3 ms·

> Other countries like the Netherlands went through the same car-centric design phase and realized it was too expensive and bad for the country so they reverted

> Other countries like the Netherlands went through the same car-centric design phase and realized it was too expensive and bad for the country so they reverted. We can and should keep cars, but our reliance on them for our very existence is quite fragile and unnecessary. The Netherlands is roughly the size of Maryland. If The Netherlands was a U.S. state, it would be 42nd in terms of land area.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> The Netherlands is roughly the size of Maryland. How is this relevant in your mind? Do you imagine most Americans crossing entire states in their daily commute? Do you imagine people and goods do not cross European borders?
- kolanos 2y ago
  It is considerably easier for a country that would be equivalent to one of the smallest U.S. states to abandon their dependence on cars than it is a country 237 times larger. Furthermore, the further west you go in theU.S. the more spread out things get until you reach the west coast. To the east of where I live there is a highway that is 287 miles long and is almost devoid of any services whatsoever, no civilization to speak of, not even a gas station. You can Google it, it is known as the "Loneliest Road in America". Not sure how less dependence on cars handles situations like that. Guess my overall point is until you drive across the U.S., it is difficult to fully understand the scale of the problem, let alone the solution.
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    > It is considerably easier for a country that would be equivalent to one of the smallest U.S. states to abandon their dependence on cars than it is a country 237 times larger. I'm not sure it is. Have you visited the Netherlands? You don't walk or ride a push bike between cities there, any more than you do in the USA. Bicycles are the predominant form of transport because of how they design their suburbs. A car in suburban Holland isn't going to move any faster than a bicycle, and there nowhere to park. This is a deliberate design choice. The population density of Utrecht (a major city in the Netherlands) is 1000 people / sq km. The population density of Annapolis (the capital of Marylands) is over 2000 people / sq km. If density is the reason Marylands should be less car centric than Holland. > To the east of where I live there is a highway that is 287 miles long and is almost devoid of any services whatsoever, no civilization to speak of, not even a gas station. You can Google it, it is known as the "Loneliest Road in America". Doesn't the word "lonely" give you a hint on why this is irrelevant? You aren't going to ride a push bike to pick up fuel for your tractor in the Netherlands either. It's the USA's sprawling suburbs that weld you to your car's, not your cities or your rural expanses. It's true that's hard to change now. But there is no reason it had to be that way. Your suburbs could have been as compact as those in the Netherlands. The Netherlands made a conscious choice not to do it that way (they built free ways, decided they didn't like them, and turned them into canals [0]). I'm not sure how the USA arrived at their current arrangement but it wasn't because you "had to". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restores-historic-canal-made-into-motorway-in-1970s https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restor...
    - kolanos 2y ago
      > Doesn't the word "lonely" give you a hint on why this is irrelevant? You aren't going to ride a push bike to pick up fuel for your tractor in the Netherlands either. The relevance isn't that it is lonely, the relevance is that it is not unique west of the Mississippi. But I welcome you to point me to a country the size of the United States that has solved this problem. I think you'll find they come in two varieties, either they're as spread out as the United States or the entire population is almost entirely against a coast/border wit much of the rest of the country remaining mostly empty. > It's the USA's sprawling suburbs that weld you to your car's, not your cities or your rural expanses. It's true that's hard to change now. But there is no reason it had to be that way. Your suburbs could have been as compact as those in the Netherlands. The Netherlands made a conscious choice not to do it that way (they built free ways, decided they didn't like them, and turned them into canals ). I'm not sure how the USA arrived at their current arrangement but it wasn't because you "had to". Western expansion in the United States was a deadly affair prior to railroads and highways. The Netherlands was largely already a developed country when they did all of what you describe. Much of the United States today lives and dies by what little transportation options they have. There is a reason there are over 3,000 ghost towns scattered across the United States west of the Mississippi and it is not because of the sprawling suburbs. When you have one major highway in or out, city planning kind of takes a backseat.
