AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I'm in Zürich, Switzerland, mass transit is well develloped, bike network can be much improved.

I my opinion car vs transit/walk/bike is mostly a political choice. While good transit/pedestrian/biking infrastructure is important to encourage modal switch, one point has been overlooked in the discussion here: most European countries have made car travel more difficult. In Europe gas prices are much higher then almost everywhere and in towns parking spaces get constantly reduced.

Best regards,
Jonas

Revelation wrote:

It's interesting to me that I've see things flip where people view the quality of life of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard lower than the 2 bedroom apartment in the city. It ties in to my "white flight" comment above. Back in the 50s-90s or so inner cities were viewed as crowded, dirty and dangerous. Most people who could afford it wanted to trade a rental apartment in the city for a mortgage in suburbia. At some point in the 2000s that flipped in many people's minds. Suburbia was too boring. Cities offered more diversity in entertainment, dining, and, yes, people. The great financial crisis meant a lot of people weren't going to get mortgages anyway, so ownership was off the table.

Revelation wrote:

Why not rent a smaller place in the city? Who wants to spend their weekends cutting grass, raking leaves and painting fences?

Revelation wrote:

If you could also get rid of the car and its insurance in the bargain, so much the better.

casinterest wrote:

Ridesharing is different from car travel in the US as it does reduce demand, especially if multiple people are taking it , and the one car is getting multiple uses

luckyone wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I'm in Zürich, Switzerland, mass transit is well develloped, bike network can be much improved.

I my opinion car vs transit/walk/bike is mostly a political choice. While good transit/pedestrian/biking infrastructure is important to encourage modal switch, one point has been overlooked in the discussion here: most European countries have made car travel more difficult. In Europe gas prices are much higher then almost everywhere and in towns parking spaces get constantly reduced.

Best regards,
Jonas

Not to mention most European cities significantly predate the era of the readily available automobile. In many cases, portions of the US were developed BECAUSE of the automobile.

I would also argue that the interstate Highway system facilitated a lot of this as well. It made it possible to “live the dream” of a house out in the suburbs built on cheap, undeveloped land.

Revelation wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

Indeed, a chain of mountainous islands, where farmers have a lot of land rights and power that is not present in other locations. Surburban sprawl was never likely. From what I've seen, the Japanese rail firms hire people to stuff people into the trains. Seems less than ideal to me, but to each its own.

c933103 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I'm in Zürich, Switzerland, mass transit is well develloped, bike network can be much improved.

I my opinion car vs transit/walk/bike is mostly a political choice. While good transit/pedestrian/biking infrastructure is important to encourage modal switch, one point has been overlooked in the discussion here: most European countries have made car travel more difficult. In Europe gas prices are much higher then almost everywhere and in towns parking spaces get constantly reduced.

Best regards,
Jonas

Not to mention most European cities significantly predate the era of the readily available automobile. In many cases, portions of the US were developed BECAUSE of the automobile.

I would also argue that the interstate Highway system facilitated a lot of this as well. It made it possible to “live the dream” of a house out in the suburbs built on cheap, undeveloped land.

US have plenty of cities developed around street cars. It just happens that Americans rendered urban core to be of low desirability.

johns624 wrote:

I went on a 400 mile day trip in my car today---just because I can.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

This is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I went on a 400 mile day trip in my car today---just because I can.

The rail network in greater Tokyo is so large and extends so far that I can take a train to several beaches and more than a dozen hiking locations, just because I can. One of my favorites is a line virtually nobody uses Saturday mornings - 40 minute ride in a luxurious four abreast car, have your brekkie and coffee on the way - get off the train and immediately set off into the surrounding woods and valleys.

ansiia wrote:

I think it has something to do with the "city-scale". Like, there are cities like Paris and Prague (I think any old European city) which were "built" for people to walk, and cities like New York, where you'll never be able to just walk to your destination point (eventually, you'll need to take a taxi or bus). Also, it depends on how high the buildings are and how dense they are. More people in less area -> wider roads -> more cars -> traffic jams. On the other hand, cities like Prague let you walk (at least around the city center) without any problem -- the buildings are shorter and the streets are narrower. Also, the public transport system is way better, hence you most likely don't even need a car in your everyday life.

cpd wrote:

My country is in the same predicament- too much development is car dependent and with so many cars on the road the traffic is horrendous and so people spend sometimes 3 hours per day in traffic commuting to and from work.

