I sympathise but I think this post has a few contradictions in it. For example, I'm not surprised the bus in your area is inconvenient schedule-wise because I assume you aren't the only person in your city who drives ten minutes to work. Ten minutes? Wouldn't it take you about thirty minutes maximum to walk in that case?

If the walk would be unpleasant or otherwise not viable, can't that probably be blamed on car systems as well?

I don't think anyone thinks we can get rid of cars entirely. I'm from a country with the same land area as Japan but with ~115 million fewer people. You can't get rid of private vehicles in a place like that. But you can make urban areas less wasteful and more enjoyable.

Ten minutes? Wouldn't it take you about thirty minutes maximum to walk in that case?

You can go a lot more than 1.5mi in 10min if there isn't bad traffic. If 3/10 of those minutes are on a highway that's probably an hour or worth or more of walking.

>If the walk would be unpleasant or otherwise not viable, can't that probably be blamed on car systems as well?

Houston will be hot and Detroit will be cold for several months of the year with or without cars. Having air conditioned boxes that can do last mile transportation is part of why the southern US is as developed as it is. Obviously there becomes a density point where it makes sense to offload a lot of the transportation needs onto public traffic by many cities and suburbs are not there yet.

Regarding weather, that will always be a factor too. I was going to mention it, but I did that thing where I thought I included a sentence then it wasn't there when I reread what I'd written.

I see my position as not car-hostile or car-eliminatory but efficiency-maximising. With that said, this:

>Obviously there becomes a density point where it makes sense to offload a lot of the transportation needs onto public traffic by many cities and suburbs are not there yet.

Is a bit hard to swallow when car-default systems allow indefinite suburban growth. Feedback loop.

To me this appears to be a straw man. Nobody is suggesting outlawing cars wholesale.

The primary observation is this: densely-populated areas of human habitation require denser sorts of infrastructure. The most obvious example is housing: by definition you can't have dense habitation if all you have are large-lot single family homes. Transportation is similar: one person per four-door sedan simply doesn't support the density of a city.

For areas that aren't densely populated, like the backwoods and suburbs where I spent the first 28 years of my life, cars are a great solution. But cities require different solutions (which happen to become economically feasible because of their density, benefiting from economies of scale).

Virtually no one (or at least no one with any sense) is advocating for the elimination of automobiles anywhere aside from dense urban areas. This article is from CityLab, who are chiefly concerned with those sorts of areas, and the article only discusses city centers.

You are arguing against a strawman here.

> People parade around mass transit like it's the end all be all of great things we can do, and being a liberal around most things, I wish that was true. But even the stories about Japan's awesome mass transit make me cringe; stuck in a train for 45 minutes each way? Pass. The hardest conceivable pass. You know what my commute is? I get in my car and drive from my suburb to a business park. It takes 10 bloody minutes. Even driving my pickup truck, I use roughly 30 gallons of fuel every three weeks.

Hey that's pretty great! It sounds like you could be in an area where cars are the right solution to transport. Maybe that's due to population density or roads that were well-planned to get people where they need to go. Unfortunately there are also a lot of places where those things aren't true. In suburbs around Atlanta, Detroit, or Seattle, for example, many people commute 45+ minutes one way in slow-moving traffic. Car insurance can cost $250+ per month, plus gas and maintenance. Personally, I'd much rather spend 45 minutes in a train where I can read, listen to music, check emails, etc.. than in a car where I need to be fully alert. It's much safer too.

> In my area, small-ish city, we have pretty solid mass transit options but it's still a massive pain in the ass because you end up scheduling your entire day around the bus schedule. And if the bus isn't running when you might need to run an errand out?

I don't know the geography / economics of your particular area, but do you think people would be more inclined to use buses if they were more reliable? Adding routes and increasing the frequency of buses might restore some trust in the system. Existing subsidies for cars (public roads, mandatory parking minimums, etc.) could be redirected to public transit for greater effect.

I think we are generally in agreement that most American cities aren't currently set up in a way that makes public transit practical. When I talk about these issues, I'm not saying we should try to retrofit a train system to cities that are otherwise doing just fine. My hope is that articles like this will sway public support in favor of future developments that put an emphasis on people first, not cars. Suburbs originally developed to get away from the danger/congestion/smell of urban areas. But if we can design better urban spaces where people are more comfortable spending time, we can reap the advantages of higher population density. Of course, we can't just copy Japan or Europe. We'll need our own unique system that works for us.

> When I want to run errands, or pop out for lunch, or whatever, I can walk outside and use my vehicle. It's there all the time, 24 hours a day. No app required. No booking required. Certainly no waiting on someone to drive over and get me. There is simply no mass transit option that can equate this, end of.

Ever lived in a real city ? Walking 3 minutes to take the metro and take 5 minutes to get to your destination for something that'll take 15 minutes by car is common in cities like Paris ;-). And it prevents you from becoming fat from not doing anything.

> There is simply no mass transit option that can equate this, end of.

Sure there is - for some situations. There is something called "rapid transit". The working definition is "faster than by car". You actually have that in a few places - Chicago, or New York, for instance. But for it to work, you need a couple of things. It has to go many of the places that people want to go. It has to be very frequent - so frequent that you don't check the schedule. And it has to be somewhat slow to use the car.