4 ms·

It's the inverse. Bikes are a temporary 19-th century fix for the lack of easily available personal cars.

piva00 1y ago
Cars are a 20th century fix for the lack of easily available, comfortable, and fast public transportation. It's a shame the USA got stuck in the mid-20th century on that front.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Yep. Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing. And EVs are from the 21-st century. They are here to fix the utter inhumanity of dense cities, and eventually throw them into a dustbin of history.
  - piva00 1y ago
    EVs are just a change in fuel, nothing else changes, it's ludicrous to think they will solve anything related to why cities become denser, I can't even comprehend the logical steps you have to take to think that. Dense cities exist because there's value in living close by to other amenities provided by dense cities. There's no way out of denser cities, amenities will pool around where more people live just by sheer economies of scale (serving more people with less infrastructure). You still have the choice to opt out of that, live far away and have more space, the trade-offs with or without EVs will be the exact same.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      No, the combination of densification turning toxic (see: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Manhattan) and self-driving becoming available will change that. > There's no way out of denser cities There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker. Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
      - piva00 1y ago
        I believe you would appreciate living somewhere else than in an American city, many other developed countries do not suffer from the same malaise as American cities, being dense doesn't mean "turning toxic", there are many ways to densify a city while keeping it livable. > There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker. > Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc. You live online, that's fine if you are happy, many other people actually prefer social interactions, meeting for shared activities, and cities provide these amenities and the population to find your groups around. There's no way around that, living like a hermit in the woods with your own workshops, watching films by yourself (or with your family), etc. is a lifestyle choice and you can do it either way if dense cities exist or not. People will still congregate around the same spots that provide access to the activities they want, they will live in cities that have cultural events (theatres, concerts, museums, art, clubs), that provide gathering places for like-minded individuals: sports, ceramic classes, painting workshops, musicians gathering for jams. You are wishful thinking that technology will somehow replace a deep social need for many, self-driving is bollocks, distance to activities is what matters, trains already exist in many developed countries and they bring people from far away into cities and still there's a big demand for people to live closer to the cities. I'm not judging you for wanting to live like that but you are extrapolating a very narrow view of how people live into the broader picture which simply doesn't work.
  - tpm 1y ago
    > Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing. Early 19th century thing.
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    EVs were invented in the 19th century
  - Mawr 1y ago
    > Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. And you think anything has changed about that? A lot of factory companies hire buses specifically to shuttle their workers back-and-forth.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  I look forward to seeing public transportation that begins a few feet from my front door and arrives a few feet from my destination, without changing vehicles partway through, for arbitrary destinations.
  - Vinnl 1y ago
    Meanwhile I'll enjoy my bicycle that gets me that for 95% of my destinations, does so in reasonable time, is never stuck in traffic, doesn't risk killing or even significantly maiming others, doesn't pollute the environment, and is nice and quiet.
  - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
    Yeah, the thought of having to take a few steps is too horrible to imagine.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      The thought of taking twice as long to get somewhere with less convenience is not tenable to convince people they should switch their transportation method. People trying to argue "you should not want that speed and convenience" or "cars should be made less quick or less convenient" are not providing winning arguments for public transit. The solution is that public transit should meet or exceed the bar of speed and convenience set by cars. Let's make things better, rather than convince people they should settle for worse.
  - piva00 1y ago
    You can take your car if its existence doesn't infringe on everyone else having a nice city where people can walk. For that to happen your convenience of being able to park anywhere close to your final destination will mostly disappear, you will have to find parking in a parking garage, walk up and down stairs (or take an elevator) to get to the street, and walk to your destination. I don't advocate for the extinction of cars, you can have it, just don't expect whole cities to be catered for your individualistic choice of mode of transportation and we are fine.
lostlogin 1y ago
It took me 15 mins to get home 8km away just now. My colleague has a 500m shorter route and took 55mins. Cars are better?
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  You're supposed to do something about the traffic. Like build more housing so commutes are shorter distances.
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      There was a comment on an anti-car HN thread a few weeks back suggesting city centres get larger, pushing housing further out. Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car. What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination. > The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections. The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out. But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.

