American Cities Are Drowning in Car Storage(usa.streetsblog.org)
usa.streetsblog.org
American Cities Are Drowning in Car Storage
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/07/12/american-cities-are-drowning-in-car-storage/
309 comments
This is how we have had such economic growth. We use our own population as a testbed where we disintermediate all of our own cultural support systems so that everything must be hired out. Food, transport, entertainment, self concept, family, all of it has been reformed in the U.S. over the last 100 years to replace community labor with commercial relations.
This means we get first dibs on these new industries (Software As A Service, Family Mental Health As A Service, Guiltlessness As A Service, etc) as they catch on globally. Sometimes naturally because we discover some actual value. More often just by finding a practice which is addicting and then just dumping product until a population is addicted.
Great recipe for success, much wealth has been stockpiled.
It’s possible we sold out some cultural knowledge in the process, but the U.S. is a young country so most of our culture was pretty raw in the 19th century.
The bulk of our old growth culture we just slaughtered on arrival.
This means we get first dibs on these new industries (Software As A Service, Family Mental Health As A Service, Guiltlessness As A Service, etc) as they catch on globally. Sometimes naturally because we discover some actual value. More often just by finding a practice which is addicting and then just dumping product until a population is addicted.
Great recipe for success, much wealth has been stockpiled.
It’s possible we sold out some cultural knowledge in the process, but the U.S. is a young country so most of our culture was pretty raw in the 19th century.
The bulk of our old growth culture we just slaughtered on arrival.
The reason that everything is so not integrated is because of the American culture of containment. You have very very different kinds of people living in close physical proximity who often want nothing to do with each other. Think East Palo Alto and Palo Alto for example, especially in the 90s when East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate per capita in the U.S.
Nowadays, physical proximity means less and less. Relationships are even becoming less integrated. Yes you can interact with other people, but only as coworkers and paid professionals. Don't cross any weird lines. Even asking someone to engage in friend activities is getting more rare as most people prefer online friends, since they have more in common with them. The throughly modern American asks "Why would you need to be in physical proximity to someone anyway unless it was necessary for work? That's so creepy!". Lately, Tinder and friends have really stripped the last actual need for non-work physical proximity with any indivuals who have not been pre-screened via the algorithm.
Nowadays, physical proximity means less and less. Relationships are even becoming less integrated. Yes you can interact with other people, but only as coworkers and paid professionals. Don't cross any weird lines. Even asking someone to engage in friend activities is getting more rare as most people prefer online friends, since they have more in common with them. The throughly modern American asks "Why would you need to be in physical proximity to someone anyway unless it was necessary for work? That's so creepy!". Lately, Tinder and friends have really stripped the last actual need for non-work physical proximity with any indivuals who have not been pre-screened via the algorithm.
“You have very very different kinds of people living in close physical proximity who often want nothing to do with each other.”
Knowing that the US is probably one of the most segregated countries, this makes me smile :-)
Knowing that the US is probably one of the most segregated countries, this makes me smile :-)
The US is a widely diverse country, including internally. Milwaukee is quite segregated, Sacramento isn't. There is a wide spread, depending on where you are. Overall, the US is about average diversity compared to other countries.
> Overall, the US is about average diversity compared to other countries.
I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African. Even Wisconsin at 86.5% white is less white than most European countries. And Milwaukee itself is 40% black and 17.3% Latino.
The countries that come anywhere close to the US on diversity are predominantly the other countries in the Americas.
I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African. Even Wisconsin at 86.5% white is less white than most European countries. And Milwaukee itself is 40% black and 17.3% Latino.
The countries that come anywhere close to the US on diversity are predominantly the other countries in the Americas.
[deleted]
You're musunderstanding segregation and ethnicity. For instance, Milwaukee is widely regarded as the most segregated city in America. Their overall population total isn't the issue; its that neighborhoods within the city are overwhelmingly uniform.
Of course Asia is full of Asians; but they represent an incredible diversity of ethnicities. In some areas, they are geographically mixed, in others not.
Of course Asia is full of Asians; but they represent an incredible diversity of ethnicities. In some areas, they are geographically mixed, in others not.
Diversity and segregation are two different things. If you had a city that was 100.0% Vietnamese then there would be no "segregation" within that city but it also isn't particularly diverse. And adding an equal number of Hawaiians wouldn't reduce the diversity even if there was 100% segregation between them.
Moreover, if you can bisect Asians into Japanese and Koreans etc. then you can bisect whites into Irish and German, Latinos into Colombians and Venezuelans, blacks into Jamaicans and Haitians etc. And if you're going to play that game then why aren't the racially segregated areas still internally diverse in the same way? Certainly they are as much as the countries that consist almost entirely of that category of people are.
Moreover, if you can bisect Asians into Japanese and Koreans etc. then you can bisect whites into Irish and German, Latinos into Colombians and Venezuelans, blacks into Jamaicans and Haitians etc. And if you're going to play that game then why aren't the racially segregated areas still internally diverse in the same way? Certainly they are as much as the countries that consist almost entirely of that category of people are.
Yes, you are correct, diversity and segregation are two different things, which is why I broke them out.
My original comment was to explain how the statement, "Knowing that the US is probably one of the most segregated countries . . . " is incorrect.
My original comment was to explain how the statement, "Knowing that the US is probably one of the most segregated countries . . . " is incorrect.
> I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African
This has to be sarcasm, right?
If not, this view is very wrong because it views diversity in a manner that's purely and literally skin deep.
This has to be sarcasm, right?
If not, this view is very wrong because it views diversity in a manner that's purely and literally skin deep.
When people talk about diversity, the diversity they want is typically cultural, but race and culture are strongly correlated. There aren't a lot of ethnic Africans who are culturally Japanese or ethnic Europeans who are culturally African American.
Which means there aren't a lot of people of any race who are culturally Japanese in Africa or culturally African American in Europe.
Which means there aren't a lot of people of any race who are culturally Japanese in Africa or culturally African American in Europe.
Trust me, if it's culture you're interested in, Europe has more established cultural differences between white peoples from completely different language groups within small European countries than between African Americans and non-African Americans, and we didn't even have to impose Jim Crow laws to achieve this.
> Trust me, if it's culture you're interested in, Europe has more established cultural differences between white peoples from completely different language groups within small European countries than between African Americans and non-African Americans, and we didn't even have to impose Jim Crow laws to achieve this.
The category "white people in America" has that level of cultural diversity inside of it. It includes millions of first generation immigrants from all of those places. Plus millions of people descended from those cultures who over the past centuries have developed them into something uniquely American, melding them in a thousand cities with the cultures of all the other immigrant populations that have come here since then.
And we can't pretend that no country in Europe has ever sinned. Or any country anywhere for that matter.
The category "white people in America" has that level of cultural diversity inside of it. It includes millions of first generation immigrants from all of those places. Plus millions of people descended from those cultures who over the past centuries have developed them into something uniquely American, melding them in a thousand cities with the cultures of all the other immigrant populations that have come here since then.
And we can't pretend that no country in Europe has ever sinned. Or any country anywhere for that matter.
If you factor in economics that picture gets worse for the US relative to most countries. The divide between rich and poor is large and growing.
Right behind France and it’s Parisian suburbs, no monsieur?
Absolutely.
Segregation is probably a more chronic problem there than it is or was ever here.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-banlieues-seeds-of-terror...
Segregation is probably a more chronic problem there than it is or was ever here.
But Saint-Denis is not a rich neighborhood.
It's what the French call a "banlieue."
Literally translated, the word means "suburb," but
it has come to be associated with the depressed, mostly
immigrant neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city
where unemployment is high and opportunity scarce.
"If you look at the situation of people, you
understand the path they have taken to become a
terrorist or whatever you call it," Villain told
CBS News correspondent Vladmir Duthiers. "Exclusion
makes the terrorist, in my opinion."
.
.
.
The French government does not keep statistics
based on race or religion, but surveys have found
unemployment is as high as 30 percent in these immigrant
neighborhoods.[1]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-banlieues-seeds-of-terror...
I wonder if you've ever even been to Saint-Denis?
Segregation in France is absolutely nothing like what you see in America where, outside three or four major cities, different races, no matter how rich or poor, are absolutely cordoned off from one another and do not ever attend the same schools [1]. If you actually go to Saint-Denis you will find everything from Russian Jews to Moroccan Muslims to Nigerians to good ol' fashioned ("from before Napoleon took over the world") French families. It's an extremely diverse hood, the kind you'd only saw 30 years ago in America's largest cities.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-get...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/16/segreg...
Segregation in France is absolutely nothing like what you see in America where, outside three or four major cities, different races, no matter how rich or poor, are absolutely cordoned off from one another and do not ever attend the same schools [1]. If you actually go to Saint-Denis you will find everything from Russian Jews to Moroccan Muslims to Nigerians to good ol' fashioned ("from before Napoleon took over the world") French families. It's an extremely diverse hood, the kind you'd only saw 30 years ago in America's largest cities.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-get...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/16/segreg...
I saw a study a couple years back remarking on how job applicants without french last names would have far fewer call backs.
Might it be you just getting older.
> The throughly modern American asks "Why would you need to be in physical proximity to someone anyway unless it was necessary for work? That's so creepy!".
If that’s the case then I disavow all things “modern.” Nothing exciting to me at all about putting up walls between me and the people I actually see in person.
Maybe this is why I deleted my facebook a few years back, call when a few texts become a back and forth conversation, push for meet ups, and don’t use Tinder. I really don’t want to live in a world where the majority of our human-to-human communications is tapping on glass.
If that’s the case then I disavow all things “modern.” Nothing exciting to me at all about putting up walls between me and the people I actually see in person.
Maybe this is why I deleted my facebook a few years back, call when a few texts become a back and forth conversation, push for meet ups, and don’t use Tinder. I really don’t want to live in a world where the majority of our human-to-human communications is tapping on glass.
Wow, just one short leap from cars to a kids-these-days rant about Tinder?
>throughly modern American
You baby-boomers need to speak for yourselves only and keep me out of it.
(Assuming you mean "modern" as in contemporary. If you mean the more canonical "modern", sorry for the react.)
You baby-boomers need to speak for yourselves only and keep me out of it.
(Assuming you mean "modern" as in contemporary. If you mean the more canonical "modern", sorry for the react.)
Are baby-boomers some how too old to be allowed to consider themselves as part of our contemporary society?
I wish. You people are a disgrace.
We've banned this account for violating the rules and spirit of this site. Generational warfare isn't an ok thing here. Same for ideological battle.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
“Exxxxcellent... another sucker has bought into the generational warfare meme we’ve been selling. Divide and conquer!”
- the media
- the media
[flagged]
Please don't do this here.
tajen(2)
This is the first time I've heard the phrase "Guiltlessness As A Service" - from a google search I think it may be your own term?
Regardless, I like it. I think you're using it to describe businesses that do things like sell carbon credits or do humanitarian work?
Regardless, I like it. I think you're using it to describe businesses that do things like sell carbon credits or do humanitarian work?
Or maybe he meant companies destroying the environment, or anything else, for you so you don't have to feel guilty about it.
Well Deserved is a (parody) marketplace for privilege https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoK4_dQbfuU
Companies with an "eco" or "humanitarian" angle are rly just selling newfangled Catholic indulgences.
Except they might also actually be helping some people, or improving the environment, even if its very inefficient.
But they also are a cop out to not solve the real problem.
If you give tuition money to a few poor kids via a non profit, you don’t solve the college debt and education accessibility problem, but it makes people who did it feel better.
If you give tuition money to a few poor kids via a non profit, you don’t solve the college debt and education accessibility problem, but it makes people who did it feel better.
> If you give tuition money to a few poor kids via a non profit
Or pay someone to plant a tree when you fly to offset the carbon.
Or pay someone to plant a tree when you fly to offset the carbon.
Is it not... something?
One could always not give tuition money to a few poor kids. That fails to solve anything too.
I really dislike the knee-jerk, blanket dismissal of people who are trying to do small but good things.
"If nothing we do matters then the only thing that matters is what we do." - Joss Whedon
One could always not give tuition money to a few poor kids. That fails to solve anything too.
I really dislike the knee-jerk, blanket dismissal of people who are trying to do small but good things.
"If nothing we do matters then the only thing that matters is what we do." - Joss Whedon
> Is it not... something?
Basically, it isn't. The theory that everyone should do a little bit is based on the idea that if 1000 people each solve 0.1% of the problem then we solve 100% of the problem. Which in general isn't a bad idea.
The problem comes when somebody tries to sell it with bad math. Because then you have a hundred million people each solving one trillionth of the problem, which accomplishes effectively nothing. And worse than nothing, because then you have a hundred million people each thinking they've done their part and no further action is required, even though no one has made the slightest dent in the actual problem.
Basically, it isn't. The theory that everyone should do a little bit is based on the idea that if 1000 people each solve 0.1% of the problem then we solve 100% of the problem. Which in general isn't a bad idea.
The problem comes when somebody tries to sell it with bad math. Because then you have a hundred million people each solving one trillionth of the problem, which accomplishes effectively nothing. And worse than nothing, because then you have a hundred million people each thinking they've done their part and no further action is required, even though no one has made the slightest dent in the actual problem.
Slavoj Žižek makes a very persuasive argument against this sort of tokenism in "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJDgxH8aRGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJDgxH8aRGs
I watched the video but I didn't notice any argument against the practice, unless I synthesize "one should always feel bad about participating in consumerism", is that it?
I had not considered that planning cities like this was meant to be community-hostile, but I can easily see how this is meant to breed a dependence on corporate solutions.
This has the taste of conspiracy, but I do believe you're right. There's a lot of money to be made this way.
This has the taste of conspiracy, but I do believe you're right. There's a lot of money to be made this way.
I had not considered that planning cities like this
was meant to be community-hostile, but I can easily
see how this is meant to breed a dependence on
corporate solutions.
I guess the angle I don't see answered is why would you need 'corporate solutions' say home surveillance solutions, private security solutions and other security & theft deterrence apparatus and solutions if you didn't have any hostile communities to be begin with?
Was this ever studied in the American or non-North American context? Are European cities and towns seeing a new found need for these things now, that were practically unheard of a few decades ago?
Theft and other crimes seem to increase the more you remove or disrupt community. In other words, it's not about hostile communities, but the absence of community. In the absence of community, the default is hostility. Or, community is the establishment of non-hostility. Almost by definition. Community is people with common interests in a common location doing favors for each other and looking out for each other. When you have that, crime decreases.
There's also a generic version of the word "community" that people throw around, that can mean almost anything: a town (which isn't automatically a community)... gamers ("the gaming community")... "the Native American lesbian sportfishing enthusiast community"... and so on. I don't mean that.
Anyway, something "community-hostile" would therefore be anything that creates separation and alienation. Among other types of separation, there's separation in the spatial realm, such as through sheer distance (things are far apart), or through side effects of physical barriers that are part of the infrastructure, e.g. walls built to block traffic noise, or streets themselves, especially when wide and dangerous; or through other physical barriers that are more subtle such as the windows of your own car, through which you can see, yet you could easily drive right past your friend coming the other way without knowing it, whereas that would never happen if you were both walking or on a bike or scooter. Well, you say, I can just text my friend on my phone. Exactly, and now you're dependent on the phone maker, the carrier, Apple/Google, etc. for that communication to take place.
