6 ms·

If your campus had a subway stop in the middle of it, I highly doubt students were more likely to leave by car than via some other form of transport. That bein

If your campus had a subway stop in the middle of it, I highly doubt students were more likely to leave by car than via some other form of transport. That being said, my 2nd cousin who lives in Copenhagen owns a car. It is convenient. She doesn't use it a lot since usually a bicycle or mass transit is also convenient but having the option is nice for certain trips or conditions. Copenhagen is a pretty nice city to drive in. Hundreds of bicycles at every intersection slows you down a lot less than hundreds of cars at every intersection. That's the secret -- make your city convenient to use without a car, which significantly reduces the number of cars, which makes it much better for those using a car.

taeric 1y ago
The campus I lived on had a transit stop not far off. I'm sure more people used it than my little anecdote made it sound. I agree that places should be made as convenient as they can be for walking, as well. I just get annoyed with so much of the discourse assuming you can design the cities so that a car is not more convenient. It is almost always a massive convenience. Obnoxiously so.
- stetrain 1y ago
  But those cities do exist. Just mostly not in the US. They also don’t need to make non-car options more convenient for all people, or even most people. The larger the share of non-car trips the better things get even for those who still drive, even if that share is going from 10% to 20%. Less congestion and pollution. Fewer traffic accidents. More density of housing in places that have high demand, reducing housing costs.
  - taeric 1y ago
    My point is that, even in the cities that you are referencing, the more affluent people almost always have a car. Because they can afford it, and because it is more convenient. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. Essentially, my assertion is that you get more people out of cars by making them expensive than you do with city design. (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)
    - stetrain 1y ago
      > (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?) Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning. And you can still significantly reduce the number of cars and car-trips without eliminating car ownership. A household with one car used occasionally when it’s convenient needs less parking and driving space than one with two cars driven daily.
      - taeric 1y ago
        So on this we are in complete agreement. My criticism is when people show walkable cities, they need to underline that majority of those people will own a car if they can financially make it happen. Almost bar none.
        stetrain 1y ago
        I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes the financial component is part of it. Building dense walkable urban developments makes car ownership more expensive and non-car options cheaper and more convenient. Some would argue that in many places car ownership is being subsidized by the way we develop and tax. Some households will still have cars, but households are not the same as individual people. And I think there are plenty of places where the majority of households don’t own cars. You can say they would if it was cheap and convenient enough, but that’s the whole point we’re discussing. Not dedicating so much development and infrastructure to cars will make them less convenient and more expensive options than the alternatives for at least some of the population.
        taeric 1y ago
        I could just be wrong. Nor am I aiming for exaggerated effect, though. I legit have grown to feel that people will get a car if they can afford it. Pretty much everywhere. As I said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. This is related with the housing discussions. People have somewhat convinced themselves that cheap standalone houses are the goal. Which, I suppose there is no reason that can't be the goal. But compare average home size in pretty much any US city with some of these walkable cities you have in mind. When I do that, I start asking how related those two things are. And I'm growing rather convinced that people have built up a mental idea that they can live with all of the benefits of both worlds, without contending with the contrast between them.

taeric 1y ago

The campus I lived on had a transit stop not far off. I'm sure more people used it than my little anecdote made it sound. I agree that places should be made as convenient as they can be for walking, as well. I just get annoyed with so much of the discourse assuming you can design the cities so that a car is not more convenient. It is almost always a massive convenience. Obnoxiously so.

stetrain 1y ago
But those cities do exist. Just mostly not in the US. They also don’t need to make non-car options more convenient for all people, or even most people. The larger the share of non-car trips the better things get even for those who still drive, even if that share is going from 10% to 20%. Less congestion and pollution. Fewer traffic accidents. More density of housing in places that have high demand, reducing housing costs.
- taeric 1y ago
  My point is that, even in the cities that you are referencing, the more affluent people almost always have a car. Because they can afford it, and because it is more convenient. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. Essentially, my assertion is that you get more people out of cars by making them expensive than you do with city design. (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)
  - stetrain 1y ago
    > (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?) Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning. And you can still significantly reduce the number of cars and car-trips without eliminating car ownership. A household with one car used occasionally when it’s convenient needs less parking and driving space than one with two cars driven daily.
    - taeric 1y ago
      So on this we are in complete agreement. My criticism is when people show walkable cities, they need to underline that majority of those people will own a car if they can financially make it happen. Almost bar none.
      - stetrain 1y ago
        I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes the financial component is part of it. Building dense walkable urban developments makes car ownership more expensive and non-car options cheaper and more convenient. Some would argue that in many places car ownership is being subsidized by the way we develop and tax. Some households will still have cars, but households are not the same as individual people. And I think there are plenty of places where the majority of households don’t own cars. You can say they would if it was cheap and convenient enough, but that’s the whole point we’re discussing. Not dedicating so much development and infrastructure to cars will make them less convenient and more expensive options than the alternatives for at least some of the population.
        taeric 1y ago
        I could just be wrong. Nor am I aiming for exaggerated effect, though. I legit have grown to feel that people will get a car if they can afford it. Pretty much everywhere. As I said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. This is related with the housing discussions. People have somewhat convinced themselves that cheap standalone houses are the goal. Which, I suppose there is no reason that can't be the goal. But compare average home size in pretty much any US city with some of these walkable cities you have in mind. When I do that, I start asking how related those two things are. And I'm growing rather convinced that people have built up a mental idea that they can live with all of the benefits of both worlds, without contending with the contrast between them.