It’s not sustainable, but public transport (especially trains) is evil socialism so what do you do…

Some parts of my area of Sydney have connected cycleways but these don’t go far enough or they are not properly maintained and cause accidents, which is what happened to me last year and left me very seriously injured.

My attitude is build more connected cycleways that are direct and go where people need them to go and don’t have too many stops and starts and you’ll probably see a lot of cars go off the road. It’s important too with high fuel prices.

My area is not an inner Sydney socialist elite latte sipping leftie area, it is conservative right wing but even we have a lift of people riding bicycles.

c933103 wrote:

US have plenty of cities developed around street cars. It just happens that Americans rendered urban core to be of low desirability.

ansiia wrote:

I think it has something to do with the "city-scale". Like, there are cities like Paris and Prague (I think any old European city) which were "built" for people to walk, and cities like New York, where you'll never be able to just walk to your destination point (eventually, you'll need to take a taxi or bus). Also, it depends on how high the buildings are and how dense they are. More people in less area -> wider roads -> more cars -> traffic jams. On the other hand, cities like Prague let you walk (at least around the city center) without any problem -- the buildings are shorter and the streets are narrower. Also, the public transport system is way better, hence you most likely don't even need a car in your everyday life.

casinterest wrote:

Interesting and timely youtube posting about how the Freight ownership of the US Track system hinders Amtrack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74

ACDC8 wrote:

While I'm in the same mindset as you, many are not. Personally, I hate cutting grass, weeding, raking leaves, painting sheds, etc. - it takes way too much time of what already is a short weekend. Same with entertaining friends, the costs and time involved to have friends over could better be used by just going out to eat, much more enjoyable for all. The last house I owned had a beautiful backyard with a pool and outdoor kitchen, every weekend it was the same thing - hoards of friends come over and you do all the work.

Aesma wrote:

Have friends with the same setup and do the party once a month at your place and the other times at the others'. Or, I also heard of this, offer your place for the party, but someone else is responsible, brings the food etc.

As for chores, work from home, and take one hour off your workday to do this or that, empty your head.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

True, and applies to ROK and Taiwan as well. They are even more terrain-challenged than Japan.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

True, and applies to ROK and Taiwan as well. They are even more terrain-challenged than Japan.

South Korea is interesting, I’ve taken the train from Seoul to the south twice, you travel through mountains pop out a tunnel to a village with high rise apartments, train station and farms, then back into the mountains or a tunnel. There’s not a lot of freestanding homes near any of the train lines I’ve travelled.

Dutchy wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Ask your fellow countrymen why they moved to Canada or the US, its because they want exactly what we all want, a nice 4 bedroom rancher with a 2 car garage on an acre or two of green grass and a shiny new Cadillac in the driveway. - so, because of that, we built out and not up and with that building outwards, we built the roads. Of course now, we simply don't have the room to build new roads and with a growing population, we need to rethink our way of life but there are a few points that factor in to this change.

Actually no, there is quite a bit known about the migration to Canada and Australia after WWII.

The farmers wanted to go to Canada
And preferably far away. To Australia: it was almost impossible to get further from Europe, so the war would probably not come there. Or to Canada, because there was an infinite amount of land there, with a climate that Dutch farmers knew what to do with. Because farmers needed a lot of space.

The Dutch government was already concerned about this during the Second World War. At that time, plans were already being made from London for how the emigration of farmers would be organized after the war, says Van Faassen. But it wasn't just the concerns of the time that made people decide to emigrate, she says.