There's also a generic version of the word "community" that people throw around, that can mean almost anything: a town (which isn't automatically a community)... gamers ("the gaming community")... "the Native American lesbian sportfishing enthusiast community"... and so on. I don't mean that.
Anyway, something "community-hostile" would therefore be anything that creates separation and alienation. Among other types of separation, there's separation in the spatial realm, such as through sheer distance (things are far apart), or through side effects of physical barriers that are part of the infrastructure, e.g. walls built to block traffic noise, or streets themselves, especially when wide and dangerous; or through other physical barriers that are more subtle such as the windows of your own car, through which you can see, yet you could easily drive right past your friend coming the other way without knowing it, whereas that would never happen if you were both walking or on a bike or scooter. Well, you say, I can just text my friend on my phone. Exactly, and now you're dependent on the phone maker, the carrier, Apple/Google, etc. for that communication to take place.
Exactly as this fine person illustrated. :-)
Wow I love this comment. Especially because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
It’s possible we sold out some cultural knowledge in the process
We've lost most of our knowledge about how to create civic spaces of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
The bulk of our old growth culture we just slaughtered on arrival.
A lot of it was transformed.
We've lost most of our knowledge about how to create civic spaces of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
The bulk of our old growth culture we just slaughtered on arrival.
A lot of it was transformed.
"Car As A Service" is essentially rented cars: taxis, and Uber & friends. Problem in USA is bicycles and cargo bikes are not widespread. Hence the roads aren't build for bicyclists and people don't expect them while bicyclists wear helmets (in The Netherlands the latter is rare but roads are build with bicyclists taken into account).
The entire current debt-based economy is fundamentally designed to extract as much money as possible from "consumers".
This is a fascinating idea which seems worth expanding into a longer piece of writing. Could you give some specific examples of what you mean by “community labor” and what they’ve been replaced with?
Also, what do you mean by “Guiltlessness as a service”?
Also, what do you mean by “Guiltlessness as a service”?
Fair-trade, ethically sourced, carbon-neutral consumer product.
Guaranteed by a public-benefit corporation.
Bonus: Now on the blockchain!
Guaranteed by a public-benefit corporation.
Bonus: Now on the blockchain!
Right on the money.
Before WW2, America was a culture desert. Europeans fleeing the war are the only reason NYC became an international culture hub.
Hip-hop is undoubtedly the most progressive Western art form. (Side note: hip-hop's genius appropriations of commercial symbolisms and it's will to collective empowerment directly underwrite and provide the language of the public engagement of today's millenials. It's influence is as deep as an ocean.) But while hip-hop is the only non-native wholly American cultural movement, it's American origins are a far cry from enlightment; more bound in shame. To say America created hip-hop would be an offense. Saying America stole it would be more accurate.
Before WW2, America was a culture desert. Europeans fleeing the war are the only reason NYC became an international culture hub.
Hip-hop is undoubtedly the most progressive Western art form. (Side note: hip-hop's genius appropriations of commercial symbolisms and it's will to collective empowerment directly underwrite and provide the language of the public engagement of today's millenials. It's influence is as deep as an ocean.) But while hip-hop is the only non-native wholly American cultural movement, it's American origins are a far cry from enlightment; more bound in shame. To say America created hip-hop would be an offense. Saying America stole it would be more accurate.
Jazz. Blues. Techno. Ragtime.
Blues, Jazz and Ragtime all predate WWII — and all influenced pretty much everything you hear today.
You could even argue that Breakbeat is American given its roots with the Winston’s.
American culture is vastly richer than many countries specifically because it is effectively an All Star team of traditions from everywhere. Thinking “American” is simply hot dogs and Hip Hop is to greatly undersell what has been one of the great cultural achievements in the history of the world. American culture is vastly diverse compared to, for example, France. You have Cajun/Creole in Louisiana, Tejano culture in Texas, cowboy culture in Montana, laid back “surfer” culture in California, Boston/Nee England culture, Chicago with it’s melange of Polish, Italian, African American. Where else in the world could you have sushi for lunch and watch a rodeo in the evening? To be clear, I am not saying American culture is “best,” I am just saying that to reduce American culture to Hip Hop is about like saying French culture is nothing more than Edith Piaf and baguettes. Americans even invented basketball and baseball — and most of the things I mention were in motion long before world war 2.
NYC was a culture hub long before Workd War 2. Read some de Tocqueville and learn a bit about American history before just engaging in a wholesale dismissal of America.
I am not prone to quoting Bono, but this clip is relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8aLAZ8SnvI
Blues, Jazz and Ragtime all predate WWII — and all influenced pretty much everything you hear today.
You could even argue that Breakbeat is American given its roots with the Winston’s.
American culture is vastly richer than many countries specifically because it is effectively an All Star team of traditions from everywhere. Thinking “American” is simply hot dogs and Hip Hop is to greatly undersell what has been one of the great cultural achievements in the history of the world. American culture is vastly diverse compared to, for example, France. You have Cajun/Creole in Louisiana, Tejano culture in Texas, cowboy culture in Montana, laid back “surfer” culture in California, Boston/Nee England culture, Chicago with it’s melange of Polish, Italian, African American. Where else in the world could you have sushi for lunch and watch a rodeo in the evening? To be clear, I am not saying American culture is “best,” I am just saying that to reduce American culture to Hip Hop is about like saying French culture is nothing more than Edith Piaf and baguettes. Americans even invented basketball and baseball — and most of the things I mention were in motion long before world war 2.
NYC was a culture hub long before Workd War 2. Read some de Tocqueville and learn a bit about American history before just engaging in a wholesale dismissal of America.
I am not prone to quoting Bono, but this clip is relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8aLAZ8SnvI
Appropriation and disproportionate credit for white people is a real and serious problem, but it's not the whole story. Most of the actual musicians who were inspired by black music fully acknowledged their inspirations and were often annoyed at how no one seemed to care about the people they looked up to.
The actual artists out on the stage doing the music know exactly what comes from where. Culture spreads like that: someone likes a piece and adds it to their own, fusing two cultures. It's how we have American Chinese food that looks nothing like Chinese Chinese food. (the xenophobic policies that led to it is another matter)
You have a very narrow and stereotyped view of American culture. The whole of it is not a few white-majority cities in the north and one over-funded region in the west.
The actual artists out on the stage doing the music know exactly what comes from where. Culture spreads like that: someone likes a piece and adds it to their own, fusing two cultures. It's how we have American Chinese food that looks nothing like Chinese Chinese food. (the xenophobic policies that led to it is another matter)
You have a very narrow and stereotyped view of American culture. The whole of it is not a few white-majority cities in the north and one over-funded region in the west.
I have an opinionated view of American culture, and I'm daily surrounded by other musicians, artists. These are the topics we discuss. I am opinionated as a result.
In my previous comment, please note when I say "hip-hop", I am not referring to music, but culture. Nonetheless...
I grew up in the south. My father was literally a clogger. I'm no stranger to folk. But, I am extremely skeptical of a lot of it's history. The mid-century folk-revival era did a real number on our conception of what's really there culture-wise. Behind the curtain, I am honestly afraid it's mostly puritanism, shame, and self-conflict. It's interesting but I think calling it a cultural movement is mostly romanticism. In terms of music, we could delve into details for days, and break down the whole history of hip-hop and jazz, and I do encourage that. There's a lot of good music there. But, I'm afraid it serves essentially the same end in terms of culture; a terribly familiar story. Hip-hop exhibits the whole of the cultural dynamic fairly explicitly, and is internationally renowned. Folk is mostly replicated in parody.
EDIT: Another thing to add... I think most people would be surprised how many contemporary folk musicians (young ones) would actually agree with me. They eventually are challenged with contending with things like: Did folk come from slaves? Or the working class? Or the fraught relations between the two? And is it reconcilable? Where did country music come from?
In my previous comment, please note when I say "hip-hop", I am not referring to music, but culture. Nonetheless...
I grew up in the south. My father was literally a clogger. I'm no stranger to folk. But, I am extremely skeptical of a lot of it's history. The mid-century folk-revival era did a real number on our conception of what's really there culture-wise. Behind the curtain, I am honestly afraid it's mostly puritanism, shame, and self-conflict. It's interesting but I think calling it a cultural movement is mostly romanticism. In terms of music, we could delve into details for days, and break down the whole history of hip-hop and jazz, and I do encourage that. There's a lot of good music there. But, I'm afraid it serves essentially the same end in terms of culture; a terribly familiar story. Hip-hop exhibits the whole of the cultural dynamic fairly explicitly, and is internationally renowned. Folk is mostly replicated in parody.
EDIT: Another thing to add... I think most people would be surprised how many contemporary folk musicians (young ones) would actually agree with me. They eventually are challenged with contending with things like: Did folk come from slaves? Or the working class? Or the fraught relations between the two? And is it reconcilable? Where did country music come from?
>> "In my previous comment, please note when I say "hip-hop", I am not referring to music, but culture. Nonetheless..."
We may have fundamentally incompatible perspectives if you see culture and art as separate things. I grew up surrounded by hip-hop (Atlanta), but I know better than to sing along with the n word as a white person. This is because the experience of the music is inseparable from one's experience with its culture.
We may have fundamentally incompatible perspectives if you see culture and art as separate things. I grew up surrounded by hip-hop (Atlanta), but I know better than to sing along with the n word as a white person. This is because the experience of the music is inseparable from one's experience with its culture.
Culture generally has a parental relationship to art. The art is of the culture but the culture is not of the art. I think we agree on that, but I totally see where you're coming from here because I am suggesting something else with folk.
I am basically saying that the legacy of American folk is just too mysterious to nail down, and too precarious to draw conclusions from. I wonder if this would be the case without the mid-century folk revival, which amounted to a mass-commercialization of the white American south as a suffering working-class. The older field recordings in the Library Of Congress suggest the music was predominantly made by slaves. The old radio recordings from Nashville tell a slightly different story and seem to stitch together something of an art form, likely for the very first time. Then folk-revival was a massively commercial effort that made it all look very pretty. But the culture of it all still remains vague. Touring the south and studying it's history doesn't suggest much of any concern for culture in any higher sense. Literacy was surprisingly high but they mostly read the bible. Music seems to have occupied a space more like entertainment than cultural reflection. A likely theory is that it was very much a culture for slaves, but merely entertainment for white people. Hopefully this clarifies my comprehension. Hip-hop is a full embodiment in comparison; a whole new world of unmitigated expression.
I am basically saying that the legacy of American folk is just too mysterious to nail down, and too precarious to draw conclusions from. I wonder if this would be the case without the mid-century folk revival, which amounted to a mass-commercialization of the white American south as a suffering working-class. The older field recordings in the Library Of Congress suggest the music was predominantly made by slaves. The old radio recordings from Nashville tell a slightly different story and seem to stitch together something of an art form, likely for the very first time. Then folk-revival was a massively commercial effort that made it all look very pretty. But the culture of it all still remains vague. Touring the south and studying it's history doesn't suggest much of any concern for culture in any higher sense. Literacy was surprisingly high but they mostly read the bible. Music seems to have occupied a space more like entertainment than cultural reflection. A likely theory is that it was very much a culture for slaves, but merely entertainment for white people. Hopefully this clarifies my comprehension. Hip-hop is a full embodiment in comparison; a whole new world of unmitigated expression.
Opinionated is one thing, inaccurate is quite another. Reductionist and insulting is yet another.
Too real.
This is just an example of 'path dependency', i.e. 'history matters'. It's not baffling if you consider that sparse, car-driven infrastructure makes a lot of sense in a country with low population density, and population density has tripled in the US since 1930 [1]. At that time, Germany's population density was about 6x the US's.
However, changing transportation infrastructure is a chicken and egg problem.
People get upset if you take away their parking spaces and build densely when efficient public transport doesn't exist yet and they still need to own a car.
Yet building efficient public transport is at least a decade-long endeavor and requires either buying out or leveraging eminent domain to carve out space for the necessary infrastructure.
Local and state officials aren't going to stick their heads out to support this unless voters will politically reward them for starting a project, but probably not being around to see it finished.
If you want a regime that can efficiently bulldoze its way to the public transit and cheaply, then one way is to copy China, give power to governments to 'strongly encourage' the sale of any rights of way needed, don't open it up to public review and leave it completely in the hands of more-or-less capable technocrats. Is that a price you're willing to pay?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183475/united-states-pop...
However, changing transportation infrastructure is a chicken and egg problem.
People get upset if you take away their parking spaces and build densely when efficient public transport doesn't exist yet and they still need to own a car.
Yet building efficient public transport is at least a decade-long endeavor and requires either buying out or leveraging eminent domain to carve out space for the necessary infrastructure.
Local and state officials aren't going to stick their heads out to support this unless voters will politically reward them for starting a project, but probably not being around to see it finished.
If you want a regime that can efficiently bulldoze its way to the public transit and cheaply, then one way is to copy China, give power to governments to 'strongly encourage' the sale of any rights of way needed, don't open it up to public review and leave it completely in the hands of more-or-less capable technocrats. Is that a price you're willing to pay?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183475/united-states-pop...
> don't open it up to public review and leave it completely in the hands of more-or-less capable technocrats. Is that a price you're willing to pay?
Given that in US, "public review" for any kind of infrastructure (regardless if it's an apartment building, a cell base station, a railway, a power plant) means soliciting input from the most meddlesome moralistic NIMBY normies who have as little respect for other people's property rights as they have appreciation for the societal benefits of public infrastructure works -- and then giving them the authority to use their concern trolling to obstruct/delay/kill whatever project is considered.
It actually turns out you don't need to go full-on PRC to build cities with apartments and dense single-family houses with modern, high-capacity railways (all of which help reduce both the need and impact of parking spaces) if you're willing to tell these people to pound sand, and remove the land-use laws that they use to enforce their capriciousness.
Given that in US, "public review" for any kind of infrastructure (regardless if it's an apartment building, a cell base station, a railway, a power plant) means soliciting input from the most meddlesome moralistic NIMBY normies who have as little respect for other people's property rights as they have appreciation for the societal benefits of public infrastructure works -- and then giving them the authority to use their concern trolling to obstruct/delay/kill whatever project is considered.
It actually turns out you don't need to go full-on PRC to build cities with apartments and dense single-family houses with modern, high-capacity railways (all of which help reduce both the need and impact of parking spaces) if you're willing to tell these people to pound sand, and remove the land-use laws that they use to enforce their capriciousness.
This is absolutely correct. NIMBYism has adversely affected more Americans than Russia.
Since it follows that NIMBYs are more anti-American than Russia, we MUST put sanctions on their ability to affect their fellow Americans.
Since it follows that NIMBYs are more anti-American than Russia, we MUST put sanctions on their ability to affect their fellow Americans.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
Exactly. Furthermore, the US is a comparatively young country. A lot of cities with great public transport either already existed before cars were around, or had the necessary population density to support mass transit.
