This is what the car lobby wants you to think. The transformation to a better and more livable city free from overwhelming car traffic is closer and faster than you imagine. The primary challenge is the power of the car-industrial complex both inside and outside government and the continued work to destroy and hobble other forms of transit.
Not everyone lives in a city. And certainly not everyone lives in an LA/NYC city.
The city I live in is modest in size, 250k-300k depending on who you ask. It will never be a walkable city. Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something. It will never have a subway. Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall. It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size. My in-laws live in a township of about 6000 an hour away.
Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong. Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus, when it'd add 20 minutes of irritation to my day?
It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better. I'd be shocked if there's a non-coastal city or town anywhere in North America that supports your vision.
> Throughout much of the year, that's asking to die of heatstroke or something.
One could say the same about Singapore yet they find ways to make it work.
> It will never have a subway.
250k-300k is about the right size for a small tram network - compare e.g. Ghent.
> Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall.
That's fine if there's no need for them.
> It is hundreds of miles away from any city of comparable size.
Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then.
> Are we supposed to give up cars? I have a 6 minute ride to work in the morning if I hit the stop lights wrong.
If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars. But generally as cities grow they reach a point where space is at a premium and cars take up too much of it. Again if we look at Ghent as a good example for a city that size, they have a car-free zone but it's only a few blocks around the very centre (there's a larger zone around it where cars are permitted but subject to emission requirements). It works well, makes for a really nice city centre that you can actually live in.
> Why would I ride the piss-stinking bus
What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss?
> It's not a car-industrial complex that is an obstacle to your imagined utopia. It's that there are people like myself who don't want to make our lives more difficult so that yours gets better.
Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult? Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them.
Singapore didn't "find ways to make it work". They built that city from the ground up into what it is now.
My city can't time-travel back 100 years and get a do-over. This point of yours is purely asinine.
>> Hell, there's only one or two buildings that are more than 5 stories tall.
>That's fine if there's no need for them.
So you're just incapable of comprehending simple things, or is it a refusal to understand them when doing so would be inconvenient for your argument?
This is a rough description of density. For any half-assed New Yorker scheme to be even marginally viable, I would have had to have described a far different density. Something like Some Sim City 2000 arcology.
> Sounds like banning cars from the centres of bigger cities won't really inconvenience you then.
So go for it. Literally none of the rest of us care. Build a gigantic wall around those big cities too. 500ft tall, topped with razor wire. Tell all the inhabitants that it's to keep us rednecks out.
We'll thank you for it.
> If traffic isn't a problem then there's no reason to give up cars.
Every third comment here is about how they want to get rid of cars far beyond whatever traffic problems it might cause you. I doubt the intention of your movement, such as it is, to only ban them in city centers. Just a year ago, we saw this movement pop up out of nowhere, and I have my doubts that it arose organically.
> What if I told you it was possible to have busses that don't stink of piss?
How do you propose that? Any anti-piss-stink policy would subvert your other social policies.
> Why do you think any change must be about making your life more difficult?
Because this is all so transparent.
> Your whole post seems to be about looking for every possible problem a
I wish I lived in a reality where purposely ignoring every possible problem was not only expected but celebrated.
> and not making the slightest effort to look for solutions to them.
I have zero interest in trying to solve the intractable problems your wishful thinking has dreamed up. I have even less interest than that in doing so for free. Offer me salary of $250,000/year with well-defined bonuses, and I can grind through at least a few of them.
> Singapore didn't "find ways to make it work". They built that city from the ground up into what it is now.
Nonsense. Like every healthy city, it's been continuously rebuilt.
> This is a rough description of density.
Right. Bigger cities need more tall buildings (or rather, find more tall buildings worthwhile). Smaller cities don't. I don't know what it is you think I don't get.
> So go for it. Literally none of the rest of us care.
Then why are you posting about how much you don't care, and how all these schemes must be stopped?
> Every third comment here is about how they want to get rid of cars far beyond whatever traffic problems it might cause you. I doubt the intention of your movement, such as it is, to only ban them in city centers.
There are lots of people with their own intentions, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you're remediating your pollution (properly remediating it, not just buying some certificates that say you promise to not cut down some trees or something) and not killing/injuring people I don't care about you driving where there's space for it. Car drivers demanding a bunch of space in the city is what I take issue with.
> Just a year ago, we saw this movement pop up out of nowhere, and I have my doubts that it arose organically.
Now you're getting into conspiracy theory - maybe try making some friends under 45. The younger generation aren't into cars just as they aren't into guitar rock. It's been going on far longer than a year (I've been saying this stuff at least 6 years), the pandemic just made it a bit more visible.
> How do you propose that? Any anti-piss-stink policy would subvert your other social policies.
I don't know, my city doesn't have the problem, because voters wouldn't stand for it if they did. Maybe start holding your government to higher standards.
> I have zero interest in trying to solve the intractable problems your wishful thinking has dreamed up.
The only intractable problem here is in your head, and it's only intractable because you want it to be. We know these policies work. We have cities where they're working already.
I recommend re-reading the hacker news comments guidelines. Assuming less about others and speaking for yourself only would make for a better discussion.
It id curious you seem entirely convinced that a car free "them" is necessarily taking from you. When your home town grows to be double the size and experiences gridlock, following the example of other cities, there are other ways to do it (and perhaps those ways aren't negative for you at all)
"We're not coming for your X!" is the lead-in. They need to be entrenched first, before they let anyone know the real play (if indeed they ever do). Plenty of useful idiots who truly believe in the PR spin too... so when they repeat it to you, in their own heads they're not lying. Just telling you a beautiful truth. And if you ever do catch one of the cynical ones who will tell you like it is...
They can be denounced. Or even dismissed as an obvious false flag. "We're the good guys, we'd never say that!"