Many of the post-war emigrants were young. The adventure probably also beckoned to them. ‘At present, young people often travel all over the world in a gap year. You can actually see that as a kind of modern version of that overseas emigration at the time.

Link

It was the policy of the Dutch government to let people emigrate, especially Dutch farmers.

ACDC8 wrote:

Some metro areas like where I live seem to be much more progressive in this area than other areas. We've started building cities within the city where one can live, work, play, entertain in close proximity - albeit working in your area is still a tough problem to tackle because as soon as these neighbourhood cities go up, owning or renting becomes unaffordable for most so commuting becomes a necessity again, and a car is the most viable option. We really need to tackle the affordable housing crisis in order for this lifestyle change to actually work - if we continue to allow real estate to remain an investment game, then nothing will change.

Our public transportation here in Metro Vancouver is by far one of the best in North America and it has one of the best ridership rates, but its still a far cry from what you see in Europe. I work for transit and I get free system pass that works for the entire region on all modes of public transportation, so technically, I could live with out a car and my transportation costs would be absolutely zero - but to live without a car is simply not something I'm ready for mainly because relying on public transportation eats away at my personal time of which I don't have much of and many others are in the same situation.

Cycling is a recreational sport for most here, not a way to get around, but again, in Metro Vancouver, we have a maze of dedicated bike lanes all over the place, but still, for most, its a weekend thing.

It's a conscious choice about how to build your cities and what kind of transport needs there are. The Dutch made a very conscious choice in the 70-ish to make cities far more bike orientated than car-orientated and that has worked wonders for a number of aspects of life.
I am a fan of the 15-minute city, Link. To make quite compact cities in which people could actually move around and do their daily choirs within 15 minutes of their homes.

Furthermore, one has to ask ourselves the question of why more compact cities with walkable areas are more popular, which you can see for the asking price pr sq-meter. Cars are killing (inner-) cities. Not just bikes compared a cross-town journey by car between an average American town of (I believe) 50,000 people and a Dutch one, of a similar size or even bigger. Conclusion: the average speed was higher in the Netherlands, even for the car. Car-orientated cities aren't necessarily better for cars, strangely enough. And yes, it will be almost impossible for car-orientated cities in the US to make the transition to a more people-orientated city plan. Although a lot could be achieved, actually.



Source

ericbrooks wrote:

This limits the mobility of many, particularly those who cannot afford or do not have access to a car. Walkable infrastructure can provide more freedom and independence.

ericbrooks wrote:

In my opinion, one aspect that is often overlooked in this discussion is the freedom of not having to drive.

johns624 wrote:

ericbrooks wrote:

In my opinion, one aspect that is often overlooked in this discussion is the freedom of not having to drive.

Some of us like to drive.

PHLspecial wrote:

johns624 wrote:

ericbrooks wrote:

In my opinion, one aspect that is often overlooked in this discussion is the freedom of not having to drive.

Some of us like to drive.

That's fine, I don't want to be forced to drive. Get the difference?

johns624 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Some of us like to drive.

That's fine, I don't want to be forced to drive. Get the difference?

Npbody is forcing you. I walk 2-3 miles almost every day and I'm 64. The poster that I was responding to made it seem like driving was punishment.

johns624 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Some of us like to drive.

That's fine, I don't want to be forced to drive. Get the difference?

Npbody is forcing you. I walk 2-3 miles almost every day and I'm 64. The poster that I was responding to made it seem like driving was punishment.

johns624 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Some of us like to drive.

That's fine, I don't want to be forced to drive. Get the difference?

Npbody is forcing you. I walk 2-3 miles almost every day and I'm 64. The poster that I was responding to made it seem like driving was punishment.