I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car (I did take an Uber because I wanted to see what it was like to drive from the left side!). It was fantastic being able to take the Underground anywhere I needed to be, but it was very clear that it was only possible because the city was already there and densely populated before the arrival of cars.
I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car (I did take an Uber because I wanted to see what it was like to drive from the left side!). It was fantastic being able to take the Underground anywhere I needed to be, but it was very clear that it was only possible because the city was already there and densely populated before the arrival of cars.
Arguable. For every London in Europe, there’s 10 cities that grew 3-5-10x since 1945. After all, the postwar boom happened on both sides of the Atlantic. London, Paris, etc. are outliers.
It was just policy decisions in many cases.
It was just policy decisions in many cases.
To a large extent it’s about path dependency as well. You simply aren’t going to fit car infrastructure in a dense urban area whose streets were originally made for horses and pedestrians. It’s not like several European cities didn’t try though, in the heyday of car-oriented urban planning from the 50s to the 70s. Insofar as those attempts succeeded they are now being undone in favor of transit and walkability.
I don't understand this argument. The automobile is much younger than the country. Cars became broadly used about a century ago, the 1910s-20s. How many U.S. cities do you imagine there are that were created after that? Or even that, due to cars, dramatically changed their size relative to the overall population?
>How many U.S. cities do you imagine there are that were created after that?
Quite a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Post-war_suburban_expan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
Quite a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Post-war_suburban_expan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
Created, or built-up, expanded, and for more heavily populated? The US population has more than tripled in that same period, and the percentage of those people living in rural areas dropped precipitously.
>>I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car
Well, to be fair, if you are talking about a specific city in Europe then you should do the same here in the USA. London's american equivalent is NYC. You will not need a car here either.
Well, to be fair, if you are talking about a specific city in Europe then you should do the same here in the USA. London's american equivalent is NYC. You will not need a car here either.
>I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car
I'm not sure this is a great test. (Though, yes, London does have a great transit system even though I've also taken cabs from time to time for various reasons.)
When I visit American cities and don't travel outside them, I very rarely rent a car and don't necessarily take cabs/Lyfts all that much other than getting from the airport. I'm usually staying/doing business in/eating in a relatively central location that often exists in cities that are otherwise fairly spread out.
To give just an example that I'm very familiar with. I never rent a car any longer when I visit Raleigh but I'd never claim you could live there without a car.
I'm not sure this is a great test. (Though, yes, London does have a great transit system even though I've also taken cabs from time to time for various reasons.)
When I visit American cities and don't travel outside them, I very rarely rent a car and don't necessarily take cabs/Lyfts all that much other than getting from the airport. I'm usually staying/doing business in/eating in a relatively central location that often exists in cities that are otherwise fairly spread out.
To give just an example that I'm very familiar with. I never rent a car any longer when I visit Raleigh but I'd never claim you could live there without a car.
Historical note: most US cities had dense public transit until the rise of the automobile. Those transit systems were bought by the car companies and dismantled to drive adoption of private cars. A similar path led to the creation of the crime of 'jaywalking' and getting people off of the streets so car adoption wouldn't be stopped by high rates of drivers killing pedestrians.
Talking about modes of transportation that work well based on countrywide population density is silly. The US's population density is massively skewed by Alaska and everything from Kansas to California being almost completely empty.
Most east coast cities have actually decreased their population density considerably since 1930.
Most east coast cities have actually decreased their population density considerably since 1930.
Yes. I had the same experience. Visiting Mountain View, I was surprised at how walk hostile is. It took me 10 minutes to just pass one of the buildings surrounded by a huge parking lot and move to the next. To go from Intel offices to the Computer History Museum takes a really long walk cross kilometres of parking space.
The Computer History Museum is situated in the middle of "no-where". But it has a highway 2 minutes away. To go from the close houses walking you need to walk close to the highway, with no trees or shadows. https://goo.gl/maps/P6d977i44SA2
Some friends had a story about this. They were in LA and asked directions to a comic shop. "It is 10 minutes from here in that direction". After 20 minutes walking they asked again. It was "10 minutes" by car, the guy that give them directions did not think that they will go walking.
I always have lived in places where is better to take public transportation or to walk than to use your private car. And one of the reasons is that the parking space is expensive. Buildings with parking space, that is also mandatory for new buildings, will place the space underground. This keeps residential buildings, shopping centres and offices close together.
The Computer History Museum is situated in the middle of "no-where". But it has a highway 2 minutes away. To go from the close houses walking you need to walk close to the highway, with no trees or shadows. https://goo.gl/maps/P6d977i44SA2
Some friends had a story about this. They were in LA and asked directions to a comic shop. "It is 10 minutes from here in that direction". After 20 minutes walking they asked again. It was "10 minutes" by car, the guy that give them directions did not think that they will go walking.
I always have lived in places where is better to take public transportation or to walk than to use your private car. And one of the reasons is that the parking space is expensive. Buildings with parking space, that is also mandatory for new buildings, will place the space underground. This keeps residential buildings, shopping centres and offices close together.
You can use an electric unicycle to get around easily.
I've heard this referred to as the "cycle of autodependency". This graphic describes it well.
https://imgur.com/Kuu4j8m
Once you've created an auto dependent city it's really difficult to undo it.
Surrey, the biggest suburb of Vancouver, is trying to shift from being a car centric suburb to building its own compact downtown. It will take decades to change development patterns. They're trying to jump start it by creating their own LRT system, but of course due to auto dependency there is push back because LRT will "get in the way of the cars..."
https://imgur.com/Kuu4j8m
Once you've created an auto dependent city it's really difficult to undo it.
Surrey, the biggest suburb of Vancouver, is trying to shift from being a car centric suburb to building its own compact downtown. It will take decades to change development patterns. They're trying to jump start it by creating their own LRT system, but of course due to auto dependency there is push back because LRT will "get in the way of the cars..."
It's infuriating to me living in North America (I'm in Canada but it's as bad or worse in the US) watching cities develop this way. Mention this to almost anyone here and you will be met with blank stares. There are countless places that contain many stores that share parking lots that we so huge you still have to drive between them.
Reno is an awesome example of this, and this is true even of the latest developments. It's like developers in Reno have never seen pictures of other cities, even here in America. This problem has been solved time and again... and Reno builds large and small shopping malls and then they're empty and under-utilized, so they build another new one and the results are the same.
Having lived overseas a few times in my life, I really am looking forward to leaving NorCal/NV and heading somewhere more sanely organized.
Having lived overseas a few times in my life, I really am looking forward to leaving NorCal/NV and heading somewhere more sanely organized.
America has plenty of cities that are just like cities everywhere else...we're a big country, we hardly have need to pack everyone in like sardines. I live in a major city, downtown. And I'm starting to hate it. No personal space, no yard, shared (or no) garage, and I'm a car enthusiast by the way, which I'm sure is practically a dirty word around most city-dwellers now. I'm seriously considering moving out to the suburbs even if it means a longer commute to the office. I like driving, and I have no problem driving places to get things done...after all, I can only carry so much shopping with me anyway.
I don’t think so. American cities just aren’t dense enough to please compact-city lovers looking for a walkable experience like Prague. Even where I live in Guadalajara is better than every city I’ve lived in the States because of all the tiny shops near me. In the States I may have a 7/11 near me which doesn’t even carry coffee grounds or fruit/veg. It’s kind if a sad place to live.
Significant sections of a number of US cities are quite walkable: New York, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, parts of Denver, Chicago. As well as smaller cities like Boulder. It's certainly true that newer US cities tend to be more spread out but if city walkability is a priority for you, examples exist.
This is what I saw when I randomly dropped the yellow man into the middle of Boulder, CO: https://goo.gl/maps/A9oKpnFQLpR2
Boulder has a city population of about 100,000 and a metro region population of about 300,000. Here are some random Street View locations from European towns and cities of a roughly similar size.
Reading, England: https://goo.gl/maps/yQaTTaWQJav
Bonn, Germany: https://goo.gl/maps/Pu9Ro28F4UH2
Caen, France: https://goo.gl/maps/ppgL2J8nsAJ2
Vicenza, Italy: https://goo.gl/maps/rMtCBEqC7vr
Click around a bit, explore the neighbourhood, get a sense for the place. Get the picture?
American urban development happens on a scale that is simply incomprehensible to most Europeans. I spent a good ten minutes clicking around Boulder, looking for the city centre; it took me that long to realise that there wasn't one, at least not in the sense that I understand.
Boulder has a city population of about 100,000 and a metro region population of about 300,000. Here are some random Street View locations from European towns and cities of a roughly similar size.
Reading, England: https://goo.gl/maps/yQaTTaWQJav
Bonn, Germany: https://goo.gl/maps/Pu9Ro28F4UH2
Caen, France: https://goo.gl/maps/ppgL2J8nsAJ2
Vicenza, Italy: https://goo.gl/maps/rMtCBEqC7vr
Click around a bit, explore the neighbourhood, get a sense for the place. Get the picture?
American urban development happens on a scale that is simply incomprehensible to most Europeans. I spent a good ten minutes clicking around Boulder, looking for the city centre; it took me that long to realise that there wasn't one, at least not in the sense that I understand.
This is what I saw when I randomly dropped the yellow man into the middle of Boulder :P
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.0181872,-105.2785854,2a,75...
Pearl Street is the main drag. It's essentially a college town although a fair bit of tech has moved in. It's actually pretty walkable but Boulder is very protective of open spaces and conservative about growth generally so you're not going to see anything like a dense urban core. Somewhere like Ithaca NY isn't that different.
Of course, you wouldn't want to live in Boulder without a car. Pretty much the whole point of being there is to get into the mountains.
Of course, you wouldn't want to live in Boulder without a car. Pretty much the whole point of being there is to get into the mountains.
Very, very few cities in America are walkable enough to enable the average household to not own a car without it being a hardship [1]. You can probably count them on one hand.
So yes, Denver has a few walkable areas that are nice. But if you can only walk 80% of the time and still have to own a car for the other 20%, which has to sit in a parking spot somewhere all the time, then we're back to the subject of this article.
1. I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you have kids, or aren't able-bodied, or don't want to spend 3x - 5x more time on public transit than you would in a car, or live in an area with extreme weather conditions, or don't want to be weird-sweaty-bike-person all the time, etc, then you need a car in most of America.
So yes, Denver has a few walkable areas that are nice. But if you can only walk 80% of the time and still have to own a car for the other 20%, which has to sit in a parking spot somewhere all the time, then we're back to the subject of this article.
1. I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you have kids, or aren't able-bodied, or don't want to spend 3x - 5x more time on public transit than you would in a car, or live in an area with extreme weather conditions, or don't want to be weird-sweaty-bike-person all the time, etc, then you need a car in most of America.
Oh I agree. Maybe for a few years after school if I had a job in the city I could imagine a handful or two of cities that I might forgo owning given the various options like Zipcar and Uber available today. But long term? I'm not sure there's any US city other than NYC/Manhattan where I wouldn't. (And I wouldn't live there.)
I've walked a couple hundred kilometers in San Francisco and I saw significantly less than when I did the same in Tokyo. I wouldn't call SF walkable at all.
That's more of a cultural thing methinks.
In the predominantly hispanic areas around Phoenix there are tons of tiny shops serving the neighborhood -- it's a thing. Where I live now there used to be a few corner markets but now that gentrification is in full swing they are all gone and are being replaced with trendy restaurant/bars with the people presumably now shopping at the major supermarkets. There were probably more before they built the super-massive Ranch Market but I didn't live in this area then so can't really say.
I'd venture to say it has more to do with the cost of owning/operating a car, in Mexico (and much of Europe) they are significantly more costly than the US so the convenience of "shopping local" is different.
In the predominantly hispanic areas around Phoenix there are tons of tiny shops serving the neighborhood -- it's a thing. Where I live now there used to be a few corner markets but now that gentrification is in full swing they are all gone and are being replaced with trendy restaurant/bars with the people presumably now shopping at the major supermarkets. There were probably more before they built the super-massive Ranch Market but I didn't live in this area then so can't really say.
I'd venture to say it has more to do with the cost of owning/operating a car, in Mexico (and much of Europe) they are significantly more costly than the US so the convenience of "shopping local" is different.
The supermarket test isn't really a very good one. If I'm standing in Chinatown in San Francisco or Boston I can easily imagine that I'm more than a mile away from the nearest supermarket. But I will in no way be lacking in non-packaged food options.
> I may have a 7/11 near me which doesn’t even carry coffee grounds or fruit/veg. It’s kind if a sad place to live.
it's only sad because you went to a 7/11 expecting to get produce! I guarantee you there's a real grocery store within a few blocks.
it's only sad because you went to a 7/11 expecting to get produce! I guarantee you there's a real grocery store within a few blocks.
I guarantee you there's a real grocery store within a few blocks.
Pretty good chance that's not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
"In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 23.5% of Americans live in a food desert, meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas, and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas."
Pretty good chance that's not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
"In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 23.5% of Americans live in a food desert, meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas, and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas."
> Pretty good chance that's not true
Or a 23.5% chance that's not true...
Or a 23.5% chance that's not true...
In response to a “guarantee”, that’s a lot.
“I guarantee this plane won’t crash” = 23.5% chance of dying?
“I guarantee this plane won’t crash” = 23.5% chance of dying?
The real question one should be asking is how much of that is by choice?
Plus the "within 1 mile" standard seem a little low, that would mean that every single urban grocery store would have multiple competitors within a 2 mile radius which is totally unrealistic though, apparently, is quite common.
Plus the "within 1 mile" standard seem a little low, that would mean that every single urban grocery store would have multiple competitors within a 2 mile radius which is totally unrealistic though, apparently, is quite common.
America definitely doesn't have plenty of cities that are like cities in Europe and Asia in particular (where I've lived and traveled most outside of the US).
As to your situation, it sounds like it's just not a good fit for your lifestyle. No one is saying that there's not pros / cons or that dense urban living is for everyone. If you want to grow all your own food and raise horses, NYC probably isn't going to be a great fit for you. Ditto if you want a garage full of cars that you work on and take out for leisurely drives all the time.
The issue in America isn't that everyone needs to be forced to live in high-density urban areas. It's that we've spent decades enacting bad policies that heavily discourage urban density while encouraging and subsidizing suburban sprawl. And it turns out that suburban sprawl is bad for the majority of people, and carries huge externalities that we're discovering we can't really afford, but it'll take many decades to reverse the damage we've done.
What makes it more difficult is that there's a lot of cultural value in America (some of it natural, some of it driven by anti-density propaganda) around being positive towards cars, driving, having lots of huge personal space, etc. And negative perceptions of density, public transit, etc.
Not an expert, that's just my read on the situation :)
As to your situation, it sounds like it's just not a good fit for your lifestyle. No one is saying that there's not pros / cons or that dense urban living is for everyone. If you want to grow all your own food and raise horses, NYC probably isn't going to be a great fit for you. Ditto if you want a garage full of cars that you work on and take out for leisurely drives all the time.
