undefined

points

[-]

This will work for a few cities like New York or San Francisco but not for rural communities and won't be efficient for smaller cities or towns that are spread out. At least not without sacrificing independency and speed, which we're constantly trying to escape from

by ericmay23 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If you’re thinking about New York and San Francisco when you’re thinking about transportation you are starting off on the wrong frame of reference. Think more like a random city or town in Europe, perhaps Bordeaux since I was recently reading about it. Smaller cities/towns with tiny populations shouldn’t dictate how everyone else lives and suck up resources and taxpayer dollars for asinine highway projects.

Most of America lives in urban areas. Rural communities, where they exist, have no need to change. Running busses out there doesn’t make sense. What also doesn’t make sense is, for example, in Ohio the Ohio Department of Highways (ODOT) spending a billion dollars to “ease congestion” in downtown Columbus, Ohio so that folks can live further away and drive to work or whatever. It’s a tax subsidy that I don’t think we should pay, and it’s not a good use of money objectively either.

Second we don’t have to make this trade off you are imagining. I live in a European style (as close as you can probably get in America) neighborhood with shops and restaurants within walking distance. I also have a large garage (with only one car) and live in a single family home, and live alongside duplexes, triplexes, big houses, small houses, shops, and more. Today I can use my car as you’d expect. But what’s missing is the ability to not use my car to go to the grocery store and get a steak or something.

With respect to safety you can just avoid the problem by switching products. Walk, bike, rail and you don’t have to get in a car crash.

The trade-offs that folks think must exist simply do not exist. The trade-offs are do we spend an absorbent amount of money, have more people die, face insurance premiums that increase with no recourse, have to be upset at gas prices, &c.

Or do we just not do that?

by littlecorner21 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm thinking more from my context where it probably wouldn't make sense. Small city that's rather spread out and quickly transitions into farmland. And a big culture of driving to neighboring counties for vacations

Which is the difficulty in talking about "America needs to do such and such": we are much more diverse, and when we're talking about one context someone else hears their context or isn't able to imagine a different context. Perhaps these kind of conversations would be better had at local levels than national

by ericmay20 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's a fair criticism, but most of America does live in cities and urban environments and so the default context would be more akin to what I described. Where you live is the minority and the exception.

Unfortunately transportation policy is heavily influenced at the national level and the federal government doles out gargantuan amounts of funding to keep the highway lobbying industry happy. We can't only have a local conversation or even a state conversation, though of course those conversations happen as well and are arguably more important.

by pbkompasz1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Yes, instead of fixing the problem let's go back 100 years and start walking everywhere. It's easy for someone that works for home or an in office, but most people truly rely on their cars, otherwise they would lose hours everyday...

by vkazanov1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Public transit is not "100 years back". London, uk is not exactly backwards looking in that sense, and the vast majority of people use trains/metto to go to work.

I walk 10k steps a day on a normal day, only drive when necessary to go out of my normal routes. This has an added benefit of keeping me, an aging programmer, in shape (as well as other relevant activities).

Nothing dramatic about it at all.

by krembanan1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Most people in societies built car-first/only (USA) truly rely on their cars. The situation is not the same in big parts of Europe and Asia. We can go 100 years forward and fund public infrastructure which is better for the environment, more safe and gives a much higher socio-economic value (except for the highway lobby).

by ericmay20 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> but most people truly rely on their cars, otherwise they would lose hours everyday...

They lose hours, lives, and a boatload of money every day in the current state. Removing the reliance on cars will improve those things.

by asdff1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It is healthy to walk. You should be walking probably an hour a day at least if we are being honest. You are made to hunt and forage all day, not sit down. Use it or lose it.

by dublinben1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

It’s okay to be anti-car. Even if you own a car and use it regularly. There’s more than enough reasons to be anti-car. Just pick your favorite.

by ericmay22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Maybe but I think it's very very very bad policy. For example: The War on Cars. Decent content but the framing alienates people and creates a wedge issue where none need exist. We need to get folks on the same page instead of dividing them. When you say you're anti-car folks who drive a car will say well I drive a car, you're anti-me!! And then we now have people who might otherwise be indifferent becoming hostile to transit.