Preach. I moved somewhere where I could be car free and it's very liberating and one less thing to stress about

We also need to reduce the need for transportation. There’s no need for traveling to work for many white-collar jobs, except for propping up highly toxic industries such as commercial real estate, restaurants, oil, and of course car sales and manufacturing.

Maybe we should just reduce the need for white-collar jobs? Since we don't exist in the Metaverse yet, most things that we actually "need" are performed by blue-collar people and almost always involve transporting atoms around.

> propping up highly toxic industries such as commercial real estate, restaurants, oil, and of course car sales and manufacturing

This reminds me of the assertion that inflation is below 2% now, if we exclude food, energy, shelter, and used cars[0]. Life is great, if we don't meet in person to do work, break bread together, and get ourselves around to provide goods and services?

What's left, if you remove the "highly toxic" industries?

[0]: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1712494317024026761

If you live where you have to have a car, no subway's ever going to fix your problem.

Counterpoint: A modern-era, used, non-luxury, vehicle is an amazing value for a precision-engineered product with astounding utility. There are a lot of places in the US you can get to by car, but not by public transit.

Over the last few years used cars have been selling at basically the same price as new (sometimes even more). It is no longer a big money saver to buy used, especially when you factor in increased maintenance/repair costs.

Definitely. Not many deals to be had anymore. A lot of this is due to short supply (supply chain issues with chips, strikes, etc.), but some of it is also due to cars being so much more reliable now (and therefor more valuable even when used).

it's a good counterpoint. but basically we're saying the car is a good bandaid for the foolishness of city planning (spacing things way too far apart, having the stores be min of 2 miles from most houses, placing disproportionate office space to housing ratio, nearest library like 4 miles away and yet its the size of an amusement park).

don't forget about registration costs, endless repairs and maintenance, parking costs. I'd love to live in a walkable or bikable area.

The problem is that people cannot afford to live in city centers. Especially those with families.

You would think corporations would finally place their offices in more liveable areas but for some reason they feel the need to build in city centers, and inconvenience their employees.

There's also a problem with urban planning, zoning & parking req, all of them contributing to less supply of living space

"If you live somewhere where you have to drive, you are a captive audience"

I don't think you appreciate just how incredibly massive this country is. I have to drive 15 miles to work everyday. If I couldn't drive, I would literally just starve and die (or, I suppose start working as a local farmhand).

It's funny, I feel the same way about people who live in small areas and don't have the ability to independently go anywhere they want at any time without having to rely on someone else. The "walkable city" feels like a hellscape archetype for the most captive audience you could ever possibly conceive...

> I don't think you appreciate just how incredibly massive this country is.

On the other hand, I don’t think you appreciate how much vehicle usage in this country is tied to round trip commutes to and from an urban center

I don’t think anyone is arguing that a rural lifestyle should exist on bikes and trains because that doesn’t make sense. However people who live adjacent to a city and go into the city every day, aren’t living a rural lifestyle.

> It's funny, I feel the same way about people who live in small areas and don't have the ability to independently go anywhere they want at any time without having to rely on someone else. The "walkable city" feels like a hellscape archetype for the most captive audience you could ever possibly conceive...

These are not mutually exclusive concepts unless you live in Manhattan.

I live a 10 minute walk to a subway station that brings me downtown to work. I also have a driveway and a car, and sometimes I drive to the parking garage next to my work. I also drive all over New England on the weekends.

A single subway line in Toronto is 38 km / 24 miles long. A single regional rail line passing through downtown is 114 km / 71 miles long. A 15 mile commute is perfectly achievable on public transit when the facilities exist.

In the rural US, you'd have maybe 1-2 people per hour who would take said public transit route. Most hours, you'd have zero.

Yeah, I drive through 3 other towns before even getting to the town I work in. And the town I work in is 10-15 minutes off the "main road" (if you can even call it that, lol) so setting this up with public transport means having an entire bus SOLELY for me. You'd waste more than you'd save. I can't live closer, and my work can't move. These are the realities of living in the country. It's awesome and I wouldn't change it for the world, but stuff is just far apart, no matter what.