The issue in America isn't that everyone needs to be forced to live in high-density urban areas. It's that we've spent decades enacting bad policies that heavily discourage urban density while encouraging and subsidizing suburban sprawl. And it turns out that suburban sprawl is bad for the majority of people, and carries huge externalities that we're discovering we can't really afford, but it'll take many decades to reverse the damage we've done.
What makes it more difficult is that there's a lot of cultural value in America (some of it natural, some of it driven by anti-density propaganda) around being positive towards cars, driving, having lots of huge personal space, etc. And negative perceptions of density, public transit, etc.
Not an expert, that's just my read on the situation :)
Yeah I used to love the city and all the action too. But I tired of the filth, noise, hassle. I just wanted peace and quiet so I moved to the country. Couldn’t believe how much I loved the quiet. Also I love how dark it is at night and being able to see stars. When I get home, the air is noticeably fresher too. I can more or less do what I want to do on my property without anyone telling me what to do. I would have never thought I’d have loved it as much as I do.
If ONLY your "distopian nightmare" of high density cities were true.
In reality it is the opposite. The vast vast majority of space in the US is reserved for the low density living.
Even the supposedly "high density" cities in the US are nothing compared to what they could be. Even places like New York have difficulty building enough housing to house everyone who wants to live there.
I just want a single city, in the entire world, where everyone said "hey, let's just allow building to be as high as anyone wants, and not put a single building restriction on anything".
The people who want low density living having an entire world to choose from. And yet that's apparently not enough for them.
In reality it is the opposite. The vast vast majority of space in the US is reserved for the low density living.
Even the supposedly "high density" cities in the US are nothing compared to what they could be. Even places like New York have difficulty building enough housing to house everyone who wants to live there.
I just want a single city, in the entire world, where everyone said "hey, let's just allow building to be as high as anyone wants, and not put a single building restriction on anything".
The people who want low density living having an entire world to choose from. And yet that's apparently not enough for them.
"America is big enough for cities to spread out" is a terrible meme. It's not like cities in other countries are right next to each other and if you lowered the density by a factor of two or three there would be war between the cities over who gets to own that new parking lot.
Leaving the urban area of my city for the 'burbs was awesome, I highly recommend it.
But wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that? In Europe's old cities, people often go shopping every day even if they're single. It's annoying to me, as the infrastructure is mostly built for lugging around as much as you can carry home on your feet and even all the packaged foods come in very small sizes (2 servings). US stores, like malls, seem much more convenient for families.
What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. But I guess that's more family-friendly as well, especially with 2 or more kids.
What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. But I guess that's more family-friendly as well, especially with 2 or more kids.
> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built [...] far away from residential areas
This is probably zoning; in many non-urban places mixed zoning is considered to lower the quality of residential living. So you end up with subdivision mazes without so much as a convenience store in walking range.
> wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip
My impression is that it's the other way around: because trips take so long, you maximize the amount you fetch on each.
This is probably zoning; in many non-urban places mixed zoning is considered to lower the quality of residential living. So you end up with subdivision mazes without so much as a convenience store in walking range.
> wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip
My impression is that it's the other way around: because trips take so long, you maximize the amount you fetch on each.
> people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that
The distance is related to the shopping habit. It’s neat watching people move to New York. At first, they continue their big, irregular shopping trips. Slowly, though, they switch to quick daily or every-other-day trips (+ delivery), and walkig to a store around the corner.
The distance is related to the shopping habit. It’s neat watching people move to New York. At first, they continue their big, irregular shopping trips. Slowly, though, they switch to quick daily or every-other-day trips (+ delivery), and walkig to a store around the corner.
> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots.
Ironically, where I live (one of the oldest neighborhoods in Phoenix), they're taking the exact opposite approach -- building restaurants with absolutely zero consideration for parking and it's having a negative impact. They had to put up "resident only parking with permit" signs on my street because it got so bad. The apartments across the street went so far as to designate parking spots on the street -- totally illegal but it seems to work. The ones next door to them leave their trashcans out 24/7 for the same effect.
Ironically, where I live (one of the oldest neighborhoods in Phoenix), they're taking the exact opposite approach -- building restaurants with absolutely zero consideration for parking and it's having a negative impact. They had to put up "resident only parking with permit" signs on my street because it got so bad. The apartments across the street went so far as to designate parking spots on the street -- totally illegal but it seems to work. The ones next door to them leave their trashcans out 24/7 for the same effect.
Out of curiosity, do you have a sense for whether the restaurant's patrons are driving from other parts of the city, or from the suburbs?
My guess is most of them work downtown and stop in the restaurant/bar to wait out traffic before driving home. And all the employees seem to drive to work. Plus the multitude of (baseball, basketball, arts & entertainment, convention center) venues around.
At first I just considered the parking hassles a "free-wifi tax" but then they added a second popular sandwich shop/bar next door and it just snowballed from there. Oh, and I lost the free-wifi benefit so now it's all just pure hassle.
At first I just considered the parking hassles a "free-wifi tax" but then they added a second popular sandwich shop/bar next door and it just snowballed from there. Oh, and I lost the free-wifi benefit so now it's all just pure hassle.
Are you unable to pay a business for a place to store your car? What's the problem, exactly?
stefan_(1)
A family member describes to me the love affair of the automobile ~65 years ago did this. It became so ingrained in the culture, intentionally designing cities around the car so that you could drive more. Americans loved showing off cars, they loved driving them. Teenage boys' psyche used it as a way to get out of the house, away from their parents (this is city life in middle America during and post-WWII) in particular as men came home from the war, and women weren't doing as much factory work. Kids wanted out of the house all day long. Cars were many things to people but it was the hyped technology of that era and making everything bigger, including all the available infrastructure was a "good thing". You'd see gas stations on every corner.
Another family member of that same era to this day says "rip out the trees, rip out the bike lanes, put in more lanes to deal with this god awful traffic!" Driving is a right. It is not a privilege. Again, it's that ingrained in the culture, and the belief system.
One of those family members gets that cars are on the way out and other things need to replace it for the sake of the planet and human sanity. As much as it was induced sanity in the beginning, it's now a source of individual and public planning stress. The other family member has zero interest in accommodating anything but more cars.
This still manifests in how Americans get driver's licenses: states issue them, and the testing is pretty much a disqualification test not a qualification test; by that I mean it's not so much up to you to prove you're a safe driver but for the test to prove you're not. And boom you get a license. Literally no experience required, no driver's education required. Your uncle can teach you how to drive. It might be 2018 but it's the wild west and cowboys still exist here!
Another family member of that same era to this day says "rip out the trees, rip out the bike lanes, put in more lanes to deal with this god awful traffic!" Driving is a right. It is not a privilege. Again, it's that ingrained in the culture, and the belief system.
One of those family members gets that cars are on the way out and other things need to replace it for the sake of the planet and human sanity. As much as it was induced sanity in the beginning, it's now a source of individual and public planning stress. The other family member has zero interest in accommodating anything but more cars.
This still manifests in how Americans get driver's licenses: states issue them, and the testing is pretty much a disqualification test not a qualification test; by that I mean it's not so much up to you to prove you're a safe driver but for the test to prove you're not. And boom you get a license. Literally no experience required, no driver's education required. Your uncle can teach you how to drive. It might be 2018 but it's the wild west and cowboys still exist here!
>Literally no experience required, no driver's education required. Your uncle can teach you how to drive.
Driver's ed at least used to be pretty common,in part because it gave a discount for the (expensive) insurance covering younger drivers. I don't see anything special about the typical driver's ed instructor anyway. It's not like the typical driver's ed is some expensive defensive driving course taught by an ex race car driver.
Furthermore, the typical system is that someone gets a learners permit first which lets them drive only under a limited set of conditions so they gain experience that way.
And, honestly, you gain experience by doing things not taking classes.
Driver's ed at least used to be pretty common,in part because it gave a discount for the (expensive) insurance covering younger drivers. I don't see anything special about the typical driver's ed instructor anyway. It's not like the typical driver's ed is some expensive defensive driving course taught by an ex race car driver.
Furthermore, the typical system is that someone gets a learners permit first which lets them drive only under a limited set of conditions so they gain experience that way.
And, honestly, you gain experience by doing things not taking classes.
The important thing about driver's ed is that it's a /professional/ teaching the foundational experience (they also typically use a custom car where the instructor has limited controls in the passenger's seat in case things are going really wrong).
That way you try to bring the quality of drivers up to that of the instructor, not a cargo cult of family members who might be horrid at driving.
That way you try to bring the quality of drivers up to that of the instructor, not a cargo cult of family members who might be horrid at driving.
And the big thing is dangerous misinformation and misconceptions get passed down without professional instruction - you see it all the time.
> you gain experience by doing things not taking classes.
Sure, but "experience" doesn't have to mean you're out there on the highway with everyone else. You don't start scuba diving in the actual ocean. You get experience in a pool for a while first.
Sure, but "experience" doesn't have to mean you're out there on the highway with everyone else. You don't start scuba diving in the actual ocean. You get experience in a pool for a while first.
> It's not like the typical driver's ed is some expensive defensive driving course taught by an ex race car driver.
This is a common misunderstanding of what is really needed in driver education to improve the average driver. The average American driver really lacks a lot of skills and a clear understanding of optimal driving behavior. Driving on public roads should be optimized for safety, but most drive as if it ought to be optimized for speed.
It would be a good improvement if all drivers were required to take a Smith system or similar defensive driving course annually in order to retain their license.
This is a common misunderstanding of what is really needed in driver education to improve the average driver. The average American driver really lacks a lot of skills and a clear understanding of optimal driving behavior. Driving on public roads should be optimized for safety, but most drive as if it ought to be optimized for speed.
It would be a good improvement if all drivers were required to take a Smith system or similar defensive driving course annually in order to retain their license.
You learn bad habits by doing things incorrectly over and and over again too. As a pilot, the rigorousness of aeronautical training compared to the complete lack of training requirement for car driving, is ridiculous to me. The point is you have to learn how to fit into a system, because it's a shared system.
But somehow driving, and the daily experience of it is: fuck you, me first. And it shows. It's an adversarial system. I'm really impressed that it works as well as it does, despite being the #1 killer of teenagers, and 40,000 total deaths on the road per year.
But somehow driving, and the daily experience of it is: fuck you, me first. And it shows. It's an adversarial system. I'm really impressed that it works as well as it does, despite being the #1 killer of teenagers, and 40,000 total deaths on the road per year.
I don't totally disagree with you but people have to work within practical realities. In this case, western countries have pretty much decided that being allowed to drive on public roads so long as you can reach the gas pedal is probably a bit too free and easy. On the other hand, requiring the sort of significant time and financial commitment required to get and maintain a pilot's license--together with medical exams, etc.--isn't realistic to require for something that many people effectively need to be able to function in society.
So you end up with the current system which is fairly similar across states and countries with somewhat greater or lesser rigor depending on the particular place.
So you end up with the current system which is fairly similar across states and countries with somewhat greater or lesser rigor depending on the particular place.
I'm not familiar with licensing requirements in other countries, are they more rigorous?
Here in the UK, you need to take a multiple-choice theory test and a practical driving test. The practical test takes about 40 minutes and is conducted on public roads. The pass rate for both the theory and practical test is about 50%. It's not uncommon for learners to fail the practical test several times. You're not required to have professional instruction but the vast majority of people do, because it's extremely difficult to pass the driving test without it. Most instructors recommend 30 to 40 hours of tuition before attempting the test.
Learners who are driving on a provisional license prior to passing their test must be accompanied by someone who has held a full license for at least three years. They must display an L-plate on the front and rear of the vehicle and cannot use motorways (freeways) unless they are accompanied by a licensed instructor.
It is my understanding that the British process is relatively straightforward by European standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_the_United_...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Learners who are driving on a provisional license prior to passing their test must be accompanied by someone who has held a full license for at least three years. They must display an L-plate on the front and rear of the vehicle and cannot use motorways (freeways) unless they are accompanied by a licensed instructor.
It is my understanding that the British process is relatively straightforward by European standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_the_United_...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I visited the US (particularly the bay area) for the first time recently, and I was baffled by the sparsity of buildings. Suburbs and shopping areas are so far away that you need a car to go anywhere
When I lived in Cincinnati just north of the University in the cool little Gaslight neighborhood, I would come home from my job in an office park in the suburbs, then walk to the grocery, cool shops, the cafe, the library, the bank, friends houses. That wasn't typical, but it still existed.
When I lived in Cincinnati just north of the University in the cool little Gaslight neighborhood, I would come home from my job in an office park in the suburbs, then walk to the grocery, cool shops, the cafe, the library, the bank, friends houses. That wasn't typical, but it still existed.
That's because it is cheaper to acquire land than build underground parking. I live in a city that has gone through that transformation. Big parking were converted into malls/supermarkets with multi-floor parking.
Parking areas were also built with underground parking buildings. But that's only because land become scare and so it was expensive to have a non-underground parking.
Parking areas were also built with underground parking buildings. But that's only because land become scare and so it was expensive to have a non-underground parking.
Here in the US, some city developers are building apartment buildings - with dozens of units - which provide NO parking for the tenants ... let alone any potential guests. To me this is equally puzzling.
Reasoning leadership is a necessary part of city ecology. Rewarding complainers (hello Pavlov) is not a reasoned solution.
Reasoning leadership is a necessary part of city ecology. Rewarding complainers (hello Pavlov) is not a reasoned solution.
The lack of parking may be an effort to solve a chicken and the egg problem. While some zoning restrictions call for parking per unit, some high traffic areas are calling for less parking per unit.
If everybody is expected to have a car then pedestrians never develop, local businesses don't thrive, class mobility is it's highest.
By limiting parking, or at least making it ala carte, residents and businesses consider their location proximity to eachother.
If everybody is expected to have a car then pedestrians never develop, local businesses don't thrive, class mobility is it's highest.
By limiting parking, or at least making it ala carte, residents and businesses consider their location proximity to eachother.
This is why we have more flooding too. More parking space means less ground to absorb rain water.
America has a lot of land and in the developed world you wont get planning permission for residential property with out of street parking
Have you been to many other regions in the US? I live in the Bay Area and one of the few things I love about it is that it's way more "walkable" than other places I've lived in the states, especially the suburbs.
Or, maybe a better question: what part of the Bay Area?
Or, maybe a better question: what part of the Bay Area?
The Bay is the garbage dumb of modern America. I'm sorry that it left av memory. Next time head to Chitown or NYC and absorb some culture.
This article tries to make the (weak) point that there is plenty of parking simply because averages show they spots sit empty most of the time.
But that type of analysis ignores the obvious fact that most parking is built to support peak times. Most mall parking lots sit mostly empty, except on the weekends when everyone goes to the mall or restaurants or whatever. Corporate lots sit empty on the weekends.
Cut any of these lots by 25% and you cause real problems.
You could apply the same analysis to home occupancy and conclude that since most homes are sitting empty for 8 hrs a day, we could/should reduce the number of homes by 25% and be none the wiser.
