3 ms·

I've never had a driver's licence, lived in a zillion countries; don't think I could do that in America though.

Retric 11mo ago
Over half of New York City households are car-free. That jumps to 3/4 in Manhattan. Millions of American households don’t have a car, but you rarely hear about it as a viable option.
- JoeBOFH 11mo ago
  Because as soon as you leave a major metropolitan area, not having a car is almost a nonstarter.
  - add-sub-mul-div 11mo ago
    Over 100 million people live in just the top 20 metro areas alone. It's hardly an edge case.
    - cwillu 11mo ago
      And _not_ living in one of the top 20 metro areas is also hardly an edge case.
      - ghaff 11mo ago
        And even in most of those metros (OK. Leave aside Manhattan), not having a car tends to imply a lot of lifestyle choices in terms of activities, visiting friends outside of the metro, etc. There are certainly people who are OK with living like they did in their urban school for a few years after graduation. But that's not a long-term solution for most people.
    - vel0city 11mo ago
      A massive chunk (if not majority?) of those top 20 metro areas are largely car dependent for most of their populations. Large areas don't have any public transit at all, and the rest is often designed to be actively hostile to pedestrians. Try living without a car in these places, all in the 4th largest MSA. https://maps.app.goo.gl/mHmGidZRJaKptHeL8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/mHmGidZRJaKptHeL8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/5P4mW5iM6b5ab9Ve7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/5P4mW5iM6b5ab9Ve7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JCiBgESKs5ZWqGny8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JCiBgESKs5ZWqGny8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/E1iVwLCB28ooGhQL9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/E1iVwLCB28ooGhQL9 These are all in "urban" areas and a part of DFW. But how about Houston, the 5th? https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yEAimERmyE1EGde6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yEAimERmyE1EGde6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKSQjPqifWUSv82H7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKSQjPqifWUSv82H7 I don't know how one would even get groceries without a car. And even then, you're then talking about less than 1/3 of Americans living in that mostly car dependent space.
  - SoftTalker 11mo ago
    It's the same in Europe, but people pushing an agenda don't talk about that either.
    - oblio 11mo ago
      The US takes this to an entirely different level. In places like Vegas, even on days with great weather, trying to WALK 2-3km in residential areas is a nightmare.
    - tavavex 11mo ago
      People who are "pushing an agenda" aren't arguing that there should be no cars ever, anywhere. Cars are the smallest-scale form of long-distance transport, they are unavoidable in low-density areas or for services that requires complete flexibility. All the agenda-pushers I've seen in real life are just saying that there's better options within cities, at least for a lot of people. Most of the time, most people only move within their cities, myself included. If transit within my city was in any way adequate, I would choose it over the car. I could cover those rare out-of-city edge cases with rentals or train travel. Besides, it's not even the same in Europe. In a few countries, maybe, but in the majority the inter-city transit or transit within small towns is not even in the same universe as what's available in most of the US.
- calvinmorrison 11mo ago
  "the best public transit in the densest US city barely manages to reach 50% of car-free lifestyle" is what you're leaving out.
  - Retric 11mo ago
    A household not having a car is a much higher benchmark than being able to live a car free lifestyle. It’s common for people to own a car and not use it for weeks, months, or in some cases years at a time.
- drnick1 11mo ago
  I would argue that even in NYC, having a car is necessary if you ever want to leave NYC (and you will want to).
  - Retric 11mo ago
    It’s not useful if you generally fly most places you travel to. An of course if you’re going months-years without using a car then renting becomes relatively more convenient.
- tavavex 11mo ago
  NYC is the absolute best case in the US, if you're talking about the ability to exist without a car. It's not that no one talks about those millions of households, it's that they are all concentrated on a few standout islands (literally!) in a sea of the nearly identical car-only supermajority of cities. It's the exception to all exceptions.
  - Retric 11mo ago
    Most people live on a few islands of density in a sea of nearly empty land in the US.
    - tavavex 11mo ago
      Most people live in cities, but the vast majority of American cities do not approach even 10% of the quality and availability of transit in NYC. That's why I said that NYC is a massive outlier among the rest of the US.
      - Retric 11mo ago
        I don’t think the average city is a useful comparison when more people live in larger cities which tend to have better mass transit options. People live car free in a wide range of cities, it’s more convenient for more people in NYC thus the large percentage of people doing so, but the percentage is rarely zero.