Cars are a 20th century fix for the lack of easily available, comfortable, and fast public transportation. It's a shame the USA got stuck in the mid-20th century on that front.

cyberax 1y ago
Yep. Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing. And EVs are from the 21-st century. They are here to fix the utter inhumanity of dense cities, and eventually throw them into a dustbin of history.
- piva00 1y ago
  EVs are just a change in fuel, nothing else changes, it's ludicrous to think they will solve anything related to why cities become denser, I can't even comprehend the logical steps you have to take to think that. Dense cities exist because there's value in living close by to other amenities provided by dense cities. There's no way out of denser cities, amenities will pool around where more people live just by sheer economies of scale (serving more people with less infrastructure). You still have the choice to opt out of that, live far away and have more space, the trade-offs with or without EVs will be the exact same.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    No, the combination of densification turning toxic (see: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Manhattan) and self-driving becoming available will change that. > There's no way out of denser cities There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker. Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
    - piva00 1y ago
      I believe you would appreciate living somewhere else than in an American city, many other developed countries do not suffer from the same malaise as American cities, being dense doesn't mean "turning toxic", there are many ways to densify a city while keeping it livable. > There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker. > Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc. You live online, that's fine if you are happy, many other people actually prefer social interactions, meeting for shared activities, and cities provide these amenities and the population to find your groups around. There's no way around that, living like a hermit in the woods with your own workshops, watching films by yourself (or with your family), etc. is a lifestyle choice and you can do it either way if dense cities exist or not. People will still congregate around the same spots that provide access to the activities they want, they will live in cities that have cultural events (theatres, concerts, museums, art, clubs), that provide gathering places for like-minded individuals: sports, ceramic classes, painting workshops, musicians gathering for jams. You are wishful thinking that technology will somehow replace a deep social need for many, self-driving is bollocks, distance to activities is what matters, trains already exist in many developed countries and they bring people from far away into cities and still there's a big demand for people to live closer to the cities. I'm not judging you for wanting to live like that but you are extrapolating a very narrow view of how people live into the broader picture which simply doesn't work.
- tpm 1y ago
  > Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. Definitely a 20-th century thing. Early 19th century thing.
- bmicraft 1y ago
  EVs were invented in the 19th century
- Mawr 1y ago
  > Transit was invented to help move workers from massive factories into living areas. And you think anything has changed about that? A lot of factory companies hire buses specifically to shuttle their workers back-and-forth.
JoshTriplett 1y ago
I look forward to seeing public transportation that begins a few feet from my front door and arrives a few feet from my destination, without changing vehicles partway through, for arbitrary destinations.
- Vinnl 1y ago
  Meanwhile I'll enjoy my bicycle that gets me that for 95% of my destinations, does so in reasonable time, is never stuck in traffic, doesn't risk killing or even significantly maiming others, doesn't pollute the environment, and is nice and quiet.
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  Yeah, the thought of having to take a few steps is too horrible to imagine.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    The thought of taking twice as long to get somewhere with less convenience is not tenable to convince people they should switch their transportation method. People trying to argue "you should not want that speed and convenience" or "cars should be made less quick or less convenient" are not providing winning arguments for public transit. The solution is that public transit should meet or exceed the bar of speed and convenience set by cars. Let's make things better, rather than convince people they should settle for worse.
- piva00 1y ago
  You can take your car if its existence doesn't infringe on everyone else having a nice city where people can walk. For that to happen your convenience of being able to park anywhere close to your final destination will mostly disappear, you will have to find parking in a parking garage, walk up and down stairs (or take an elevator) to get to the street, and walk to your destination. I don't advocate for the extinction of cars, you can have it, just don't expect whole cities to be catered for your individualistic choice of mode of transportation and we are fine.

lostlogin 1y ago

It took me 15 mins to get home 8km away just now. My colleague has a 500m shorter route and took 55mins. Cars are better?

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
You're supposed to do something about the traffic. Like build more housing so commutes are shorter distances.
- bmicraft 1y ago
  More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    There was a comment on an anti-car HN thread a few weeks back suggesting city centres get larger, pushing housing further out. Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car. What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination. > The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections. The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out. But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.