      - rstuart4133 2y ago
        > But I welcome you to point me to a country the size of the United States that has solved this problem. Russia, China, India. Almost everywhere because to pull the US pattern of suburbia off you needed two things: to build the suburbs in the era of the car, and be rich enough to afford the cars. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand met those two criteria. Almost no one else did. The size of the place had nothing to do with it. New Zealand isn't that big. As I said the Netherlands for a while decided to emulate what USA pattern. They had the money, and they started to build the freeways to enable the expansion. They decided against it. Whatever caused them to do that, it wasn't size. It was probably because the preferred the denser style of living. Most people do, because it and easier and cheaper lifestyle. Maintaining all the larger house block, the long travel times, the increased freight - it all takes effort and money. Perversely, you get more exercise in these denser cities because you walk / cycle everywhere.
- Izkata 2y ago
  So... https://sos.maryland.gov/mdkids/Pages/Geography.aspx https://sos.maryland.gov/mdkids/Pages/Geography.aspx > Maryland is about 250 miles long and 100 miles wide. 30 miles is a pretty normal commute for people who work in Chicago but live in the suburbs. Not the whole width Maryland but we do have many smaller states too.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > Do you imagine most Americans crossing entire states in their daily commute? The size of Maryland? Yes, I do. Not likely "most Americans", but a much larger portion than you'd suspect. My commute was ~30 miles for over a decade, back before I went remote. That was considered "local". From 2016-2017, my commute was ~80 miles. All of the above are one-way distances, and they're not at all exceptional in the US. Yes, the size of the Netherlands relative to the US is definitely relevant to this discussion.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    I live in Columbus, Ohio with a current population roughly of 2.5 million, which is about 13% of the entire population of the Netherlands, and that's within 30 miles or less. That's not an atypical American city. In fact there are three of them in Ohio alone. Within Columbus we have a few buses and that's it for transit, unfortunately - though we are working on building new bike lanes and reforming our zoning code to allow more dense development within the city and hopefully throughout the region too. Nothing but good comes from this and makes us wealthier as a city. Most people living in Columbus who do commute to some job site, do so within 30 miles or less, and in cases where they commute longer than that it's because they actively choose to live quite far away from their workplace. We also have a large portion of the population (children, elderly, etc.) who do not have to make a daily commute like what we are discussing here, but instead do their daily activities locally. What's important to note here is that there are no options - we affirmatively mandate that citizens purchase a car and incur all of the associated expenses in order to participate in daily life, whether that's going to church, the farmer's market, to a friend's house, or to the park. In one area of Columbus I've routinely seen with my own eyes kids crossing 5 lanes of 45mph + traffic to get from one apartment complex to the housing development across the roadway. This is taken as normal. It's not. It's fucking stupid. > My commute was ~30 miles for over a decade, back before I went remote. That was considered "local". From 2016-2017, my commute was ~80 miles. Maybe that's a bad, and incredibly expensive design we should stop subsidizing? I'm not sure why we should focus on these edge cases, and they are indeed edge cases, when we can spend money more effectively to move more people more efficiently around our cities. If you want to live 80 miles away from your job more power to you, but I don't think everyone else should have to pay for it.