Dutchy wrote:

I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

The Netherlands is interesting because they have discovered ways to make suburbs and mid-size towns fully bike / (scooter?) friendly. It is almost unnecessary to own a car to live a normal life anywhere that I saw in Holland. I traveled to around half the major cities and towns. Intercity travel is handled by rail. It would be interesting to see a fully bike / pedestrian friendly suburb in the US.

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

The Netherlands is interesting because they have discovered ways to make suburbs and mid-size towns fully bike / (scooter?) friendly. It is almost unnecessary to own a car to live a normal life anywhere that I saw in Holland. I traveled to around half the major cities and towns. Intercity travel is handled by rail. It would be interesting to see a fully bike / pedestrian friendly suburb in the US.

johns624 wrote:

ericbrooks wrote:

In my opinion, one aspect that is often overlooked in this discussion is the freedom of not having to drive.

Some of us like to drive.

Kiwirob wrote:

The scooter we bought our daughter for her 11th birthday last year she can’t ride and won’t be able to ride since it can do 22kph. Electric bikes can be ridden by anyone of any age, no insurance required.

mxaxai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The scooter we bought our daughter for her 11th birthday last year she can’t ride and won’t be able to ride since it can do 22kph. Electric bikes can be ridden by anyone of any age, no insurance required.

Why doesn't she simply get a car? Then she could go anywhere whenever she wants to. Doesn't even need a sidewalk or bike lane.

petertenthije wrote:

Because she turned 11?

mxaxai wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Because she turned 11?

So how are 11-year-olds supposed to go somewhere without a car, when there is no adequate alternative infrastructure? Stay-at-home parent who drives them at their request?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res electric scooters/skateboards, and other odd 'wheelies'. Most of them travel on sidewalks where they really shouldn't be going over 6 or 7 mph. Cities in the US are just now beginning to gather statistics on injuries and their severity. My suspicions are that more control will be needed. Human heads, and particularly those of our children, need protecting, as well as pedestrians on sidewalks.

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

The Netherlands is interesting because they have discovered ways to make suburbs and mid-size towns fully bike / (scooter?) friendly. It is almost unnecessary to own a car to live a normal life anywhere that I saw in Holland. I traveled to around half the major cities and towns. Intercity travel is handled by rail. It would be interesting to see a fully bike / pedestrian friendly suburb in the US.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Because she turned 11?

So how are 11-year-olds supposed to go somewhere without a car, when there is no adequate alternative infrastructure? Stay-at-home parent who drives them at their request?

Pretty much how it’s worked for the last 60 years.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Because she turned 11?

So how are 11-year-olds supposed to go somewhere without a car, when there is no adequate alternative infrastructure? Stay-at-home parent who drives them at their request?

Pretty much how it’s worked for the last 60 years.

Kiwirob wrote:

The idiots in power in Norway have just made it illegal for children under 12 to use electric scooters, children over 12 have to be insured to ride them, speed is limited to 20kph.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Actually, both of parents worked, but mom was a RN and had some flexibility in her schedule. If it wasn’t raining, we walked to school (there were no school buses in town until the districts were changed and I Bever rode one), walked to the ball fields or activities. Walked so some times in the rain. Mom did take to the hospital and my brother and I watched the ambulances after school. Modern safetyisn has taken over, I guess. To this day, part of the walk to school had no sidewalks. We rode a bike later until driving. This was in CT outside NYC.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Interesting and timely youtube posting about how the Freight ownership of the US Track system hinders Amtrack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74

That was fascinating. Much more complex than meets the eye.

For anyone who wants to nerd out, this is a great representation of the greater Tokyo rail network, includes all public and private lines, as well as Oedo and Tokyo Metro subway systems. Are all accessible via single integrated IC card. From one corner to the other is roughly 200 km.



Source: JR east

ericbrooks wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Ask your fellow countrymen why they moved to Canada or the US, its because they want exactly what we all want, a nice 4 bedroom rancher with a 2 car garage on an acre or two of green grass and a shiny new Cadillac in the driveway. - so, because of that, we built out and not up and with that building outwards, we built the roads. Of course now, we simply don't have the room to build new roads and with a growing population, we need to rethink our way of life but there are a few points that factor in to this change.