People really, really do not understand what living rural is like.

> People really, really do not understand what living rural is like.

The same criticism applies equally well to rural dwellers about urban life which is why someone rural could be shocked by the idea someone might actively choose to to travel by high quality public transportation.

I have lived both rural and urban and actively choose urban. Rural is a fine choice too, but rural dwellers shouldn't expect their energy intensive and economically expensive lifestyle to be subsidized by urban dwellers forever. Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.

For better or worse, Urban dwellers are the majority in the US - the "Fuck Cars" blanket statements get a bit frustrating to see as someone in a rural environment.

> Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.

Yet it's necessary, and cheaper than the alternative when you have industry which must exist in a rural setting (such as farming). Attempting to mandate public transport for rural settings would cost more, and may even be more carbon intensive.

So as much as people who live in rural areas shouldn't dictate how public transport is instituted in dense urban areas, neither should urbanites dictate how transport in rural areas is managed.

Urban dwellers in America isn’t a dense city. It’s a loose collection of smaller cities all over the place. The US census defines urban as having 5,000 people in an area.

Are you hypothesizing that eventually everyone will/should move to urban areas? I don't think that will end up being sustainable either.

Which is fine, but I'm sick of those same people consistently voting against high quality public transport inside cities while insisting on urban highways and tons of parking for when they come to the city. Untold billions have been spent creating a road network to support their rural lifestyle and then they object to any money being spent on transportation modes other than driving.

Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. Everyone else who chooses to live rural or exurban doesn't get to object to urban dwellers wanting quality transit or to reduce the prominence of cars in urban spaces.

> Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land.

And the people who maintain farmers' equipment?

Purchasers of farmers' goods?

The people who sell food to farmers?

The people who maintain infrastructure?

Mail?

Which is to say, where there are farmers (or ranchers etc), there is a whole city nearby who supports them. And cities imply infrastructure - like roads.

It is really not about rural areas. But the massive sub-urban which sounds like it was designed to be as far from where work is as possible...

Farms take land, but cities should not. They should be designed to be effective in most ways by minimizing distance travelled for most common trips.

What an unwarranted attack. You could equally say that the NPR you listen to in your tiny apartment that you pay $3000 a month for has poisoned your brain to such an extent that you believe walking 50 feet down a government sidewalk makes you the heir of Thoreau, while people who drive to work are idiots.

Exactly this. Cars shouldn’t be needed. And 15 miles is bikable in an hour. The fact that people are so passionate about cars as necessary is sad.

A 2 hour round trip commute in the weather does not compare favorably to a 30 minute round trip commute in a conditioned space.

Source: I did such a commute. It sucked royally. Nothing like finishing a shift tired and still looking forward to a 1 hour ride in the rain.

Ah yeah... Doesn't compare favourable to muh conditioned space, guess I'll just die then!

You're correct that rural life is an exception here, but most Americans don't live in rural areas and I presume that's what the other user is talking about. In many American cities there just aren't good alternative options, you need to spend the money on a car to get around even if you live in a reasonably urban area.

Every able bodied person can cycle 15 miles. What a shame that people don't even know what their own bodies are capable of.

"I would literally starve and die". This is a sad, sad comment. I would laugh but I just find it so sad that you've got all these able bodied adults unable to get around without wheelchairs.

Wall-E isn't about the future.

Some of the most fun I've had outdoors with friends is when they want to try biking (or bikepacking) with me. You're right that people generally have no understanding of what they're capable of (and that no herculean effort is required).

I suspect that some of this is a result of humans being increasingly unable to estimate true distances. In my city, it can take 45 minutes to drive 3 miles, so most non-bikers understand 3 miles to be an insurmountable distance.

That's a good point. Americans I've met seem to only associate miles with cars. While a British person might say "let's walk, it's only a mile", Americans would say "you can't walk, it's a mile!".

Of course, if you do walk a mile then that's a "hike". In British that's also just called a walk.

