4 ms·

Isn't it also a way to keep outsiders out? If 30 mins by car becomes 1h30 by train+bus combinations, lots of people are effectively pushed out of even wanting t

by j1elo 1y ago

Isn't it also a way to keep outsiders out? If 30 mins by car becomes 1h30 by train+bus combinations, lots of people are effectively pushed out of even wanting to go to the city centre for meeting friends or having a family walk around.

andrepd 1y ago
There's no way "30 min by car" is a thing unless you bulldoze the entirety of Central London and replace it with freeways and parking lots. It's always a red herring. Cars are simply not viable past a certain density. It's silly (misleading at worst) to take a distance (say 40km) and a speed (say 80kph) and just claim the journey by car takes 30mins, ignoring everything else! Trains + metro + bikes are the only way to make the journey you describe viable (and comfortable and fast).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- j1elo 1y ago
  That's based on real world times in the european capital I live in. Also the original point was for a city like Oslo.
  - LadyCailin 1y ago
    I can confirm. I live on the outskirts of Oslo, and it is substantially faster for me to drive in the city center, Rather than take public transit. Cheaper too! Although parking is paid for by my job, if it wasn’t, public transit would be cheaper, depending on how long I parked.
jeromegv 1y ago
You say it keeps outsider out. Let’s not forget people living there already, if you build a car dependant city around them they often get pushed out or have to live through car hell. Not a lot of car dependant city have a thriving and livable downtown, in fact I would love to see which city is having a good quality life in their center while making it easy for cars to come in and out to the suburbs.
- j1elo 1y ago
  Given how things are being consciously designed (via policies and/or lack of political action), the "people living there already" are just those rich enough to not have yet felt pushed out due to the housing crisis (but give them time). That maybe would be just life, but on the other hand you have lots of other policies that also favor centralization of job creation, development, cultural and entertainment opportunities, etc. So what gives? it's all a big contradiction (not economically, but socially)
  - majormajor 1y ago
    If you want to fight the housing crisis decentralization would be a big win. So if the city is hostile, why not set up outside of it? People already in the city can commute to you; people not already in the city can move outside the city and the surrounding areas can grow over time. If there are professionals willing to pay continually-higher portions of their salary to live in the city regardless of who they displace then why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? In some places there is a huge weather or natural-feature draw that will always prop up demand, but in others there isn't. There's just a lack of imagination and effort.
    - j1elo 1y ago
      > why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? Because people want to live their lives today, while what you propose takes decades and must be a process worked on by Town Halls, not "the people". And no, it's not the same. The Town Hall of rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, is dominated by rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, not the people who is more affected by the excessive centralization.
epolanski 1y ago
Why would 30 minutes by car become 1.30 hours by public transport. My (European) experience is the opposite: it takes longer to go to work by car, you're sitting in traffic whereas subways and trains take a fraction of the time as they are not impacted at all. I live in Rome, which isn't known for great public transport. Yet I've seen multiple times people going from Rome suburbs to Naples downtown (a completely different region, 150 miles away) than it took me by car to do 7 miles.
- h2zizzle 1y ago
  Unfortunately, America exported our car-privileging planning and policies, so those places that accepted our "expertise" buffed car travel as much as possible - traffic catches up, of course, but that's when the nerfs to public transit come in. It can be a number of strategies come to bear, including poor access to transit nodes, long wait times between service, and disruptions (American trains often have to wait for commercial traffic on rails). I can't speak for London, but if you're unfortunate enough to not live close to certain Washington, DC Metro stops, you're limited to driving to and parking at them, or to commuter options. Both are not ideal, timewise, but save you parking costs and sitting in traffic behind the wheel.
  - majormajor 1y ago
    So cars and their use are entirely American inventions now? That's some new levels of American Exceptionalism...
    - h2zizzle 1y ago
      America wasn't devastated by WWII. Our pre-war car infrastructure wasn't destroyed, and post-war prosperity meant that it was more economical than it might have been, in the short term, to put every American family into a car. Countries with populations temporarily too poor to afford vehicles, and gas, and roads, and pump stations, and gas lines, and so on, would have been more likely to build mass transit. Once wealth returned, American consultation (and aspiration to our relatively more affluent lifestyles) would have come into play. It's a rare case where American Exceptionalism is a fact.