Actually no, there is quite a bit known about the migration to Canada and Australia after WWII.

The farmers wanted to go to Canada
And preferably far away. To Australia: it was almost impossible to get further from Europe, so the war would probably not come there. Or to Canada, because there was an infinite amount of land there, with a climate that Dutch farmers knew what to do with. Because farmers needed a lot of space.

The Dutch government was already concerned about this during the Second World War. At that time, plans were already being made from London for how the emigration of farmers would be organized after the war, says Van Faassen. But it wasn't just the concerns of the time that made people decide to emigrate, she says.

Many of the post-war emigrants were young. The adventure probably also beckoned to them. ‘At present, young people often travel all over the world in a gap year. You can actually see that as a kind of modern version of that overseas emigration at the time.

Link

It was the policy of the Dutch government to let people emigrate, especially Dutch farmers.

ACDC8 wrote:

Some metro areas like where I live seem to be much more progressive in this area than other areas. We've started building cities within the city where one can live, work, play, entertain in close proximity - albeit working in your area is still a tough problem to tackle because as soon as these neighbourhood cities go up, owning or renting becomes unaffordable for most so commuting becomes a necessity again, and a car is the most viable option. We really need to tackle the affordable housing crisis in order for this lifestyle change to actually work - if we continue to allow real estate to remain an investment game, then nothing will change.

Our public transportation here in Metro Vancouver is by far one of the best in North America and it has one of the best ridership rates, but its still a far cry from what you see in Europe. I work for transit and I get free system pass that works for the entire region on all modes of public transportation, so technically, I could live with out a car and my transportation costs would be absolutely zero - but to live without a car is simply not something I'm ready for mainly because relying on public transportation eats away at my personal time of which I don't have much of and many others are in the same situation.

Cycling is a recreational sport for most here, not a way to get around, but again, in Metro Vancouver, we have a maze of dedicated bike lanes all over the place, but still, for most, its a weekend thing.

It's a conscious choice about how to build your cities and what kind of transport needs there are. The Dutch made a very conscious choice in the 70-ish to make cities far more bike orientated than car-orientated and that has worked wonders for a number of aspects of life.
I am a fan of the 15-minute city, Link. To make quite compact cities in which people could actually move around and do their daily choirs within 15 minutes of their homes.

Furthermore, one has to ask ourselves the question of why more compact cities with walkable areas are more popular, which you can see for the asking price pr sq-meter. Cars are killing (inner-) cities. Not just bikes compared a cross-town journey by car between an average American town of (I believe) 50,000 people and a Dutch one, of a similar size or even bigger. Conclusion: the average speed was higher in the Netherlands, even for the car. Car-orientated cities aren't necessarily better for cars, strangely enough. And yes, it will be almost impossible for car-orientated cities in the US to make the transition to a more people-orientated city plan. Although a lot could be achieved, actually.



Source

I’ve seen Dr. Peterson recent statements defending cars and not much favourable towards walkable/bikeable infrastructure, so I’m curious about the general opinion of this sub.

In my opinion, one aspect that is often overlooked in this discussion is the freedom of not having to drive. I think that, especially in America, we are so car dependent that even running simple basic errands depends on cars. This limits the mobility of many, particularly those who cannot afford or do not have access to a car. Walkable infrastructure can provide more freedom and independence. But the key word is infrastructure, not just random streets here and there.

In my view, cities must prioritize walkable infrastructure and reduce car infrastructure. They are better for human health, better for local businesses, better for the environment, foster a sense of community and provide more freedom for its citizens.

I understand that cars are an essential part of modern life, and I’m not trying to “save the planet”. But cars should not be prioritized, especially in the city centers.

What are your thoughts?