That's the point, due to zoning & parking laws, density is lower, ppl need to drive more. Imagine both laws changed, how much the supply could increase, how many ppl would choose to move into the city instead of long commute. Combined with better pub transport&bike lanes both propulsed by high density, a lot of ppl would be able to live carfree

I think it's fair to say a lot of people bought "too much car" but I completely agree we need better public infrastructure and not be forced to pay the US car tax.

Having experienced the public transit systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and the midwest US. It's entirely obvious who is failing.

Though, despite our short comings, in a lot of cities it _is_ possible to use public transit, I did for years and it sucked and I had to compensate with Uber more often then I would have liked but at least I didn't have a car payment (in hindsight I should have just bought a car, but it was a humbling experience that I don't regret.)

> and not be forced to pay the US car tax

> Having experienced the public transit systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore

The Seoul Metro, widely considered to be one of the best in the world, also lost like a billion dollars a year for the past decade or so, with the shortfall made up for by taxes. The story is similar for many transit systems around the world as well as around the US.

Now, you could argue that it's worth it, but let's at least make sure we know that there is also a public transit tax, as well.

And public roads are free? The streets inside a city and highways connecting them are massively expensive and no one bats an eye. Even toll highways often don't really pay for themselves.

Transportation infrastructure of any mode is massively expensive and is undertaken to facilitate all sorts of economic activity. Public transportation being held to a standard of direct profit is something no other public infrastructure is expected to achieve.

It was in response to GP's comment about the "US car tax"; I'm pointing out that no matter how someone gets around, there is going to be some kind of tax. I don't mean to imply that public roads are free.

But I do mean to imply that often times comparisons are made between car-centric cities and public transit-centric cities without any close attention to the actual costs involved, nor a sober cost-benefit analysis. It seems like it's usually categorical statements like "public transit is better and cars shouldn't exist" or "you'll pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers".

> Public transportation being held to a standard of direct profit is something no other public infrastructure is expected to achieve.

Perhaps most people don't think about it, but even roads and bridges need to be profitable one way or another. There are many famous examples of "bridges to nowhere"-type public works projects throughout history where some massive infrastructure work was done in a place that won't use that level of infrastructure, usually through corruption. Everyone loses when that happens.

I guess public transit systems seem to be unfairly targeted for (as you said) "a standard of direct profit" because it's usually built and maintained by a centralized authority, vs. roads which are built and maintained by many different layers of government, with more diffuse paths of revenues and expenditures.

California, with a population 4x that of Seoul, recieved 25 billion dollars in federal highway funding (plus 2 billion dollars of its own money) for a single year (2021). Highway funding. Not counting roads.

That figure, of course, does not include the amount of money that we spent on our cars to drive on those highways. Maintenance. Insurance. Fees.

It does not capture deaths from car accidents (over 4,000, children among them) life changing injuries and maimings (many more than 4,000), choking air pollution, the thousands of tons of tire plastic that washed into the Pacific that year, and obviously the carbon emissions, which probably approached a hundred million tons. Smaller things as well; the stress, the noise, billions of hours spent sitting in traffic. The natural environment that was destroyed to build roads and highways.

If you spent 4 billion to cut that incomprehensible number by just 10 percent you would come out ahead -- not by a little but by a monstrous lot.

Sorry that came off very heated. I really do hate cars, it's not really directed at you.

> California, with a population 4x that of Seoul

The Seoul Capital Region is 26 million people crammed in a 4,500 square mile metropolitan area.

California is 40 million spread across 156,000 square miles.

It makes sense that CA gets more funding for roads and highways given that the population is much less dense.

Even when you factor in Metropolitan areas in CA, the distances are much larger - the Bay Area has the same population and area as the state of Massachusetts (9,000 square miles and 9 million people), yet I don't see subway connecting Boston to Worcester or Springfield.

That's functionally the same ask that a lot of Public transit supporters (which I am btw) are pushing for, and it doesn't make sense. The area is way too large for a system like the Boston T or the NYC Subway to be created, and the Bay's current setup of local subways (Muni/VTA) mixed with commuter rails (BART/Caltrain/ACE) makes more sense given the size.