6 ms·

Car-centric urban design penalizes the poor anyways. The total cost of ownership of a car reliable enough to get you to work on time (or an unreliable car plus

Car-centric urban design penalizes the poor anyways. The total cost of ownership of a car reliable enough to get you to work on time (or an unreliable car plus the cost of alternative transportation when it fails) is quite large. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of good.

bko 2y ago
A car is more expensive generally because it is a lot more convenient. We shouldn't aim to have everyone take a less convenient mode of transportation just so everyone is equally inconvenienced. We should try to lift the poorest among us. Try to make driving less expensive. Not sure why car insurance doubled in the last few years but that's one thing to look at, in addition to other car expenses.
- softwaredoug 2y ago
  I would not consider a car in downtown Manhattan convenient.
  - bko 2y ago
    There are other cities other than Manhattan. This comment was about "car centric urban design". Obviously Manhattan is not car centric, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- Taters91 2y ago
  I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. You have to find parking, you have to navigate traffic (pedestrian, car, and e-bike), and then you have to find gas stations. With public transportation, you don't need any of that. The only inconvenience is that sometimes where you're going is a bit of a walk. Car insurance is expensive, because cars cause a lot of damage and are easy to get damaged.
  - bko 2y ago
    Right, because New York is not car-centric (bike lanes, very dense, few gas stations) "Bit of a walk" is a nice way of saying it but in reality it means you are very limited with things like shopping. You're kind of stuck with the nearest walkable grocer. If you're luck enough to live by a cheap ones like Trader Joes, they are ridiculously crowded so you're paying in a different form. Or you can try your luck with Bodegas but they're often sell expired food, are overpriced and rarely have anything fresh . Then you're stuck with how much you can carry or try to use one of those granny pushers. Kids could be very difficult to wrangle as well and there are plenty of unpleasant things you have to explain to them or ignore. It's very dehumanizing My point is that having a car is nice and I want people to have nice things. They don't belong everywhere, like NY. But overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation.
    - wpm 2y ago
      > ut overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation. Then you maybe haven't spent too long thinking about it. Climate change is a big one. Microplastics from tire wear. Asthma rates in children. Obesity rates. Etc etc etc. Car centric design makes us poorer, fatter, less healthy. It makes our cities and towns poorer, less resilient, and uglier. I can go on.
      - alexlesuper 2y ago
        Not mention that less cars on the road means improved travel times for those that are obligated to use their car.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        I'm not sure "lose your freedoms because it's better for you and less ugly" is a winning pitch. It'd be better to make sure that people can still access the things they want conveniently while minimizing the harms. I think it's a good thing to improve and promote public transportation by making them the more attractive option rather than just punish drivers and restrict their options until they have no choice but to settle for something less than what they have.
- cryptopian 2y ago
  The issue with cars isn't that they're not convenient in isolation, but that they cause issues at scale more than other modes of transport, especially when they're the default option for journeys. An efficiently run metro line can shift tens of thousands of people per hour in each direction, but you'd need a multi-lane highway running at maximum throughput to even get close.
robertlagrant 2y ago
It also does the opposite: allows people who live in cheaper areas access to services not limited by the local area's average income. Your kid can go to a school further away or participate in a sports team or doctor or friend's house that isn't the local one.
- trollbridge 2y ago
  It also allows low income people who live in low income areas (and thus cheaper rents) to access jobs in high income places. If transit were the same speed or faster than carpooling, it wouldn’t be nearly as significant. In NYC it is not.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  As a kid, I hated commuting 10+ miles to school everyday, and driving everywhere to get or do anything. Even when I got a car, it was a huge drag. Once I got to college, I was so happy to move to a tiny basement party near university so I could live a better life. When I lived in Beijing, everything was accessible by subway, but we also had a mall a couple of blocks away that had a grocery store in the basement. I chose this lifestyle for my kid, we walk to school in the morning, he's in 2nd grade of a K-8 but the highschool he will go to is about the same distance. He is now the opposite of me, wanting to drive places instead of walk...ugh.
- danny_codes 2y ago
  So there’s these things called “trains” and “subways” and “buses” that let you get around without a car. Car dependency reduces the efficacy of public transit, so it actually does the opposite of what you say. If we didn’t build around cars you’d still have farther flung residential development. It’s just be close to a train stop so you could easily get around. There’s really no benefit to car dependency outside rural areas. Entirely a mistake with no benefits at all, because the alternative design that would have arisen without car dependency is better in every way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
jampekka 2y ago
How is a toll urban design? Urban design would be something like turning roads into walking streets or turning car lanes into bike lanes. Those would reduce traffic and "penalize" people equally regardless of their wealth.