But that type of analysis ignores the obvious fact that most parking is built to support peak times. Most mall parking lots sit mostly empty, except on the weekends when everyone goes to the mall or restaurants or whatever. Corporate lots sit empty on the weekends.
Cut any of these lots by 25% and you cause real problems.
You could apply the same analysis to home occupancy and conclude that since most homes are sitting empty for 8 hrs a day, we could/should reduce the number of homes by 25% and be none the wiser.
>...averages show they spots sit empty most of the time.
But that type of analysis ignores the obvious fact that most parking is built to support peak times.
The word, that not enough technical and non-technical people know, that describes this issue is ergodicty:
> an ergodic dynamical system is one that, broadly speaking, has the same behavior averaged over time as averaged over the space of all the system's states in its phase space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity
The word, that not enough technical and non-technical people know, that describes this issue is ergodicty:
> an ergodic dynamical system is one that, broadly speaking, has the same behavior averaged over time as averaged over the space of all the system's states in its phase space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity
I'm not sure ergodic is what you're looking for here.
Ergodic is like a gas particle in a box. Over time, it'll have been at every position in the box.
Non-ergodic is like a house of cards. Eventually, it'll collapse and stay down.
Ergodic is like a gas particle in a box. Over time, it'll have been at every position in the box.
Non-ergodic is like a house of cards. Eventually, it'll collapse and stay down.
Let there be a gas particle in a box. Now cut the box in half and if the gas particle can exist in all remaining space in the box, the box has had an ergodic transformation.
Non ergodic: Let there be a car on a major highway in a city. Now cut the roads on the highway in half (say for construction). Congestion results and consequently the cars never again move as fast as before. (equivalent to your house of cards)
Non ergodic: Let there be a car on a major highway in a city. Now cut the roads on the highway in half (say for construction). Congestion results and consequently the cars never again move as fast as before. (equivalent to your house of cards)
def ergodic(f(),x):
return f(avg(x)) == avg(f(x))Ah, yes, traffic is non-ergodic. I thought you were suggesting the opposite.
BTW, it looks like you've got a syntax error in your Python example.
BTW, it looks like you've got a syntax error in your Python example.
Seems like a useful term to know. Too bad the wikipedia article is too dense to understand.
Consider editing the Wikipedia page to make the term more approachable.
The level that allows all cars to park at peak times is not the economically efficient level; that hugely increases the overall cost, as you cant use parking for any other use. Peak cases should have surge pricing to ration the space there are for efficiency, and the overall level should be less.
But they already mostly do. In far-out suburbs, huge mall parking lots aren't competing with anything else, there's plenty of space.
And in downtown cities, parking garages are alreay expensive. $30-50/day in Manhattan, for example. (I would agree that street parking should match garage rates, and not be effectively subsidized, though.)
And in downtown cities, parking garages are alreay expensive. $30-50/day in Manhattan, for example. (I would agree that street parking should match garage rates, and not be effectively subsidized, though.)
That seems pretty cheap. How much is rent on a similar amount of space? Remember all the space needed for accessing the spot, administration (if any), too! Or are there different rules for storing cars than people?
(Incidentally, there very much are different rules, and for the most part US cities have worked very, very hard to make it easier to add cars than people).
(Incidentally, there very much are different rules, and for the most part US cities have worked very, very hard to make it easier to add cars than people).
Well, at $5/sq ft/mo. for average real estate (Manhattan, e.g. a 600 sq ft apt is $3K/mo), and if a parking space is 180 ft, then that's $900/mo., or $30/day, plus overhead/access.
So $30-50/day seems right, especially considering parking garages tend to be underground, no plumbing, etc., so the space is presumably cheaper than residential/office.
So $30-50/day seems right, especially considering parking garages tend to be underground, no plumbing, etc., so the space is presumably cheaper than residential/office.
If you build only one story above the parking space...
If it wasn’t economically efficient, they wouldn’t exist.
My uncle runs a small parking lot in a central business district. He clears a very healthy living working 5:30-9 five days a week, plus events. When he is ready to retire, he can sell it for a couple of million dollars or pass it on to his kid.
Most older central city parking is like that... modest income to cover taxes and expenses to park the property for future speculation or security for loans. Newer ones are usually part of another development and are tax exempt or taxpayer funded.
The malls were very economically viable in the 80s and 90s. In my areas, malls whose bonds are getting paid off are in-filling the outer areas of the property and some lots with the current hot real estate hustle... hotels and giant gas stations.
My uncle runs a small parking lot in a central business district. He clears a very healthy living working 5:30-9 five days a week, plus events. When he is ready to retire, he can sell it for a couple of million dollars or pass it on to his kid.
Most older central city parking is like that... modest income to cover taxes and expenses to park the property for future speculation or security for loans. Newer ones are usually part of another development and are tax exempt or taxpayer funded.
The malls were very economically viable in the 80s and 90s. In my areas, malls whose bonds are getting paid off are in-filling the outer areas of the property and some lots with the current hot real estate hustle... hotels and giant gas stations.
Reminds me of that old joke: Two economists are leaving a lecture. One says, "Hey, there's a $100 bill on the floor!" The other replies without looking down, "Can't be. If there were, someone would have picked it up."
The market can be inefficient. It's a construct of society and society can set some nonsensical rules. Heck, the market can be inefficient even under simple rules. It's easy to construct dynamical systems with different phases, some with equilibria and some without. Most economic analysis -- that whole supply/demand thing -- assumes an equilibrium to make the math easier.
The market can be inefficient. It's a construct of society and society can set some nonsensical rules. Heck, the market can be inefficient even under simple rules. It's easy to construct dynamical systems with different phases, some with equilibria and some without. Most economic analysis -- that whole supply/demand thing -- assumes an equilibrium to make the math easier.
Where I live (Los Angeles), parts of parking lots are rented out for other things. You often see radio station promotions, paper shredding companies, and things like that renting parts of the parking lots of grocery stores, etc. at off-peak times.
My employer, however, does not rent their parking lot out after hours. They might be able to make some money if they did, though.
My employer, however, does not rent their parking lot out after hours. They might be able to make some money if they did, though.
Exactly. I'm all for mass transit replacing cars and parking... but this article falls flat on its face trying to argue that not-enough-parking is an illusion.
Even on Black Friday many mall parking lots are far from full. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/highlights-fr...
I'm not sure how much that tells you. There are plenty of moribund malls around. I'll probably be able to find plenty of parking outside JC Penney or Toys R Us at the one near me any day of the year. There are other local malls I'm not going anywhere near after about mid November.
Yeah, malls are dying, and they're almost certainly not paying enough for the value of all that empty parking. Land value tax!
Paying who enough exactly?
Dying malls get liquidated and repurposed if it's economically viable otherwise they just sit there as a giant husk of "what was" because it hurts no one for them to merely exist.
Dying malls get liquidated and repurposed if it's economically viable otherwise they just sit there as a giant husk of "what was" because it hurts no one for them to merely exist.
It hurts society, but when the damage is spread out over tens of thousands of citizens, it can take a lot of effort to distract them from their day of work and taking care of kids to come together and decide to raise enough money to purchase the empty land and turn it into a park or something the community can use like dense living and services people want.
Just because something exists doesn't mean the market is working. Central Park doesn't exist because it was "economically viable", some things are difficult to put in monetary terms and especially when it requires voters to get together to come to a concensus.
The empty mall lot owner can probably keep re-financing the land and using it as a piggy bank since property values are on a tear in the Valley...what do they care how little value it provides to nearby and prospective residents.
Just because something exists doesn't mean the market is working. Central Park doesn't exist because it was "economically viable", some things are difficult to put in monetary terms and especially when it requires voters to get together to come to a concensus.
The empty mall lot owner can probably keep re-financing the land and using it as a piggy bank since property values are on a tear in the Valley...what do they care how little value it provides to nearby and prospective residents.
The dying malls are mostly in less affluent and more rural areas where land isn't in especially high demand. That's certainly the case with the one fairly near me.
Folks on this board might be familiar with Valco, a mall which has been dying for thirty years. Smack in the middle of Cupertino, which no-one would describe as less-affluent or more-rural.
source: a few cherrypicked tweets
Until cities have a better alternative to driving than "use our terrible mass transit in our poorly-designed cities," this will remain a problem.
American cities are designed for cars, so that bicycles, scooters, or any other human-scale transportation is not just inconvenient, it's dangerous. Forcing skateboards, scooters, gyros, bicycles, etc., into the road with 4,000 pound cars is insanely dangerous. If you're riding something that can't be carried into a building with you, it's inconvenient at best to park it outside.
Just removing parking from new construction won't solve the problem, it will compound it. People still won't want to get on slow, crowded, uncomfortable buses or packed, unreliable, dirty trains. We'll just get more people driving endlessly around the block looking for parking and polluting the air, more accidents from drivers hitting people in the road, more sprawl as people shun the city so they can drive in the suburbs instead.
Roads have to be repurposed to make light personal transportation safe. Take every two-way two-lane and split it into a one-way, with a physical separation between a car side and a personal transport side. Remove parking from the curbs, and put it in the middle so one side can be for cars and the other for bikes, scooters, skaters, etc.
Public transit needs a major overhaul, major investment, and a new attitude. It has to be about riders' comfort, convenience, and happiness, not just jamming people into routes as if they were statistics in a planning meeting.
New development should be aimed at walkable, human-scale neighborhoods, planned for people first, not cars.
All these things have to happen to solve the problem. It won't be easy, but unless we do something like that, we'll be living with the car problem for a very long time to come.
American cities are designed for cars, so that bicycles, scooters, or any other human-scale transportation is not just inconvenient, it's dangerous. Forcing skateboards, scooters, gyros, bicycles, etc., into the road with 4,000 pound cars is insanely dangerous. If you're riding something that can't be carried into a building with you, it's inconvenient at best to park it outside.
Just removing parking from new construction won't solve the problem, it will compound it. People still won't want to get on slow, crowded, uncomfortable buses or packed, unreliable, dirty trains. We'll just get more people driving endlessly around the block looking for parking and polluting the air, more accidents from drivers hitting people in the road, more sprawl as people shun the city so they can drive in the suburbs instead.
Roads have to be repurposed to make light personal transportation safe. Take every two-way two-lane and split it into a one-way, with a physical separation between a car side and a personal transport side. Remove parking from the curbs, and put it in the middle so one side can be for cars and the other for bikes, scooters, skaters, etc.
Public transit needs a major overhaul, major investment, and a new attitude. It has to be about riders' comfort, convenience, and happiness, not just jamming people into routes as if they were statistics in a planning meeting.
New development should be aimed at walkable, human-scale neighborhoods, planned for people first, not cars.
All these things have to happen to solve the problem. It won't be easy, but unless we do something like that, we'll be living with the car problem for a very long time to come.
Yeah, people make exactly this argument every time it's proposed to build denser stuff with less parking in the middle of downtown Palo Alto, which has relatively good walking/train/bus/bike lanes... we can't possibly do it yet because we aren't ready. Even though surveys show that people who live or go to downtown use cars less than the rest of the city.
And so parking spaces are built which are never used.
And so parking spaces are built which are never used.
Downtown Palo Alto and Berkeley both have a nice model with affordable public garages just off the main strip. So the pedestrian area isn’t (as) inundated with cars and parking, but you can still get there as a motorist.
> Roads have to be repurposed to make light personal transportation safe. Take every two-way two-lane and split it into a one-way, with a physical separation between a car side and a personal transport side. Remove parking from the curbs, and put it in the middle so one side can be for cars and the other for bikes, scooters, skaters, etc.
As a cyclist, I'd argue that most separated lanes as implemented are less safe than taking the main travel lane.
These lanes seem to be based around the idea that intersections don't matter for safety, and in practice they tend to greatly increase the number of problems at intersections.
In Austin, TX, where I live, the city had added several fully separated cycle tracks near where I live. The only reason I ever use any of them is if I'm stopping at a location on them. If I'm continuing further down the same road, I instead take the regular travel lane. I do this because so many drivers turn directly into the cycle track without checking for oncoming cyclists. This is despite the signs placed prominently on every one of these to look before turning. (In my view, signs like that are strong evidence that a particular location is dangerous for cyclists. They don't noticeably change driver behavior in my view, and seem to exist more for the city to cover their asses than anything else.)
I'm not the only cyclist who has a problem with these cycle tracks either. A friend of mine has additionally pointed out that the city tends to put the cycle track on the downhill side of the road, but not the uphill side, which is exactly the opposite of what they should do because cyclists go much faster downhill than uphill.
If I had to guess, I'd say the problem comes from politicians and bureaucrats who are not cyclists being the driving forces behind the construction of these lanes. You don't need to talk to too many cyclists before you'll hear my views about cycle tracks.
I'm okay with separated facilities when done well, but the vast majority I've seen are poorly designed and amplify problems.
As a cyclist, I'd argue that most separated lanes as implemented are less safe than taking the main travel lane.
These lanes seem to be based around the idea that intersections don't matter for safety, and in practice they tend to greatly increase the number of problems at intersections.
In Austin, TX, where I live, the city had added several fully separated cycle tracks near where I live. The only reason I ever use any of them is if I'm stopping at a location on them. If I'm continuing further down the same road, I instead take the regular travel lane. I do this because so many drivers turn directly into the cycle track without checking for oncoming cyclists. This is despite the signs placed prominently on every one of these to look before turning. (In my view, signs like that are strong evidence that a particular location is dangerous for cyclists. They don't noticeably change driver behavior in my view, and seem to exist more for the city to cover their asses than anything else.)
I'm not the only cyclist who has a problem with these cycle tracks either. A friend of mine has additionally pointed out that the city tends to put the cycle track on the downhill side of the road, but not the uphill side, which is exactly the opposite of what they should do because cyclists go much faster downhill than uphill.
If I had to guess, I'd say the problem comes from politicians and bureaucrats who are not cyclists being the driving forces behind the construction of these lanes. You don't need to talk to too many cyclists before you'll hear my views about cycle tracks.
I'm okay with separated facilities when done well, but the vast majority I've seen are poorly designed and amplify problems.
> A friend of mine has additionally pointed out that the city tends to put the cycle track on the downhill side of the road (but not the uphill), which is exactly the opposite of what they should do because cyclists go much faster downhill than uphill.
I saw a really good example of an unsafe bike lane when I lived in Kent, wa. As you say the planner had put it on the downhill side of a 45 mph main thouroughfare dropping 500 feet in 1000 feet. It had a lot of great twists and turns for drivers to cut using the bike lane. And there was nothing on the uphill side.
Meanwhile I could bike a mile south and drop the same elevation by rolling through quiet neighborhoods with school zones and no traffic. It boggled my mind how none of the planners thought to redirect bicycle down this route instead of the most dangerous downhill they could find.
I saw a really good example of an unsafe bike lane when I lived in Kent, wa. As you say the planner had put it on the downhill side of a 45 mph main thouroughfare dropping 500 feet in 1000 feet. It had a lot of great twists and turns for drivers to cut using the bike lane. And there was nothing on the uphill side.
Meanwhile I could bike a mile south and drop the same elevation by rolling through quiet neighborhoods with school zones and no traffic. It boggled my mind how none of the planners thought to redirect bicycle down this route instead of the most dangerous downhill they could find.
