It's not really "remove cars" problem tho. Cars are fine and are needed, you can't move anything big with tram or bike easily. It's make other forms of transport more viable for day to day stuff
You still need vans and trucks delivering stuff to people and businesses. Bus is far more flexible form of transport than tram. Just... if you need to wait ages for one and there is no stop nearby nobody will want to wait.
And the key part of Amsterdam is that in the 60s it was packed with cars and not the bike and walk haven it is today. Many people make he mistake thinking Amsterdam has great public transit and bike infrastructure since it’s an old European city and was never car dependant, but they made the same mistakes 50 years ago and reversed course. It’s possible to reverse the damage of car dependency.
By that link, half the kids that live a mile from school are driven in a private car.
That’s bonkers to me. That’s a completely walkable distance if road/sidewalk design allows it. That it frequently doesn’t is a failure on the part of our governments and urban planners.
You're probably dealing with the kind of citizen that waits 2 minutes to park in front of the store... when there's several free spots just 10 metres away. Can't park close enough!
I live a mile from all three schools (they sit on the same piece of property). It's a mile away. There's a trail through the neighborhood to get there and there are zero road crossings (one short tunnel that's 2-lanes long).
The kids are bussed. So, they walk the length of the neighborhood and wait 10-15 minutes for the bus. They could quite literally walk to the school in the same amount of time.
Even worse, many of the parents drive the kids to the end of the neighborhood (all of 2 city blocks, though we're in the 'burbs). And then wait in their cars, engines often idling, watching the kids stand around.
The parents could walk the kids to school and most of the way home again in that time. Assuing they leave from work the second the kids get on the bus, they might save 5 minutes.
It's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, I walk a mile the other direction to the office. I have to cross a 6 lane highway (signaled intersection, but still a mess). One side is housing and golf course, the other side is offices and retail. There is no sane way to get from one to the other without a car. It's some of the laziest urban planning I've seen. And this area (Reston VA) is better than average by orders of magnitude.
> Throwing the kid in the car 2 minutes before the bell works.
It the school is a mile away, unless you live right next to a large road with 60 mph limit and no stops or traffic lights, I doubt you can make it 1 mile in 2 minutes without driving recklessly fast (and in proximity of a school).
I normally will do the umbrella thing, but this time I had to transport a "school project of utmost importance" so the vehicle's siren song of ecological disaster won me over.
2 minutes, 5 minutes, the concept is the same. People are bad at planning and fall back on crutches.
(Part of it is stupid media-fueled disaster porn about how if a kid walks to school without an entire armed battalion of bodyguards they're going to get raped and murdered because something that happened once back in 1989.)
Yes, kids. Not affluent. Lucky enough to live in a place where they assign you a nearby school. There are 5 within walking distance. Maybe 20 within cycling distance (and I mean a 20-minute ride, not a 1-hour backbreaker).
Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines so frequently that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
When you live within walking distance of a grocery store, there's rarely any need for a big shopping trip with many bags; it's easier to just stop by every day or two, perhaps on your way home from work, and bring home a single bag you can easily carry.
In many European cities, you can just walk to a grocery store a few blocks away, and just go every day or two, picking up a few items each time.
You only need one bag, so it’s not a burden at all. Worst case, it’s incredibly easy to add a basket to a bike (or mobility scooter), so you can put your day’s groceries in there.
And as an added benefit of density, grocery stores are more efficient. There is a “general” one with all of the basics — fruit and veggies, cereal, meat, pasta, basic sauces, breads, convenience foods. Those are everywhere. Then if you go a little further, you’ll find specialty stores with “asian foods” or others, which you may not use as often but can get some rarer things there.
In my experience, having done both, it is a bit more time efficient at the Costco, but it also changes what you buy (lots of fresh food doesn't actually do well for two weeks). This is assuming you have the places you need in easy walking distance of course. At one time I had a grocer/butcher/wine shop/etc. all literally on the way I would walk home from subway anyhow, so my overall time was probably even shorter than a big grocery run every 2 weeks. I paid a bit more, but then I got better produce and bread, and could change meal planning on a dime if I saw something good. All tradeoffs I guess.
Yep. I either do it by bike for the big weekly purchase or go to the nearby store (5 minute walk - doable even in the dead of Canadian winter) for smaller everyday stuff.
I guess it depends on how much bulk you are buying at once, but most bikes are compatible with a basket of some kind. A bike trailer could also be an option.
This is sort of an interesting one. The combination of home refrigeration and suburbs created the "weekend shop", but it's not a given that this is optimal or even really desirable.
I think it's a refusal to acknowledge necessary trade-offs. You cannot create a human termite mound with tens of thousands of people per square mile while keeping the exact same forms of infrastructure that serve communities where everyone has their own two acres. I'm a person who enjoys the freedom and solitude of a car. That means I don't get to live in a place that has fifty restaurants within a half-mile and it would be wrong of me to try and force that environment to cater to my needs.
>I think it's a refusal to acknowledge necessary trade-offs. You cannot create a human termite mound with tens of thousands of people per square mile while keeping the exact same forms of infrastructure that serve communities where everyone has their own two acres. I'm a person who enjoys the freedom and solitude of a car. That means I don't get to live in a place that has fifty restaurants within a half-mile and it would be wrong of me to try and force that environment to cater to my needs.
In that case, what's your take on the cost of infrastructure required per capita in relation to property taxes as it pertains to suburban development?
As it stands today, property taxes in suburban areas generally do not cover the cost of infrastructure required for the areas, and hence they get subsidized by high-density areas which have a more sustainable amount of infrastructure per capita.
I don't really have an opinion, as I'm not familiar enough with the math and most of the people who are interested in explaining the math seem to be zealots who would say anything to support their particular view. I also think the debate is muddied because everyone has a different definition of "suburb" and the math is not the same depending on which version you're thinking of. There are also other factors to consider, like dense areas not having to pay for raising and educating the people who move into them but collecting their tax revenue.
The beauty is that there are so many different ways to transport things now than the form factor of car. There are electric utility vehicles the size of golf carts with heat and cooling and a bed for transporting things. There are miniature vans similar to this. They all are quieter, safer, and take up less space than cars. I agree that cars have a place, but by and large their use should not be as catered to as it is now and life should not be centered around them.
Similar chicken-egg problem there too, if such events drive people off, there becomes an even higher concentration of such encounters which drives more people off.
It's always full and losing lots of money? Still may not be a true loss overall if it is just subsidized for the positive externalities on congestion etc.
You still need vans and trucks delivering stuff to people and businesses. Bus is far more flexible form of transport than tram. Just... if you need to wait ages for one and there is no stop nearby nobody will want to wait.