bko 2y ago

A car is more expensive generally because it is a lot more convenient. We shouldn't aim to have everyone take a less convenient mode of transportation just so everyone is equally inconvenienced. We should try to lift the poorest among us. Try to make driving less expensive. Not sure why car insurance doubled in the last few years but that's one thing to look at, in addition to other car expenses.

softwaredoug 2y ago
I would not consider a car in downtown Manhattan convenient.
- bko 2y ago
  There are other cities other than Manhattan. This comment was about "car centric urban design". Obviously Manhattan is not car centric, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Taters91 2y ago
I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. You have to find parking, you have to navigate traffic (pedestrian, car, and e-bike), and then you have to find gas stations. With public transportation, you don't need any of that. The only inconvenience is that sometimes where you're going is a bit of a walk. Car insurance is expensive, because cars cause a lot of damage and are easy to get damaged.
- bko 2y ago
  Right, because New York is not car-centric (bike lanes, very dense, few gas stations) "Bit of a walk" is a nice way of saying it but in reality it means you are very limited with things like shopping. You're kind of stuck with the nearest walkable grocer. If you're luck enough to live by a cheap ones like Trader Joes, they are ridiculously crowded so you're paying in a different form. Or you can try your luck with Bodegas but they're often sell expired food, are overpriced and rarely have anything fresh . Then you're stuck with how much you can carry or try to use one of those granny pushers. Kids could be very difficult to wrangle as well and there are plenty of unpleasant things you have to explain to them or ignore. It's very dehumanizing My point is that having a car is nice and I want people to have nice things. They don't belong everywhere, like NY. But overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation.
  - wpm 2y ago
    > ut overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation. Then you maybe haven't spent too long thinking about it. Climate change is a big one. Microplastics from tire wear. Asthma rates in children. Obesity rates. Etc etc etc. Car centric design makes us poorer, fatter, less healthy. It makes our cities and towns poorer, less resilient, and uglier. I can go on.
    - alexlesuper 2y ago
      Not mention that less cars on the road means improved travel times for those that are obligated to use their car.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      I'm not sure "lose your freedoms because it's better for you and less ugly" is a winning pitch. It'd be better to make sure that people can still access the things they want conveniently while minimizing the harms. I think it's a good thing to improve and promote public transportation by making them the more attractive option rather than just punish drivers and restrict their options until they have no choice but to settle for something less than what they have.
cryptopian 2y ago
The issue with cars isn't that they're not convenient in isolation, but that they cause issues at scale more than other modes of transport, especially when they're the default option for journeys. An efficiently run metro line can shift tens of thousands of people per hour in each direction, but you'd need a multi-lane highway running at maximum throughput to even get close.

robertlagrant 2y ago

It also does the opposite: allows people who live in cheaper areas access to services not limited by the local area's average income. Your kid can go to a school further away or participate in a sports team or doctor or friend's house that isn't the local one.

trollbridge 2y ago
It also allows low income people who live in low income areas (and thus cheaper rents) to access jobs in high income places. If transit were the same speed or faster than carpooling, it wouldn’t be nearly as significant. In NYC it is not.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
As a kid, I hated commuting 10+ miles to school everyday, and driving everywhere to get or do anything. Even when I got a car, it was a huge drag. Once I got to college, I was so happy to move to a tiny basement party near university so I could live a better life. When I lived in Beijing, everything was accessible by subway, but we also had a mall a couple of blocks away that had a grocery store in the basement. I chose this lifestyle for my kid, we walk to school in the morning, he's in 2nd grade of a K-8 but the highschool he will go to is about the same distance. He is now the opposite of me, wanting to drive places instead of walk...ugh.
danny_codes 2y ago
So there’s these things called “trains” and “subways” and “buses” that let you get around without a car. Car dependency reduces the efficacy of public transit, so it actually does the opposite of what you say. If we didn’t build around cars you’d still have farther flung residential development. It’s just be close to a train stop so you could easily get around. There’s really no benefit to car dependency outside rural areas. Entirely a mistake with no benefits at all, because the alternative design that would have arisen without car dependency is better in every way.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

jampekka 2y ago

How is a toll urban design? Urban design would be something like turning roads into walking streets or turning car lanes into bike lanes. Those would reduce traffic and "penalize" people equally regardless of their wealth.