Retric 11mo ago

Over half of New York City households are car-free. That jumps to 3/4 in Manhattan. Millions of American households don’t have a car, but you rarely hear about it as a viable option.

JoeBOFH 11mo ago
Because as soon as you leave a major metropolitan area, not having a car is almost a nonstarter.
- add-sub-mul-div 11mo ago
  Over 100 million people live in just the top 20 metro areas alone. It's hardly an edge case.
  - cwillu 11mo ago
    And _not_ living in one of the top 20 metro areas is also hardly an edge case.
    - ghaff 11mo ago
      And even in most of those metros (OK. Leave aside Manhattan), not having a car tends to imply a lot of lifestyle choices in terms of activities, visiting friends outside of the metro, etc. There are certainly people who are OK with living like they did in their urban school for a few years after graduation. But that's not a long-term solution for most people.
  - vel0city 11mo ago
    A massive chunk (if not majority?) of those top 20 metro areas are largely car dependent for most of their populations. Large areas don't have any public transit at all, and the rest is often designed to be actively hostile to pedestrians. Try living without a car in these places, all in the 4th largest MSA. https://maps.app.goo.gl/mHmGidZRJaKptHeL8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/mHmGidZRJaKptHeL8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/5P4mW5iM6b5ab9Ve7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/5P4mW5iM6b5ab9Ve7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JCiBgESKs5ZWqGny8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/JCiBgESKs5ZWqGny8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/E1iVwLCB28ooGhQL9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/E1iVwLCB28ooGhQL9 These are all in "urban" areas and a part of DFW. But how about Houston, the 5th? https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yEAimERmyE1EGde6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yEAimERmyE1EGde6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKSQjPqifWUSv82H7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKSQjPqifWUSv82H7 I don't know how one would even get groceries without a car. And even then, you're then talking about less than 1/3 of Americans living in that mostly car dependent space.
- SoftTalker 11mo ago
  It's the same in Europe, but people pushing an agenda don't talk about that either.
  - oblio 11mo ago
    The US takes this to an entirely different level. In places like Vegas, even on days with great weather, trying to WALK 2-3km in residential areas is a nightmare.
  - tavavex 11mo ago
    People who are "pushing an agenda" aren't arguing that there should be no cars ever, anywhere. Cars are the smallest-scale form of long-distance transport, they are unavoidable in low-density areas or for services that requires complete flexibility. All the agenda-pushers I've seen in real life are just saying that there's better options within cities, at least for a lot of people. Most of the time, most people only move within their cities, myself included. If transit within my city was in any way adequate, I would choose it over the car. I could cover those rare out-of-city edge cases with rentals or train travel. Besides, it's not even the same in Europe. In a few countries, maybe, but in the majority the inter-city transit or transit within small towns is not even in the same universe as what's available in most of the US.
calvinmorrison 11mo ago
"the best public transit in the densest US city barely manages to reach 50% of car-free lifestyle" is what you're leaving out.
- Retric 11mo ago
  A household not having a car is a much higher benchmark than being able to live a car free lifestyle. It’s common for people to own a car and not use it for weeks, months, or in some cases years at a time.
drnick1 11mo ago
I would argue that even in NYC, having a car is necessary if you ever want to leave NYC (and you will want to).
- Retric 11mo ago
  It’s not useful if you generally fly most places you travel to. An of course if you’re going months-years without using a car then renting becomes relatively more convenient.
tavavex 11mo ago
NYC is the absolute best case in the US, if you're talking about the ability to exist without a car. It's not that no one talks about those millions of households, it's that they are all concentrated on a few standout islands (literally!) in a sea of the nearly identical car-only supermajority of cities. It's the exception to all exceptions.
- Retric 11mo ago
  Most people live on a few islands of density in a sea of nearly empty land in the US.
  - tavavex 11mo ago
    Most people live in cities, but the vast majority of American cities do not approach even 10% of the quality and availability of transit in NYC. That's why I said that NYC is a massive outlier among the rest of the US.
    - Retric 11mo ago
      I don’t think the average city is a useful comparison when more people live in larger cities which tend to have better mass transit options. People live car free in a wide range of cities, it’s more convenient for more people in NYC thus the large percentage of people doing so, but the percentage is rarely zero.