by j1elo 1y ago

andrepd 1y ago

There's no way "30 min by car" is a thing unless you bulldoze the entirety of Central London and replace it with freeways and parking lots. It's always a red herring. Cars are simply not viable past a certain density. It's silly (misleading at worst) to take a distance (say 40km) and a speed (say 80kph) and just claim the journey by car takes 30mins, ignoring everything else! Trains + metro + bikes are the only way to make the journey you describe viable (and comfortable and fast).

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
j1elo 1y ago
That's based on real world times in the european capital I live in. Also the original point was for a city like Oslo.
- LadyCailin 1y ago
  I can confirm. I live on the outskirts of Oslo, and it is substantially faster for me to drive in the city center, Rather than take public transit. Cheaper too! Although parking is paid for by my job, if it wasn’t, public transit would be cheaper, depending on how long I parked.

jeromegv 1y ago

You say it keeps outsider out. Let’s not forget people living there already, if you build a car dependant city around them they often get pushed out or have to live through car hell. Not a lot of car dependant city have a thriving and livable downtown, in fact I would love to see which city is having a good quality life in their center while making it easy for cars to come in and out to the suburbs.

j1elo 1y ago
Given how things are being consciously designed (via policies and/or lack of political action), the "people living there already" are just those rich enough to not have yet felt pushed out due to the housing crisis (but give them time). That maybe would be just life, but on the other hand you have lots of other policies that also favor centralization of job creation, development, cultural and entertainment opportunities, etc. So what gives? it's all a big contradiction (not economically, but socially)
- majormajor 1y ago
  If you want to fight the housing crisis decentralization would be a big win. So if the city is hostile, why not set up outside of it? People already in the city can commute to you; people not already in the city can move outside the city and the surrounding areas can grow over time. If there are professionals willing to pay continually-higher portions of their salary to live in the city regardless of who they displace then why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? In some places there is a huge weather or natural-feature draw that will always prop up demand, but in others there isn't. There's just a lack of imagination and effort.
  - j1elo 1y ago
    > why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? Because people want to live their lives today, while what you propose takes decades and must be a process worked on by Town Halls, not "the people". And no, it's not the same. The Town Hall of rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, is dominated by rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, not the people who is more affected by the excessive centralization.

epolanski 1y ago

Why would 30 minutes by car become 1.30 hours by public transport. My (European) experience is the opposite: it takes longer to go to work by car, you're sitting in traffic whereas subways and trains take a fraction of the time as they are not impacted at all. I live in Rome, which isn't known for great public transport. Yet I've seen multiple times people going from Rome suburbs to Naples downtown (a completely different region, 150 miles away) than it took me by car to do 7 miles.

h2zizzle 1y ago
Unfortunately, America exported our car-privileging planning and policies, so those places that accepted our "expertise" buffed car travel as much as possible - traffic catches up, of course, but that's when the nerfs to public transit come in. It can be a number of strategies come to bear, including poor access to transit nodes, long wait times between service, and disruptions (American trains often have to wait for commercial traffic on rails). I can't speak for London, but if you're unfortunate enough to not live close to certain Washington, DC Metro stops, you're limited to driving to and parking at them, or to commuter options. Both are not ideal, timewise, but save you parking costs and sitting in traffic behind the wheel.
- majormajor 1y ago
  So cars and their use are entirely American inventions now? That's some new levels of American Exceptionalism...
  - h2zizzle 1y ago
    America wasn't devastated by WWII. Our pre-war car infrastructure wasn't destroyed, and post-war prosperity meant that it was more economical than it might have been, in the short term, to put every American family into a car. Countries with populations temporarily too poor to afford vehicles, and gas, and roads, and pump stations, and gas lines, and so on, would have been more likely to build mass transit. Once wealth returned, American consultation (and aspiration to our relatively more affluent lifestyles) would have come into play. It's a rare case where American Exceptionalism is a fact.