pseudalopex 2y ago

> The Netherlands is roughly the size of Maryland. How is this relevant in your mind? Do you imagine most Americans crossing entire states in their daily commute? Do you imagine people and goods do not cross European borders?

kolanos 2y ago
It is considerably easier for a country that would be equivalent to one of the smallest U.S. states to abandon their dependence on cars than it is a country 237 times larger. Furthermore, the further west you go in theU.S. the more spread out things get until you reach the west coast. To the east of where I live there is a highway that is 287 miles long and is almost devoid of any services whatsoever, no civilization to speak of, not even a gas station. You can Google it, it is known as the "Loneliest Road in America". Not sure how less dependence on cars handles situations like that. Guess my overall point is until you drive across the U.S., it is difficult to fully understand the scale of the problem, let alone the solution.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > It is considerably easier for a country that would be equivalent to one of the smallest U.S. states to abandon their dependence on cars than it is a country 237 times larger. I'm not sure it is. Have you visited the Netherlands? You don't walk or ride a push bike between cities there, any more than you do in the USA. Bicycles are the predominant form of transport because of how they design their suburbs. A car in suburban Holland isn't going to move any faster than a bicycle, and there nowhere to park. This is a deliberate design choice. The population density of Utrecht (a major city in the Netherlands) is 1000 people / sq km. The population density of Annapolis (the capital of Marylands) is over 2000 people / sq km. If density is the reason Marylands should be less car centric than Holland. > To the east of where I live there is a highway that is 287 miles long and is almost devoid of any services whatsoever, no civilization to speak of, not even a gas station. You can Google it, it is known as the "Loneliest Road in America". Doesn't the word "lonely" give you a hint on why this is irrelevant? You aren't going to ride a push bike to pick up fuel for your tractor in the Netherlands either. It's the USA's sprawling suburbs that weld you to your car's, not your cities or your rural expanses. It's true that's hard to change now. But there is no reason it had to be that way. Your suburbs could have been as compact as those in the Netherlands. The Netherlands made a conscious choice not to do it that way (they built free ways, decided they didn't like them, and turned them into canals [0]). I'm not sure how the USA arrived at their current arrangement but it wasn't because you "had to". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restores-historic-canal-made-into-motorway-in-1970s https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restor...
  - kolanos 2y ago
    > Doesn't the word "lonely" give you a hint on why this is irrelevant? You aren't going to ride a push bike to pick up fuel for your tractor in the Netherlands either. The relevance isn't that it is lonely, the relevance is that it is not unique west of the Mississippi. But I welcome you to point me to a country the size of the United States that has solved this problem. I think you'll find they come in two varieties, either they're as spread out as the United States or the entire population is almost entirely against a coast/border wit much of the rest of the country remaining mostly empty. > It's the USA's sprawling suburbs that weld you to your car's, not your cities or your rural expanses. It's true that's hard to change now. But there is no reason it had to be that way. Your suburbs could have been as compact as those in the Netherlands. The Netherlands made a conscious choice not to do it that way (they built free ways, decided they didn't like them, and turned them into canals ). I'm not sure how the USA arrived at their current arrangement but it wasn't because you "had to". Western expansion in the United States was a deadly affair prior to railroads and highways. The Netherlands was largely already a developed country when they did all of what you describe. Much of the United States today lives and dies by what little transportation options they have. There is a reason there are over 3,000 ghost towns scattered across the United States west of the Mississippi and it is not because of the sprawling suburbs. When you have one major highway in or out, city planning kind of takes a backseat.
    - rstuart4133 2y ago
      > But I welcome you to point me to a country the size of the United States that has solved this problem. Russia, China, India. Almost everywhere because to pull the US pattern of suburbia off you needed two things: to build the suburbs in the era of the car, and be rich enough to afford the cars. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand met those two criteria. Almost no one else did. The size of the place had nothing to do with it. New Zealand isn't that big. As I said the Netherlands for a while decided to emulate what USA pattern. They had the money, and they started to build the freeways to enable the expansion. They decided against it. Whatever caused them to do that, it wasn't size. It was probably because the preferred the denser style of living. Most people do, because it and easier and cheaper lifestyle. Maintaining all the larger house block, the long travel times, the increased freight - it all takes effort and money. Perversely, you get more exercise in these denser cities because you walk / cycle everywhere.
Izkata 2y ago
So... https://sos.maryland.gov/mdkids/Pages/Geography.aspx https://sos.maryland.gov/mdkids/Pages/Geography.aspx > Maryland is about 250 miles long and 100 miles wide. 30 miles is a pretty normal commute for people who work in Chicago but live in the suburbs. Not the whole width Maryland but we do have many smaller states too.
Ancapistani 2y ago
> Do you imagine most Americans crossing entire states in their daily commute? The size of Maryland? Yes, I do. Not likely "most Americans", but a much larger portion than you'd suspect. My commute was ~30 miles for over a decade, back before I went remote. That was considered "local". From 2016-2017, my commute was ~80 miles. All of the above are one-way distances, and they're not at all exceptional in the US. Yes, the size of the Netherlands relative to the US is definitely relevant to this discussion.
- ericmay 2y ago
  I live in Columbus, Ohio with a current population roughly of 2.5 million, which is about 13% of the entire population of the Netherlands, and that's within 30 miles or less. That's not an atypical American city. In fact there are three of them in Ohio alone. Within Columbus we have a few buses and that's it for transit, unfortunately - though we are working on building new bike lanes and reforming our zoning code to allow more dense development within the city and hopefully throughout the region too. Nothing but good comes from this and makes us wealthier as a city. Most people living in Columbus who do commute to some job site, do so within 30 miles or less, and in cases where they commute longer than that it's because they actively choose to live quite far away from their workplace. We also have a large portion of the population (children, elderly, etc.) who do not have to make a daily commute like what we are discussing here, but instead do their daily activities locally. What's important to note here is that there are no options - we affirmatively mandate that citizens purchase a car and incur all of the associated expenses in order to participate in daily life, whether that's going to church, the farmer's market, to a friend's house, or to the park. In one area of Columbus I've routinely seen with my own eyes kids crossing 5 lanes of 45mph + traffic to get from one apartment complex to the housing development across the roadway. This is taken as normal. It's not. It's fucking stupid. > My commute was ~30 miles for over a decade, back before I went remote. That was considered "local". From 2016-2017, my commute was ~80 miles. Maybe that's a bad, and incredibly expensive design we should stop subsidizing? I'm not sure why we should focus on these edge cases, and they are indeed edge cases, when we can spend money more effectively to move more people more efficiently around our cities. If you want to live 80 miles away from your job more power to you, but I don't think everyone else should have to pay for it.