I did speak for myself. I explained why this doesn't work for me, why I have no interest in it, and how there are millions of other people who will agree with me unless you find a way to deceive them.
Your condescending comment though doesn't make me feel bad for what I've said, it's expected. I'm actually a little amazed about how a group of semi-unorganized humans can do these things without coordination and succeed so often. You're all like some slime mold... no gigantic brain yanking on the marionette strings. And yet the puppet still dances.
> It id curious you seem entirely convinced that a car free "them" is necessarily taking from you.
It's pretty transparent. This won't be pursued in NYC council, this won't be pursued in the NY state legislature. It's a car free "everyone" masquerading as a car free "just them".
And with the onslaught underway, the only possibly opposition strategy with a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding is to throw up every roadblock, aggravate every irritation, stall every effort. Chances are we're not going to be friends, I think.
@NoMoreNicksLeft, the other responses cvan be ignored for now.. Consolidating things into one message, I say this: I find your answers very interesting, if anything because to me they seem completely irrational. That is just to say I do not understand why you are saying what you are, nor am I even really aware of _any_ examples that would adequately back it up. That is my perspective so far (not up for debate, it is a statement of my perception).
> "We're not coming for your X!" is the lead-in
What exactly are you afraid would be that X? We are talking about restricting a quarter mile, a single downtown square block from vehicle traffic and letting people walk in the streets. Is that X possible "your car", and do you plausibly think that allowing a few sections of downtown road become pedestrian zones would then lead to your car being seized from you somehow? Serious question. Can you walk through how that would happen step by step?
> I did speak for myself. I explained why this doesn't work for me, why I have no interest in it, and how there are millions of other people who will agree with me unless you find a way to deceive them.
(A) this is a contradictory statement as you are already assuming there are millions that agree with you. (B) You stated that "literally the rest of us", which also is speaking for a lot people other than yourself.
Where my issue is really with this statement is the complete 'othering' aspect. Are you sure that everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or has been deceived? Every single one of them? And in no case does that describe any of your points of view? (As an aside, I do often wonder what things I think about others actually do also apply to myself. I think it's a healthy exercise). As far as the hacker new commentary guidelines, we are to explore the reasons for disagreement. So far you've called anyone that has disagreed with you as simply stupid. This strikes me as both arrogant and narrow minded. Perhaps you are simply unaware of things that make other people think otherwise.
I'll end with mentioning that admins have banned this thread. I'm not the only one that thinks you're not in the spirit of hacker news. I regret a bit that I don't actually understand how you've explained the way you feel, and it is a perspective I would like to learn more about.
You also mention, I did speak fir myself and then state there are "millions" that agree and then assume utter malice that "unless they are decieved". I'll point out the contradiction there followed by bad faith.
I'm a bit curious what actual "X" people have actually come for and taken from you. Clean water, the right to not breathe in toxic fumes, seafood free of contaminant, your guns?
Last mention, you say onslaught. From many perspectives that onslaught has been the guarantee of 1/3 of city land dedicated to freeparking, road subsidies payed by federal money and property taxes. Building codes that require space for cars, etc. Perhaps this mode of living does not scale, is unsustainable and does not entirely work for everyone. That is not to say the desire is to change things for everyone, but perhaps allow a grocery store to be built on the bottom floor of an apartment building for those that do want it (currently illegal in many places due to zoning laws). Your arguments at some point seem selfish, that car culture that you have no problem with must be imposed on others in every context.
You mentioned "literally the rest of us", which is not speaking for yourself.
Concrete jungles where there is a giant parking lot and you drive to get from one end to the other is what is at discussion. Perhaps those could be built differently. Towns that are built along a highway and become a giant strip mall, and the good parts are the "old town" where you don't have to walk a mile to simply cross the street. I mean, car culture has won, and it's not at all - all good. The fact you see "conspiracy" and that this is a "grift" I feel says more about your entrenched views than much else.
I did not mean to be condescending. Though, your comments DO violate this communities code of conduct for discussions.
Cities of 200k have good transit in some areas. Look around for inspiration. Most of them do not have English as the native language so it can be hard finding them
I have no desire to be "inspired". Others may wander around hoping to have epiphanies about how everyone else should live, but I don't care how others live as long as they leave me alone. I don't want them to make themselves miserable making it better for me...
It's enough that they don't make things worse for me specifically and spitefully. I do wonder why that wouldn't be good enough for you.
Some changes would make your life better. The naive way most English speakers do transit is worse, but that doesn't mean transit itself would make your life worse if done in a different way.
It may be the case that on average everyone's life would be better. But this seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how averages work. Someone's quality of life increases, someone else's goes down. And maybe theirs doesn't go down as much as someone eles's goes up... so the average is up.
But if you're the one poor schmuck whose quality of life goes down. Then it sucks to be you.
I can already see that I am in that group. No thanks.
In the US, public transit will always be an awful, reeking experience unless the cost of that transit rules out those who vandalize, defecate, and litter. It may be different in Japan or Belgium or some place like that... but engineering solutions don't fix sociological problems.
The same status quo that has lousy public transit is the status quo that gets us a lot of "those who vandalize, defecate, and litter". There's no reason we are stuck with that stuff being rampant. There's a strong case that the inequities in our economic system set us up to get those results even.
It's easy in places that became dominated by cars after the fact, like Netherlands and Japan in the 70s or many other European and Asian cities today, but much of American suburbia is designed for cars. There might just not be viable options other than cars or motor vehicles. Corner shops are unviable because a relatively low number of people live within a walking or biking distance.
This is what the car lobby wants you to think. The transformation to a better and more livable city free from overwhelming car traffic is closer and faster than you imagine. The primary challenge is the power of the car-industrial complex both inside and outside government and the continued work to destroy and hobble other forms of transit.