4 ms·

You guys are talking past each other. One of you is pointing out that cars are a necessity for some in the current reality. The other is pointing out that we c

You guys are talking past each other. One of you is pointing out that cars are a necessity for some in the current reality. The other is pointing out that we could change that reality like other places have. You are both right. I am very against the continuation of car primacy in urban design, but I live in a place where that is the current reality, so for all practical reasons I need at least one car in my household. I advocate for the changes so that isn't true and see that it is possible to live otherwise, but it isn't reality right now, so I own a car. Me owning a car isn't to "rationalize [my] bad choices and poor capacity for civic organization." I do it because the housing that I can afford, in the country that I live in is in an area where that is necessary. In the meantime I advocate for better transit and other options, but I am not omnipotent, and even those with tremendous amounts of power cannot make these changes happen quickly given the 75+ years of infrastructure and urban design. You are tremendously mean-spirited and un-empathetic in proclaiming that those that don't agree with you are 'lazy' and 'not willing to sacrifice their own convenience for some communal benefit'. Try understanding where people are coming from. Many believe as strongly as you do, and can provide just as many backing youtube videos, that cars are an unalloyed good. If you come at them this aggressively telling them that the places they live are just plain wrong, you will not convince them of anything. As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They are in the top 25% for per capita car ownership worldwide, and have higher rates of car ownership rates than Denmark, Sweden, Greece and Croatia which isn't even all of the countries in Europe with lower rates of car ownership. Hell, they have more than double the rate of car ownership of Saudi Arabia, a country that subsidizes fuel prices to encourage car use.

bpt3 1y ago
The Dutch have a lot of cars because they are rich. The ugly truth (for public transit zealots like the parent poster) is that there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit, unless they live and work in a place with extremely high population density. They keep ranting about how cars are a luxury, and they are right, but basically want to change human nature to suit their preferences IMO.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  That's a bit too far in the other direction. I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car. My in-laws live in Rotterdam, and cycle and transit for most day to day stuff. But they also own and use a car, when appropriate (they do have big box stores and suburbs in - gasp - bike crazy Rotterdam). People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours. But as you stated, most people who can afford a car do end up with one, even if it isn't their primary mode of transit.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    > That's a bit too far in the other direction. I don't think so, but partially because the person I responded to is off the charts in the anti-car direction. > I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car. Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense. > People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours. The issue is that there are very few places where it's cheaper and faster to take public transit. The solutions most transit advocates come up with involve kneecapping car usage so public transit can compete or insisting people live at density levels most find unacceptable, neither of which are practically feasible.
    - dghlsakjg 1y ago
      > there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit But also: > Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense. I apologize for taking your word as literal. The first quote is what I was really responding to. There is a middle ground, it just sounded like you didn't know it existed.
- 1y ago
rglullis 1y ago
> You guys are talking past each other. Agreed. > but it isn't reality right now, so I own a car. This means that you at least consider a possibility of living without a car. You at least understand that there is nothing about the US making it impossible to work towards car independence. I have no reason to argue with you or people who share this sentiment. I do get upset at the people who think that this situation is static and that it can not be changed, ever. But I get more upset at the people who complain at the North American reality only when they are directly suffering from it, and act like when the systemic problem doesn't exist anymore just because they manage to "solve the issue" for themselves. > As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They have high rates of car ownership, but they are not car dependent. Even the people who have to drive for work use cars only for longer distance trips, and walk/bike/use public transport for shorter ones. In Greece, much like in the US, people assume that you have to have a car to do anything.
btilly 1y ago
I agree. But I'm also pointing to the fact that this is easier to change in some places than others. It doesn't just take will to change. It takes more will in some places than others. Because you have to fight against the layout and built up infrastructure of the area. Conversely, the other person is pointing to how friendly Amsterdam is to not having a car. The fact that lots of people there have cars doesn't take away from the fact that it is easy to live there and not have a car. Just like the number of TVs in America don't take away from the fact that it is easy to live in America and not own a TV. (Case in point. I live in America, and haven't owned a TV in 20 years.)
Mawr 1y ago
> As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They are in the top 25% for per capita car ownership worldwide, and have higher rates of car ownership rates than Denmark, Sweden, Greece and Croatia which isn't even all of the countries in Europe with lower rates of car ownership. Hell, they have more than double the rate of car ownership of Saudi Arabia, a country that subsidizes fuel prices to encourage car use. Wrong usage of statistics. The rate of car ownership is not the metric to look at, but rather the % of trips taken by car vs bike.

bpt3 1y ago

The Dutch have a lot of cars because they are rich. The ugly truth (for public transit zealots like the parent poster) is that there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit, unless they live and work in a place with extremely high population density. They keep ranting about how cars are a luxury, and they are right, but basically want to change human nature to suit their preferences IMO.

dghlsakjg 1y ago
That's a bit too far in the other direction. I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car. My in-laws live in Rotterdam, and cycle and transit for most day to day stuff. But they also own and use a car, when appropriate (they do have big box stores and suburbs in - gasp - bike crazy Rotterdam). People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours. But as you stated, most people who can afford a car do end up with one, even if it isn't their primary mode of transit.
- bpt3 1y ago
  > That's a bit too far in the other direction. I don't think so, but partially because the person I responded to is off the charts in the anti-car direction. > I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car. Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense. > People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours. The issue is that there are very few places where it's cheaper and faster to take public transit. The solutions most transit advocates come up with involve kneecapping car usage so public transit can compete or insisting people live at density levels most find unacceptable, neither of which are practically feasible.
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    > there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit But also: > Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense. I apologize for taking your word as literal. The first quote is what I was really responding to. There is a middle ground, it just sounded like you didn't know it existed.
1y ago

rglullis 1y ago

> You guys are talking past each other. Agreed. > but it isn't reality right now, so I own a car. This means that you at least consider a possibility of living without a car. You at least understand that there is nothing about the US making it impossible to work towards car independence. I have no reason to argue with you or people who share this sentiment. I do get upset at the people who think that this situation is static and that it can not be changed, ever. But I get more upset at the people who complain at the North American reality only when they are directly suffering from it, and act like when the systemic problem doesn't exist anymore just because they manage to "solve the issue" for themselves. > As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They have high rates of car ownership, but they are not car dependent. Even the people who have to drive for work use cars only for longer distance trips, and walk/bike/use public transport for shorter ones. In Greece, much like in the US, people assume that you have to have a car to do anything.

btilly 1y ago

I agree. But I'm also pointing to the fact that this is easier to change in some places than others. It doesn't just take will to change. It takes more will in some places than others. Because you have to fight against the layout and built up infrastructure of the area. Conversely, the other person is pointing to how friendly Amsterdam is to not having a car. The fact that lots of people there have cars doesn't take away from the fact that it is easy to live there and not have a car. Just like the number of TVs in America don't take away from the fact that it is easy to live in America and not own a TV. (Case in point. I live in America, and haven't owned a TV in 20 years.)

Mawr 1y ago

> As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They are in the top 25% for per capita car ownership worldwide, and have higher rates of car ownership rates than Denmark, Sweden, Greece and Croatia which isn't even all of the countries in Europe with lower rates of car ownership. Hell, they have more than double the rate of car ownership of Saudi Arabia, a country that subsidizes fuel prices to encourage car use. Wrong usage of statistics. The rate of car ownership is not the metric to look at, but rather the % of trips taken by car vs bike.