Doesn't the "us vs. them" mentality come from the fact that most of Strong Towns' ideas will make life worse for everyone who needs to drive, without giving most of them an alternative to driving?
That's not necessarily a given:
Fewer cars on the road means less competition.
Bike lanes have more capacity to move people.
Well designed intersections and bike lanes mean that you aren't competing against cyclists and pedestrians for road space you're coexisting along just fine.
I disagree that they'll accomplish this for most people. In particular, what about all of the people who live in suburbs but work in the city?
Mixed-use zoning is much more effective. We do this in Europe, it's pretty nice being able to cycle to work and walk to the shops (not that I cycle to work personally, but almost all my jobs have been within cycling range).
ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.
The only thing ST says here is "let existing suburbs be what they are", which sounds like what you want as well.
Why do you specifically need to drive and park at the exact location you're going to, especially when the land cost of the storage place of your empty car is prohibitively expensive (as they tend to be in urban CBDs)?
I live in Cambridge on the Boston subway system. It’s probably (barely) in the top 5 in the US and it sucks compared to European cities I’ve visited or lived in.
Because sometimes I have to go to work in weather conditions like hailstorms, thunderstorms, or freezing rain.
He has a bunch of videos that address common complaints that people who've only known car-dependent lifestyles bring up.
Here's a good example of how to design functional bicycle infrastructure for a seemingly hostile climate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
We’ve built our society around cars, and it’s enabled a much higher quality of life. Mass transit sucks. I’ve been to pretty much every tier-I city on the planet and the ones that really pushed transit (Hong Kong comes to mind) were by far the worst.
In the US roads and interstates were built for cars. We love being able to leave when we want, not worry about the weather, and have large homes far (in miles, not time… thanks again cars) from city centers.
Bikes do not belong on high speed automotive networks, it slows everyone else down and is extremely dangerous for the cyclist.
Strange. I've also been to some "tier-I" cities myself and liked the ones that really pushed transit the most (Tokyo comes to mind).
The idea is that a well planned city/suburb will turn car people into people that also enjoy safely not using a car some of the time.
> let the anti car people have their crowded little streets with no parking elsewhere.
Bleh. Such an us vs them mentality. I'm suspicious of cars because I have literally gotten hit by them while cycling (edit: multiple times, thank you very much). I'm not "anti car."
Try getting hit by 2 tons of metal and see how that makes you feel about safe infrastructure.