Great example. I've seen drivers swerve into the bike lane when convenient far too frequently.
This also shows that planners often try to make dangerous roads less dangerous, when they instead should often instead push for cyclists to take entirely different paths than drivers. The planners are thinking like drivers, wanting to take the most direct route, when in my experience cyclists will gladly take a less direct route if it's much safer.
This also shows that planners often try to make dangerous roads less dangerous, when they instead should often instead push for cyclists to take entirely different paths than drivers. The planners are thinking like drivers, wanting to take the most direct route, when in my experience cyclists will gladly take a less direct route if it's much safer.
Google does the same thing. When I was first plotting a bike route it tried to take me down the most direct, dangerous route instead of the route I had discovered. It was only because I knew the area that I knew to look.
Kind of a weird argument that nobody wants to take the bus or the train because it's too crowded. Very Berra.
Take the Sound Transit 550. It is the main (only direct?) busline between downtown Seattle and Bellevue. During rush hour it comes at an interval of 10 - 15 min. The bus it self is a double wagon (with an accordion connection), it fits maybe (beware I'm pulling this figure from thin air) 50 people. It is always crowded with people standing back to front. During these 10 - 15 minutes one can only imagine how many people cross on the motorway between these places in their private cars.
So it is accurate (although it sounds like a contradiction) to say that *"Nobody wants to take the bus because it is too crowded".
So it is accurate (although it sounds like a contradiction) to say that *"Nobody wants to take the bus because it is too crowded".
10-15 mins is a loooong wait during rush hour. Subways come every 2 mins in Hong Kong at that time. There's no reason (besides Seattle not wanting to spend the money obviously) not to bring down those times to say 2-5 minutes and tripling to quadrupling the amount of buses on said route.
50 is too low for an articulated bus. Including standing room, but not at sardine levels, you should at least be getting close to 90.
The bus has 50 seats, and standing room for maybe 20-25. This includes having 1-2 people standing unsafely on the swivel plate in the middle of the bus.
One of the issues in general with increasing Seattle-Bellevue throughput is having to bridge the lake. I-90 traded a separate bridge of dedicated express lanes, for HOV lanes combined with other traffic - so the under construction Link light rail can use that separate bridge. 520 is another option, but there's a toll since they just replaced the narrow 2-lane pontoon bridge with 4-lane highway that's suspended higher above the water.
One of the issues in general with increasing Seattle-Bellevue throughput is having to bridge the lake. I-90 traded a separate bridge of dedicated express lanes, for HOV lanes combined with other traffic - so the under construction Link light rail can use that separate bridge. 520 is another option, but there's a toll since they just replaced the narrow 2-lane pontoon bridge with 4-lane highway that's suspended higher above the water.
Regardless, 50 - 90 people every 10 - 15 minutes. I’m sure this number is dwarfed by the number of people that travel the same route over the same bridges in less time, more comfortably in their private cars.
> The bus it self is a double wagon (with an accordion connection), it fits maybe (beware I'm pulling this figure from thin air) 50 people.
Are there places that don’t call these a ‘bendy bus’? They are missing out on a great name.
Are there places that don’t call these a ‘bendy bus’? They are missing out on a great name.
A full articulated bus generally has a capacity of over 100 people.
If anyone in city government is smart Chicago is going to have no real choice but to go against this trend because of its utterly atrocious parking meter deal 10+ years ago - or they're going to have to take that glut of spaces and make them free parking to try to get out of the deal.
Basically the city committed to keeping a fixed number of street parking spaces for 75 years in exchange for a pittance. If spaces are closed for construction or eliminated completely, the city has to pay the private company for those spaces as if they were being used. Want bike lanes? Don't forget to account for the paying for all those eliminated parking spaces. Pedestrian only areas? See above. Ride sharing cutting into driving? Guess they'll have plenty of empty space to pick up and drop off in - unless there's a way for the parking meter company to charge for that couple of minutes in a parking space.
But it's not all bad - the city only has to put up with it until 2083.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/05/17/chicago-parking-meter-...
Basically the city committed to keeping a fixed number of street parking spaces for 75 years in exchange for a pittance. If spaces are closed for construction or eliminated completely, the city has to pay the private company for those spaces as if they were being used. Want bike lanes? Don't forget to account for the paying for all those eliminated parking spaces. Pedestrian only areas? See above. Ride sharing cutting into driving? Guess they'll have plenty of empty space to pick up and drop off in - unless there's a way for the parking meter company to charge for that couple of minutes in a parking space.
But it's not all bad - the city only has to put up with it until 2083.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/05/17/chicago-parking-meter-...
This is a tricky issue. The correct thing to do would have been to increase parking rates to something sane, which the private company did, but would have been politically difficult for the city. At the rates the city was charging before, and assuming there was no political way to raise them, it's possible it may have been a rational choice. Ideally it would have been a shorter timescale though...
If it was a rational choice it wouldn't have been rammed through the way it was. The way it was handled gives an almost undeniable air of utterly filthy bought and paid for fix is in. The Chicago Reader has a nice timeline of a bunch of the privatization that was going on at the time:
https://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/features-cover-april-9-2...
Bids are opened 12/1. Aldermen get invited on 12/2 to a briefing that day, where they get limited information and no details. 12/3 a finance committee meeting is held to get an ordinance to accept the bid into process - what they'll be voting on is provided only during this meeting. The finance committee passes it with no significant scrutiny. The full council vote is scheduled for 12/4, and requests to see the city's numbers and financial analysis of the deal are rejected.
When you look back at the deal, to me and an awful lot of other people it looks like one of two things: either most of the people involved on the city side were utterly incompetent, or someone(s) were nicely taken care of in some way.
Edit; autocorrect
Bids are opened 12/1. Aldermen get invited on 12/2 to a briefing that day, where they get limited information and no details. 12/3 a finance committee meeting is held to get an ordinance to accept the bid into process - what they'll be voting on is provided only during this meeting. The finance committee passes it with no significant scrutiny. The full council vote is scheduled for 12/4, and requests to see the city's numbers and financial analysis of the deal are rejected.
When you look back at the deal, to me and an awful lot of other people it looks like one of two things: either most of the people involved on the city side were utterly incompetent, or someone(s) were nicely taken care of in some way.
Edit; autocorrect
It also had the benefit of moving the meter maids off the city payroll...
The alternative was bankruptcy. And as the market for street parking vaporizes over the next couple decades, this may end up being a great deal.
How will it be a great deal? For 65 more years Chicago will be on the hook for paving and otherwise not using two lanes worth of road on a huge number of roads. If self driving cars become incredible over the next 20 years, the city goes to all robot cabs and no private vehicles, etc. they will still have to keep those parking spaces or pay the parking vendor for them. For this year the city will be paying $20+ million and it's not getting even the ~24 million it would previously have gotten, so roughly a net -45 million for 2018 alone - and even not counting the money paid by the city the leasing company will have made back its entire purchase price by 2020, leaving 60+ years of pure profit.
Chicago got taken so hard that it's now the canonical example of how not to do this kind of thing.
Chicago got taken so hard that it's now the canonical example of how not to do this kind of thing.
This will still be a sour deal. What a waste of urban space to just leave empty parking spots due to the fees for repurposing them.
Presumably as the market for parking goes away the owners of it will find a more profitable use for the space.
The owner of the spots are the city but the owner of the parking meters are this corporation. The city will owe fees if they decide to change usage. So this is a sour deal because now they'll either have to leave them as open spots (waste) or pay this company for lost revenues if they change them (waste).
The ones in buildings and lots, sure, or they'll just set prices lower than street parking. The whole thing is still going to hurt the city by making it not worth going into. I know of "destination" specialty stores that have closed because adding an extra $4+ of parking to the cost of going there to shop made it not worthwhile. I personally was part of a group that used to meet for dinner at different restaurants every week, but Chicago restaurants got dropped from choices because an extra $8-10 on a meal gets you a much nicer (or less expensive) meal in the suburbs with free parking.
I always thought it was weird how there is so much parking in the centre of US cities.
When I talk to colleagues in various US cities and they say they drive to work it just Does. Not. Compute. In central London, driving to work is essentially unheard of unless you are the Prime Minister.
There is parking available in London, but the prices are fairly high - I just had a quick look on parkopedia [1] and it looks like 08:30-17:00 would set you back anywhere from £25 to £50 a day (about the same as half to a full tank of petrol or diesel). Then add in congestion charging @ £11.50 a day [2] and you're looking at £35-£60 a day in fees before you add in your hassle factor of the traffic and paying for fuel
Understandably, as a result a lot of people use public transport. Sure its fairly decent in London, but thats only because people use it and pay for it so there are funds to reinvest into making it run effectively.
If suddenly the average US driver was looking at paying $100/day to drive to work (or $2000 a month), I am sure that they could handle sitting on a bus for $10/day and pocket the $90 change, while the public transit gets better and better as a result.
This is a solvable problem.
1 - https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/locations/tottenham_court_...
2 - https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge
When I talk to colleagues in various US cities and they say they drive to work it just Does. Not. Compute. In central London, driving to work is essentially unheard of unless you are the Prime Minister.
There is parking available in London, but the prices are fairly high - I just had a quick look on parkopedia [1] and it looks like 08:30-17:00 would set you back anywhere from £25 to £50 a day (about the same as half to a full tank of petrol or diesel). Then add in congestion charging @ £11.50 a day [2] and you're looking at £35-£60 a day in fees before you add in your hassle factor of the traffic and paying for fuel
Understandably, as a result a lot of people use public transport. Sure its fairly decent in London, but thats only because people use it and pay for it so there are funds to reinvest into making it run effectively.
If suddenly the average US driver was looking at paying $100/day to drive to work (or $2000 a month), I am sure that they could handle sitting on a bus for $10/day and pocket the $90 change, while the public transit gets better and better as a result.
This is a solvable problem.
1 - https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/locations/tottenham_court_...
2 - https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge
Outside of London, the majority of people in the UK drive to work.
Likewise, the majority of people commuting to (eg) Manhattan don't drive to work.
When someone in Houston says that they drive to work, the comparison isn't to someone working in Central London. It's to someone who lives who works in the outskirts of Birmingham.
I think the US is too car dependent. But from my experience, outside of London the UK is pretty terrible too.
Likewise, the majority of people commuting to (eg) Manhattan don't drive to work.
When someone in Houston says that they drive to work, the comparison isn't to someone working in Central London. It's to someone who lives who works in the outskirts of Birmingham.
I think the US is too car dependent. But from my experience, outside of London the UK is pretty terrible too.
Yes, that’s true. Unfortunately in the UK there’s a lot of cross-subsidy taking revenues away from commuter and intercity train services, which are in demand, and giving it to rural services which people don’t use. Hence the commuter services are not able to grow enough to compete with cars.
Revenue isnt taken away from commuter services, they are basically unsubsidized.
A few points:
1.) A lot of employers offer some percentage of parking reimbursement.
2.) A lot of employees live 1+ hour away. The bus doesn't work in these situations.
3.) Often times the bus is extremely dirty and dangerous. Risking injury or confrontation isn't worth saving a few dollars a day on driving.
1.) A lot of employers offer some percentage of parking reimbursement.
2.) A lot of employees live 1+ hour away. The bus doesn't work in these situations.
3.) Often times the bus is extremely dirty and dangerous. Risking injury or confrontation isn't worth saving a few dollars a day on driving.
Most of the US cities I've lived in have poorly laid out bus systems; Seattle is a notable exception with plenty of cross-town and downtown routes, and riders are never more than a couple blocks from the nearest stop.
Most cities are laid out in a hub and spoke system, pulling from suburbs into downtown, but most employers are in office parks in a ring outside the downtown area. A public transit commute may mean nearly an hour into downtown, than another hour to the suburbs, followed by a long walk. In other cities, public transit is only available at certain hours: my parents, for instance, can only catch a bus to work before 7 AM and then won't have a bus back home until after 5 or 6 PM.
Most cities are laid out in a hub and spoke system, pulling from suburbs into downtown, but most employers are in office parks in a ring outside the downtown area. A public transit commute may mean nearly an hour into downtown, than another hour to the suburbs, followed by a long walk. In other cities, public transit is only available at certain hours: my parents, for instance, can only catch a bus to work before 7 AM and then won't have a bus back home until after 5 or 6 PM.
Here in the UK, employers offer things like interest free loans for season tickets or buying a folding commuter bike etc.
1+ hour away is fairly common in London, even on public transport. Not only is London itself pretty large, but it has a big catchment area for people coming in for work from elsewhere.
Buses can be made safer and cleaner and more comfortable with investment. Would I prefer to drive in my own car in my own space? You bet I would. But the difference in price is not a few dollars, it in the order of £60 a day which is £1,200 a month. Not worth it. That £1.2K would be better spent paying down a mortgage
1+ hour away is fairly common in London, even on public transport. Not only is London itself pretty large, but it has a big catchment area for people coming in for work from elsewhere.
Buses can be made safer and cleaner and more comfortable with investment. Would I prefer to drive in my own car in my own space? You bet I would. But the difference in price is not a few dollars, it in the order of £60 a day which is £1,200 a month. Not worth it. That £1.2K would be better spent paying down a mortgage
I've visited London, and your rail systems (both the Underground and the national rail) are amazing. I feel very strongly that if more Americans could see how rail works in and around London with their own eyes, it would make people realize that it was the right approach for major cities.
I think that in the US, the problem is that most public transit is absolute garbage[1], and so people who have only lived here don't realize that it can actually be superior to a car for commuting if the people are willing to provide the funds to government and insist on using it to build a world-class public transit system. Therefore, public transit rarely improves, and so it's perceived as "the poor person's option" because it's extremely slow compared to driving, and generally absolutely filthy.
[1] To make things worse, the employees of the transit systems seem to generally be told that the systems they're supporting already are "world-class", and "the envy of the country", so they feel like there's no room for improvement.
I think that in the US, the problem is that most public transit is absolute garbage[1], and so people who have only lived here don't realize that it can actually be superior to a car for commuting if the people are willing to provide the funds to government and insist on using it to build a world-class public transit system. Therefore, public transit rarely improves, and so it's perceived as "the poor person's option" because it's extremely slow compared to driving, and generally absolutely filthy.
[1] To make things worse, the employees of the transit systems seem to generally be told that the systems they're supporting already are "world-class", and "the envy of the country", so they feel like there's no room for improvement.
The people commuting 1 hour in the US usually don’t even have a public transit option or it would take 4 times as long. In my city, a trip that would take 1 hour by train/bus would probably be 20 minutes by car and parking is plentiful and cheap.
This is the same where I live but I think it’s a little misleading. Public transport doesn’t have to be faster or more comfortable to be better than taking a car. Cars are a pain in other ways (maintenance, insurance, up front cost, you can’t park right at your destination, you can’t read etc while commuting etc) and so individual journeys don’t have to be faster to be ‘better’ than taking the car.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 2.) A lot of employees live 1+ hour away. The bus doesn't work in these situations.
