrisc 2y ago
Huh? You can take a train from New York to Washington. It’s not high speed rail but it’s not even a day trip. You could go there and back in one day and still get stuff done at the other end. It’d be a bit of a long day but nothing outrageous. In fact, the Eastern seaboard is one of the few places in the US where rail travel is a valid option much of the time.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  Acela from NYC to Washington is a piss-poor excuse of """""""high speed rail""""""", certainly rock bottom dogshit tier travel times when you compare it to other city pairs with similar GDPs and similar distances
vel0city 2y ago
It's like you didn't even bother taking a glance before posting so many falsehoods. > not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already). https://www.amtrak.com/acela-train https://www.amtrak.com/acela-train > Acela offers downtown to downtown service between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and other intermediate cities. > But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do. https://www.amtrak.com/crescent-train https://www.amtrak.com/crescent-train > Convenient trips from the Big Apple to the Big Easy. With service from New York City to New Orleans, the Crescent gives travelers a unique window to the beauty and heritage of the American South. You can tour Monticello or enjoy a wine tasting in the charming Virginia college town of Charlottesville. Or enjoy a stroll through the vibrant shopping and dining scene of Underground Atlanta. As you travel further south, you'll reach New Orleans, where you never run out of things to do. From jazz clubs to Cajun restaurants to Mississippi riverboat rides, the city was simply built to entertain. So you'll have to change trains in NY to get to Boston, but one can definitely go from Atlanta to Boston by train. In the end though, practically nobody would take a train from Atlanta to Boston. Even if you made it 200mph HSR, a direct flight would still be faster. And until both ends of that journey really make the city more walkable you're probably going to want to rent a car at your destination anyways so being at an airport at the edge of town versus the train station closer to downtown it doesn't make enough impact for most people. Don't gete wrong I'm generally pro-train for good city pairs, but chances are I'd never take a train from say Dallas to Phoenix or Denver or Chicago. Flying will just practically always be faster. I'd take one to Houston or Austin or San Antonio though.

macNchz 2y ago

My main complaint is that the people who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but sprawl, so now the few remaining places that don't require a car are rare and super expensive. I'm even a car guy—I own a stick shift BMW—I just don't have much interest in getting into it to do literally any activity or errand other than walking around the neighborhood.

kulahan 2y ago
I think this is strongly overestimating the ratio of Americans who would be willing to walk to work, but that’s pure conjecture
- macNchz 2y ago
  Based on the price of houses in walkable/transit accessible parts of older American cities, there’s quite clearly a market for it. Ultimately, many Americans have basically no reference point for what it would be like to not depend on a car—it’s just what they’ve always known—so I’m sure you’re correct in that most would say they weren’t interested in living that way, but that’s not much of a reason to make rules against it.
  - DidYaWipe 2y ago
    That isn't the reason. The reason is that people who don't want to live that way have specifically chosen to live in an area developed in a different way. Why should that be destroyed or vilified? I see the appeal of both kinds of lifestyle. Some of my best friends live in nice Chicago neighborhoods where they don't need cars. They are not rich or even significantly "well-off" by most standards, and their homes did not and do not cost as much as a house in a suburban area. The "rules" prevent profiteers from destroying the standard of living for people who moved AWAY from density. Why should such people be herded around the country, hounded out of their homes for someone else's (increasingly a corporation's) profit? That's akin to black people being herded out of their neighborhoods for the construction of a highway.

brikym 2y ago

The problem is the planning is the same everywhere. People who like walkable cities don't have a choice but to buy a car. It would be nice to have some areas where residential and non-industrial businesses are more mixed to lessen the amount of driving.

legacynl 2y ago

You might be tired of it, but it doesn't come from a place of 'wanting to bash car culture' but rather from a pragmatic look at the real outcomes from the current US transportation philosophy. I don't know if you've noticed but there are some actual real problems that the US is running into. Building stuff is cheap relative to having to maintain it over its lifetime and then eventually replacing it. The more you build the more it costs to maintain it all. That means that from purely an economical perspective there is an optimum where you provide the most transportation for the least amount of money. The US method of building more and more is slowly driving up the cost side of the equation and delivering less and less benefits. That's not hippy-liberal bullshit, but that is just a fact. Just imagine that instead of adding extra lanes, they would build a good train connection between your cities. You could still drive as much as you want but there would be a lot less people on the road.

guywithahat 2y ago

It’s not even that bad. If you go to Houston, there are plenty of parts which are so walking/transit focused you don’t need a car. I’d argue the real reason people have cars is because if rent for a nice 1-bed only costs 700-1500 it doesn’t make sense to not also own a car. When people talk about a city that’s not “car-obsessed”, they’re usually referring to some place where even the wealthy can barely afford a car.