I live in large dense city in the US (Los Angeles). I live a 15-20 minute car ride from work. The city is going to be doing some construction on my route and have asked the businesses to encourage their employees to take public transit, walk, bike, etc. during the construction. I looked into taking the bus, which for the first time in my life, is a reasonable walk from my home. It would increase my commute time (one way) from 20 minutes to 50 minutes! Sorry, but I don't have an extra hour I can take out of my day for that. It would be better to just work from home, but my employer won't let me do that for the duration of the construction which is supposed to last a year or two.
EDIT: For about a month, my office was at the Santa Monica end of the train. (Like literally right next to the train stop.) Sadly it no longer is. Even then, a coworker decided to take the train once from his place in Pasadena. His normally 45-60 minute commute increased to an hour and 50 minutes taking public transport. Sorry, but he'll just drive instead.
I live in large dense city in the US (Los Angeles). I live a 15-20 minute car ride from work. The city is going to be doing some construction on my route and have asked the businesses to encourage their employees to take public transit, walk, bike, etc. during the construction. I looked into taking the bus, which for the first time in my life, is a reasonable walk from my home. It would increase my commute time (one way) from 20 minutes to 50 minutes! Sorry, but I don't have an extra hour I can take out of my day for that. It would be better to just work from home, but my employer won't let me do that for the duration of the construction which is supposed to last a year or two.
EDIT: For about a month, my office was at the Santa Monica end of the train. (Like literally right next to the train stop.) Sadly it no longer is. Even then, a coworker decided to take the train once from his place in Pasadena. His normally 45-60 minute commute increased to an hour and 50 minutes taking public transport. Sorry, but he'll just drive instead.
> I live in large dense city in the US (Los Angeles)
Los Angeles may be large, but it is NOT dense, even by US standards.
Los Angeles may be large, but it is NOT dense, even by US standards.
> Then add in congestion charging @ £11.50 a day [2] and you're looking at £35-£60 a day in fees before you add in your hassle factor of the traffic and paying for fuel
Congestion charge applies only to a small part of London and all those car parks have season tickets at something like -70% discount.
If traffic and fuel costs were such a hassle, nobody would drive to work except a few maniacs, generally cars are chosen for convenience / because public transport is slower and annoying in various ways.
Congestion charge applies only to a small part of London and all those car parks have season tickets at something like -70% discount.
If traffic and fuel costs were such a hassle, nobody would drive to work except a few maniacs, generally cars are chosen for convenience / because public transport is slower and annoying in various ways.
It's that expensive because of the population density and government meddling. There's no need for that in the US...are you saying we should artificially charge the pants off of everyone driving to work just to force them to use public transport? Why? I like my car. I like driving my car. I don't want to ride a train, or a bus. If I can work to the office, I will. I'll drive everywhere else.
"Government meddling" is the primary reason parking is so cheap in the US. Typically the law requires a minimum amount of parking. People like myself who don't own cars tend to subsidize those who do.
I recall some sort of economic study that suggested rents would drop by hundreds of dollars per month if parking minimums could be eliminated. (No time to find it right now, sorry.) I'd take that, as right now my apartment gives me two parking spots that I can't do anything with. (A previous apartment manager complained when I used the spot for storage. Cars only, I guess. Renting to others would not be practical, either.)
I recall some sort of economic study that suggested rents would drop by hundreds of dollars per month if parking minimums could be eliminated. (No time to find it right now, sorry.) I'd take that, as right now my apartment gives me two parking spots that I can't do anything with. (A previous apartment manager complained when I used the spot for storage. Cars only, I guess. Renting to others would not be practical, either.)
This is why we need higher gas taxes. Driving is much more pleasant than the alternatives to most Americans, until the true cost of their behavior is reflected at the pump we'll keep going in circles.
Right now my outrageous urban rent and taxes are subsidizing your driving privileges. Real estate for garages instead of housing/retail and road lanes for cars over pedestrians/cyclists. Those costs need to be passed on to the suburban drivers and not the car-less city dwellers.
Unfortunately the political will for gas taxes is null and we'll be left with draconian measures like car holidays and congestion tolls which won't alleviate the need to provide car infrastructure for peak demand, which is artificially high due to the distorted market.
Right now my outrageous urban rent and taxes are subsidizing your driving privileges. Real estate for garages instead of housing/retail and road lanes for cars over pedestrians/cyclists. Those costs need to be passed on to the suburban drivers and not the car-less city dwellers.
Unfortunately the political will for gas taxes is null and we'll be left with draconian measures like car holidays and congestion tolls which won't alleviate the need to provide car infrastructure for peak demand, which is artificially high due to the distorted market.
Government run cities. Without "government meddling", you would not have public roads or street lights. You should visit London, Tokyo or Amsterdam. Hopefully it will change your views on how denser US cities may look like. I also like my car but the ability to walk places is really under appreciated in the US.
It is because of government meddling that the US doesn't have high density living.
Yes, please please please let's get the government OUT of the housing market, and let's get rid of those building height limits that disallow anything above 6 stories, even though rent is in the thousands of dollars for a studio.
You should be allowed to drive your car and live in whatever low density place you want. Can you offer the same thing for me, by allowing the market to produce high density living as well?
Yes, please please please let's get the government OUT of the housing market, and let's get rid of those building height limits that disallow anything above 6 stories, even though rent is in the thousands of dollars for a studio.
You should be allowed to drive your car and live in whatever low density place you want. Can you offer the same thing for me, by allowing the market to produce high density living as well?
Don't forget getting rid of parking minimums that add so much to the cost of construction that it adds hundreds of dollars to the monthly rent of an apartment in a typical urban area.
The "Why" is pollution is really high, and the traffic is awful. Everyone loses.
Government meddling on government-build roads?
> When I talk to colleagues in various US cities and they say they drive to work it just Does. Not. Compute. In central London, driving to work is essentially unheard of unless you are the Prime Minister.
I get this as well. I hear Americans talk about driving into town for work being hard, and they're literally talking about somewhere like San Francisco, and I think why on earth would you even think that was a reasonable thing to try to do? That's obviously a stupid idea.
I get this as well. I hear Americans talk about driving into town for work being hard, and they're literally talking about somewhere like San Francisco, and I think why on earth would you even think that was a reasonable thing to try to do? That's obviously a stupid idea.
Yes, because people are obviously too stupid to do what works best for them.
I'm quite familiar with going into Boston from the exurbs, in part because I commuted semi-regularly for about a year.
I do often take the commuter rail if I'm going in 9-5ish and can always get a seat because I'm near the end of the line but...
1.) It's not cheap, it's about $30/day between the train, parking, and the subway on the other end.
2.) It tends to take longer.
3.) The real kicker is that I have very little flexibility on the other end. There's basically one train mid-afternoon I can catch, a number at evening rush hour (which can be very crowded), and a few later.
4.) So basically if I have an evening event or just need to go in for the morning I drive, even if just to the subway parking though that fills up extremely early so I need to leave by 5:50-6am or so.
I'm quite familiar with going into Boston from the exurbs, in part because I commuted semi-regularly for about a year.
I do often take the commuter rail if I'm going in 9-5ish and can always get a seat because I'm near the end of the line but...
1.) It's not cheap, it's about $30/day between the train, parking, and the subway on the other end.
2.) It tends to take longer.
3.) The real kicker is that I have very little flexibility on the other end. There's basically one train mid-afternoon I can catch, a number at evening rush hour (which can be very crowded), and a few later.
4.) So basically if I have an evening event or just need to go in for the morning I drive, even if just to the subway parking though that fills up extremely early so I need to leave by 5:50-6am or so.
[deleted]
Technically the Prime Minister is forbidden from driving to work, or to any other place.
Part of it is - England is so small compared to US, which means everything is close by. Here in US, we have so much land which makes things scattered away. Hard to cover each route via public transport on such a large area
With respect, this argument is BS and gets brought out over and over and over and over again whenever this sort of thing comes up (e.g. Broadband, Healthcare, renewable energy) - "the US is just too large!" everyone cries "there is simply nothing that can be done!". It is an excuse for mediocrity and the US should be better than that.
In reality there are bubbles of population density in any country where large amounts of people congregate to live and work - we call these "cities". It is in these cities where public transport makes sense. If you need to go somewhere in the middle of nowhere, then drive (just the same as we do here in Europe - you dont need to cover every route with public transport)
In reality there are bubbles of population density in any country where large amounts of people congregate to live and work - we call these "cities". It is in these cities where public transport makes sense. If you need to go somewhere in the middle of nowhere, then drive (just the same as we do here in Europe - you dont need to cover every route with public transport)
we have so much land which makes things scattered away
The availability of space doesn't, in itself, make things scattered away.
The availability of space doesn't, in itself, make things scattered away.
The US is spread out because we choose policies that make it easier to spread into undeveloped land than to increase density. It's not some unalterable fact such that it has to be this way.
> In Philadelphia, there are 3.7 times more parking spaces than households
Honestly, this number seems reasonable to me, when you consider that people could be parking at a) their home, b) their work, and c) at any number of other places (restaurant, grocery store, mall, etc). Not to mention, each household may have more than one car. It's probably too high in aggregate, but we don't park by average, we park for specific means, and if the lot at the grocery store is full, or at our work, or at home, we consider that to be an inconvenience and want more spots.
The only way to change this is to move away from the 1-2 car-per-family model we live in right now.
Honestly, this number seems reasonable to me, when you consider that people could be parking at a) their home, b) their work, and c) at any number of other places (restaurant, grocery store, mall, etc). Not to mention, each household may have more than one car. It's probably too high in aggregate, but we don't park by average, we park for specific means, and if the lot at the grocery store is full, or at our work, or at home, we consider that to be an inconvenience and want more spots.
The only way to change this is to move away from the 1-2 car-per-family model we live in right now.
If you think about it, it has to be this way. The whole point of parking is that it has to be available on demand, which means you need to build enough capacity to satisfy peak usage at the destination. If you had full parking utilization, people have to queue to park, and that would defeat the purpose of getting to your destination quickly.
You either need excess parking, or none at all, and shift to all non-private vehicles (which includes things like taxis and Uber). But having fully utilized parking is the worst of all possible worlds.
You either need excess parking, or none at all, and shift to all non-private vehicles (which includes things like taxis and Uber). But having fully utilized parking is the worst of all possible worlds.
It's partly an information availability problem. Parking usage patterns tend to be based around factors other than availability, which leads to more extreme peaks and valleys than are necessary. If people could see what the mall parking lot was like at any given time and decide when to go based on whether parking was likely to be available, you could probably make the lot half the size. You already see this in many places around traffic; people in LA seem to plan their lives around when the freeways are known to be backed up.
It is highly misleading to point out that "In Des Moines, for example, there are 18 times as many parking spaces per acre as households". Well sure, commercial areas don't have households but they still need parking.
Not even questioning the numbers, which might be carefully picked, I come to the opposite conclusion. To me, "In Seattle, the parking occupancy rate downtown is 64 percent." means that there is very little room for surges. Business is impacted when the availability of parking isn't 100% reliable.
Not even questioning the numbers, which might be carefully picked, I come to the opposite conclusion. To me, "In Seattle, the parking occupancy rate downtown is 64 percent." means that there is very little room for surges. Business is impacted when the availability of parking isn't 100% reliable.
Talk about gridlock! Literally and figuratively...
I don’t think anyone is missing your point, but it sounds terribly short-sighted.
For one, what’s good for business is commonly catastrophic to other systems. An effort to prioritize here is critical.
For some reason, baby-boomers have an odd propensity for ignoring more systematic, hollistic concerns brought by the shift to dependency on automobiles. I think I can speak for most of my millenial peers when I say it seems maniacal.
And I am getting sick of feeling guilty for blaming “baby-boomers”. You people just don’t know when enough is enough.
Of course, you’re also responsible for gutting the safety nets and other civil structures that the victims of failed businesses rely on. Again, gridlock. Drop it already. At least you ahve a business.
I don’t think anyone is missing your point, but it sounds terribly short-sighted.
For one, what’s good for business is commonly catastrophic to other systems. An effort to prioritize here is critical.
For some reason, baby-boomers have an odd propensity for ignoring more systematic, hollistic concerns brought by the shift to dependency on automobiles. I think I can speak for most of my millenial peers when I say it seems maniacal.
And I am getting sick of feeling guilty for blaming “baby-boomers”. You people just don’t know when enough is enough.
Of course, you’re also responsible for gutting the safety nets and other civil structures that the victims of failed businesses rely on. Again, gridlock. Drop it already. At least you ahve a business.
Not really. Building your parking lot for peak demand has a very, very high opportunity cost. You could instead surround your business with other uses (like housing) resulting in a greater increase in steady-state business traffic that more than offsets whatever you forego from congestion on that peak day.
It is also true that small businesses almost universally overestimate the fraction of their customers arriving by car. In Oakland they surveyed the merchants on a street, who estimated 90% of their customers came by car, which is quite impossible given the streetscape. Careful observation revealed it was the inverse: only 10% arrived by car. Also the people who arrived on foot spent the most and the people in the cars spent the least.
Streetsblog has covered the topic of wastefully overprovisioning your parking capacity for peaks, as well as the topic of merchant perception of transportation mode.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/01/the-spectacular-waste...
It is also true that small businesses almost universally overestimate the fraction of their customers arriving by car. In Oakland they surveyed the merchants on a street, who estimated 90% of their customers came by car, which is quite impossible given the streetscape. Careful observation revealed it was the inverse: only 10% arrived by car. Also the people who arrived on foot spent the most and the people in the cars spent the least.
Streetsblog has covered the topic of wastefully overprovisioning your parking capacity for peaks, as well as the topic of merchant perception of transportation mode.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/01/the-spectacular-waste...
> You could instead surround your business with other uses (like housing) resulting in a greater increase in steady-state business traffic that more than offsets whatever you forego from congestion on that peak day.
Only if your customer demographic is very generic (customer locality), or your employees are young/desperate (employee locality); and sure, lots of businesses are like this, but how many?
I personally think the opposite approach: undoing zoning restrictions on small and medium commercial operations mixed directly into residential areas, and vice versa; I think this lines up with the effect you note in your Oakland anecdote.
Only if your customer demographic is very generic (customer locality), or your employees are young/desperate (employee locality); and sure, lots of businesses are like this, but how many?
I personally think the opposite approach: undoing zoning restrictions on small and medium commercial operations mixed directly into residential areas, and vice versa; I think this lines up with the effect you note in your Oakland anecdote.
You underestimate the loss.
It isn't just that businesses lose customers when the parking is full. People don't want to drive there and then have to turn back, so many won't take the risk. The lots may only be 70% full, but the chance that they might be 100% full is enough to make people go elsewhere. Customers expect dependable service.
It's the same with operating hours. If you make your hours completely random, with a decent chance of being closed when customers show up, nobody will bother to make the trip.
It isn't just that businesses lose customers when the parking is full. People don't want to drive there and then have to turn back, so many won't take the risk. The lots may only be 70% full, but the chance that they might be 100% full is enough to make people go elsewhere. Customers expect dependable service.
It's the same with operating hours. If you make your hours completely random, with a decent chance of being closed when customers show up, nobody will bother to make the trip.
A business is also impacted when it doesn't have its very own stoplight to help people turn into the lot. Thus some cities wind up putting in stoplights every few hundred feet, in some areas.
Congratulations, you've just created an unsolvable traffic light network, and magicked all-day gridlock out of thin air.
This is a multivariate optimization problem. We need to consider the repercussions of heavily over-provisioning parking.
Congratulations, you've just created an unsolvable traffic light network, and magicked all-day gridlock out of thin air.
This is a multivariate optimization problem. We need to consider the repercussions of heavily over-provisioning parking.
Also, the idea of comparing "parking spaces per acre" and "households per acre" is kinda silly in the first place. Des Moines households are generally larger than parking spaces. A typical parking space, plus its corresponding lane space in a lot, is about 15m². The average Des Moines apartment is about 67m², and the average household population in Iowa is ~2.4. So even ignoring non-rental housing, you can see how this comparison is kinda bogus, since (like-for-like) apartments are naturally at least five times larger than parking spaces (and non-rental housing is usually even larger), and somewhere between one and two parking spaces per household is easy to justify even if you're only looking at residential space: when it comes to commercial areas, parking charges and volumes are clearly set to ensure availability, so in order for fees to remain reasonable, considerably more parking than "makes sense" must be provisioned.
Maybe it's just me, but in larger cities, cars seem like an incredibly inefficient and impractical idea to transport people inside those cities. Maybe just dump the cars outside when you want to get in? Or just don't own cars and share them as a stopgap until a better solution is put in place?
You're absolutely right, and this is the problem. In aggregate, they are horribly inefficient. At the level of the individual, they're generally much much faster and convenient than other options (i.e., public transit), even accounting for traffic. So -- in game theory terms -- many people defect.
One of the reasons is frequency. Depending on time of day, a subway or bus may not come for 10 minutes. A car is basically infinite frequency: when you want to go, you go right away.
The other is more direct routing. To get to my favorite bookstore, about 5 miles due north, on transit takes an hour because I either have to take the rail into the city center first and transfer (or take one of the most infrequent and slow bus routes in the system). It's maybe 35 minutes by bike or car, as long as it's not rush hour. I don't own a car, but I can't say I wouldn't be tempted some days, if I did.
One of the reasons is frequency. Depending on time of day, a subway or bus may not come for 10 minutes. A car is basically infinite frequency: when you want to go, you go right away.
The other is more direct routing. To get to my favorite bookstore, about 5 miles due north, on transit takes an hour because I either have to take the rail into the city center first and transfer (or take one of the most infrequent and slow bus routes in the system). It's maybe 35 minutes by bike or car, as long as it's not rush hour. I don't own a car, but I can't say I wouldn't be tempted some days, if I did.
I think parking capacity probably reduces to a local scheduling problem [1]. If it does, it reduces to a 3-sat problem and this would mean optimum parking is NP-complete. Most of the time a parking space more than 400m away is irrelevant [2] and when it comes to where a person parks relative to their home the acceptable radius is probably 100m or less...Des Moines is cold in the winter, hot in the summer, and gets storms at the scale of the Great Plains several times a year.
The marginal cost of a parking space is low. The heuristic for structured parking has long been $10,000 per space. Over a 30 year building life cycle that's less than $1/day. Private surface parking is a few cents and on street public parking is nothing...and often so is even that expensive structured parking because the $1/day of capital costs makes parking a potentially lucrative business. This means that the most cost effective way to avoid scheduling bottlenecks is with capacity that far exceeds the average rate or median demand.
To put it another way, all that parking is what a working system looks like. Sure Des Moines might not need 1.6 million parking spaces -- but it's probably not far from what's necessary to provide required for reasonable livability at the density and geography [3] of Des Moines. Recovering all those parking spaces for development doesn't do a lot for Des Moines. It's not severely space constrained by an ocean like NYC or SF and so the economic value of conversion is not lower.
To put it another way, land use for parking in Des Moines (or other cities) largely reflects an economic equilibrium in the real-estate market. When there's too much, it gets converted to other uses over time...and when regulations are impediments, major local real-estate interests get those regulations relaxed/modified/removed. [4]
[1]: The size of the 'local' may vary, but it's much much smaller than Des Moines and difficult even down to the scale of on-street parking for a single urban block.
[2]: Based on the heuristic of 1/4 mile reasonable walking radius in urban environments.
[3]: Consider that the Des Moines river runs through the city and a parking space on one side of the river is not generally fungible with a parking space on the other side. The river complicates public transit by bottlenecking surface transit with bridges and subsurface transit with tunnels.
[4]: Institutions with teams of $600/hr real estate lawyers and fifty year investment horizons.
The marginal cost of a parking space is low. The heuristic for structured parking has long been $10,000 per space. Over a 30 year building life cycle that's less than $1/day. Private surface parking is a few cents and on street public parking is nothing...and often so is even that expensive structured parking because the $1/day of capital costs makes parking a potentially lucrative business. This means that the most cost effective way to avoid scheduling bottlenecks is with capacity that far exceeds the average rate or median demand.
To put it another way, all that parking is what a working system looks like. Sure Des Moines might not need 1.6 million parking spaces -- but it's probably not far from what's necessary to provide required for reasonable livability at the density and geography [3] of Des Moines. Recovering all those parking spaces for development doesn't do a lot for Des Moines. It's not severely space constrained by an ocean like NYC or SF and so the economic value of conversion is not lower.
To put it another way, land use for parking in Des Moines (or other cities) largely reflects an economic equilibrium in the real-estate market. When there's too much, it gets converted to other uses over time...and when regulations are impediments, major local real-estate interests get those regulations relaxed/modified/removed. [4]
[1]: The size of the 'local' may vary, but it's much much smaller than Des Moines and difficult even down to the scale of on-street parking for a single urban block.
[2]: Based on the heuristic of 1/4 mile reasonable walking radius in urban environments.
[3]: Consider that the Des Moines river runs through the city and a parking space on one side of the river is not generally fungible with a parking space on the other side. The river complicates public transit by bottlenecking surface transit with bridges and subsurface transit with tunnels.
[4]: Institutions with teams of $600/hr real estate lawyers and fifty year investment horizons.
> It's not severely space constrained by an ocean like NYC or SF and so the economic value of conversion is not lower.
is somewhat contradicted by
> Most of the time a parking space more than 400m away is irrelevant
This is the space constraint the article focuses on: if there's enough surface parking, it pushes destinations far enough apart that you need to move your car to go from one to the other.
Re: marginal cost, there are plenty of effects that impose additional capital and/or opportunity cost on converting between parking and not-parking uses - everything from long leases for companies that operate parking (10+ years sometimes) to basic constraints like "putting up a building requires a large chunk of up-front spending". Those effects make "economic equilibrium" slow-to-impossible to reach.
is somewhat contradicted by
> Most of the time a parking space more than 400m away is irrelevant
This is the space constraint the article focuses on: if there's enough surface parking, it pushes destinations far enough apart that you need to move your car to go from one to the other.
Re: marginal cost, there are plenty of effects that impose additional capital and/or opportunity cost on converting between parking and not-parking uses - everything from long leases for companies that operate parking (10+ years sometimes) to basic constraints like "putting up a building requires a large chunk of up-front spending". Those effects make "economic equilibrium" slow-to-impossible to reach.
It's no wonder Seattle's garages often sit empty, a parking space goes for minimum of $4 per hour
Wow that’s incredibly cheap.
Hm. Downtown Portland is $2/hr. I would not say $4/hr is 'incredibly cheap'.
Another problem begging for self-driving cars.
Have the car drop you off, then self-drive to an offsite parking, and then return when summoned.
This model would also support mobile "gear boxes" where you have activity-focused mobile storage pods of gear (think toolboxes for trade work, or a surfing/beach pod with your beach gear, or a biking/triathlon pod with all your triathlon gear), which I think will be a huge benefit once self-driving hits reality.
Rather than have storage units where you can't easily get to your stuff because of the side trip and annoyance of loading/unloading, you have modular storage that can be summoned to a spot and purpose needed.
That would reduce storage needs in urban areas as well, so you could further enhance density.
Have the car drop you off, then self-drive to an offsite parking, and then return when summoned.
This model would also support mobile "gear boxes" where you have activity-focused mobile storage pods of gear (think toolboxes for trade work, or a surfing/beach pod with your beach gear, or a biking/triathlon pod with all your triathlon gear), which I think will be a huge benefit once self-driving hits reality.
Rather than have storage units where you can't easily get to your stuff because of the side trip and annoyance of loading/unloading, you have modular storage that can be summoned to a spot and purpose needed.
That would reduce storage needs in urban areas as well, so you could further enhance density.
Once automated vehicles take over (eventually), most people will switch to taxis. Taking taxis everywhere will be cheaper than owning your own vehicle. So the need to park will be greatly reduced.
Eventually, mass transit will fail and underground subways will be repurposed for AVs. Parking will be built underground for off peak storage of vehicles, allowing the repurposing of surface parking spots. Maybe agricultural robots will make use of them.
Cities will get quieter.
Eventually, mass transit will fail and underground subways will be repurposed for AVs. Parking will be built underground for off peak storage of vehicles, allowing the repurposing of surface parking spots. Maybe agricultural robots will make use of them.
Cities will get quieter.
Every time I hear this notion that autonomous vehicles will replace private car ownership in the U.S., it strikes me as a futurist pipe dream. I think truly autonomous vehicles are a long way away, if ever. The capital and construction required to totally rearrange the average American city to get to the scenarios you describe would be incredible. I also think we are underestimating the cultural aspect of car ownership in America, as another commenter above pointed out.
I think it will tke longer than most of the optimists project.
But it will happen.
And there will continue to be people who choose to drive. I don't see a problem with that.
If anything, they will be much more capable than today's average driver, as those barely capable give up and take cabs.
They will certainly receive more scrutiny, as the number of cameras on the road will explode.
But it will happen.
And there will continue to be people who choose to drive. I don't see a problem with that.
If anything, they will be much more capable than today's average driver, as those barely capable give up and take cabs.
They will certainly receive more scrutiny, as the number of cameras on the road will explode.
If those barely capable give up and take cabs, then explain my morning commute. ;)
Seriously though, I don't see truly autonomous vehicles unless we acheive general artificial intelligence. I don't see that happening in my lifetime or my children's, but obviously I am not an optimist.
I don't know that driving skill will correlate with desire to drive or own a car. I think getting average Americans to give up their private vehicles and rely solely on public transportation or autonomous vehicles is a SV pipe dream.
Seriously though, I don't see truly autonomous vehicles unless we acheive general artificial intelligence. I don't see that happening in my lifetime or my children's, but obviously I am not an optimist.
I don't know that driving skill will correlate with desire to drive or own a car. I think getting average Americans to give up their private vehicles and rely solely on public transportation or autonomous vehicles is a SV pipe dream.
In major cities, its already more convenient not to own a car, even if your stuck using mass transit.
The area where that is the case will expand enormously once a chauffeur driven limousine is cheaper than standing-room-only mass transit.
There's no way I'd drive up to San Francisco and deal with parking when I can be driven up there and dropped off for the same money. Even twice the same money would be a good deal.
The area where that is the case will expand enormously once a chauffeur driven limousine is cheaper than standing-room-only mass transit.
There's no way I'd drive up to San Francisco and deal with parking when I can be driven up there and dropped off for the same money. Even twice the same money would be a good deal.
But buses will be much cheaper to operate too, so they wouldn't be standing room only. A city that had only buses and no private cars would have a very fast and efficient transportation network.
Buses suck. Their fixed routes suck. Their infrequent schedules suck. Stopping at every stop sucks. Having to put up with what other people do on them sucks. Not being able to sleep because you're not by yourself sucks.
There really is no way buses win.
There really is no way buses win.
Yeah, even if buses were free, I don't see it ever becoming the main form of transportation.
Why will buses be much cheaper than they are now? Because they are driverless? I think that's one small part of the calculation that goes into fare prices.
Labor is usually the dominant cost of running buses in rich countries. You'd still presumably have to hire inspectors to make sure people pay the fare but you only need a small multiplier of those two buses.
The dominant costs for USING the bus is the wasted time, lost convenience and lost comfort. And it's the total cost that people consider, not just the fare.
You wouldn't need inspectors to make sure fares are paid. A lot of trains already don't have them.
But eventually it will be very easy to tell electronically if someone boarding a bus has paid the fare. You could even keep track of who doesn't and collect a fine later.
You wouldn't need inspectors to make sure fares are paid. A lot of trains already don't have them.
But eventually it will be very easy to tell electronically if someone boarding a bus has paid the fare. You could even keep track of who doesn't and collect a fine later.
Easy to explain your commute. We don't have cheap automated cabs yet. People can't chose an option that they don't have.
My point is that I don't think many people would take that option even if it were available. I know I wouldn't, unless the costs to own and operate a private car went up drastically, and even then, I see it as more of an augmentation than a replacement, i.e. maybe I own a single car instead of two, and use cabs for most trips.
There are some realities I think get overlooked. For example, I have a family of six, plus a dog that can't be left alone. How do I go about getting where I need to go in a fast and convenient way? Let's say I can't afford to live in the dense city center, and like most people, I live in the suburbs. Barring some huge shift in politics, infrastructure, and major advancement in AI, what is my motivation to give up my minivan?
There are some realities I think get overlooked. For example, I have a family of six, plus a dog that can't be left alone. How do I go about getting where I need to go in a fast and convenient way? Let's say I can't afford to live in the dense city center, and like most people, I live in the suburbs. Barring some huge shift in politics, infrastructure, and major advancement in AI, what is my motivation to give up my minivan?
You can keep your minivan. Or you just hire a vehicle that has the room you need only when you need it.
Uber already is pretty fast. I just used it in upstate New York north of Albany and there was hardly any wait. Any wait that exists will go down once robotic vehicles becomes dominant.
And pricing will also be important to make that happen. People who want less than 5 minutes wait can pay more, but that will be pretty reasonable priced. It's cheaper to pay for a vehicle to wait for 5 minutes or even 20 than it ever could be to make it wait for 3 hours or 12 hours.
And that IS essentially what we do when we have a vehicle on constant standby. We are paying for the fixed costs of having it wait around all the time. There's a daily cost to tie up that capital. It's 1/30 of your monthly payment. And an hourly cost.
In any case, individuals will be able to choose the option that suits them. And go back and forth. Some days you may value immediate pickup and you could rental a vehicle by the day. Other days you may not care and want to save money. Or you use your vehicle to care around tons of stuff and it's better for you to own. It's all good.
Uber already is pretty fast. I just used it in upstate New York north of Albany and there was hardly any wait. Any wait that exists will go down once robotic vehicles becomes dominant.
And pricing will also be important to make that happen. People who want less than 5 minutes wait can pay more, but that will be pretty reasonable priced. It's cheaper to pay for a vehicle to wait for 5 minutes or even 20 than it ever could be to make it wait for 3 hours or 12 hours.
And that IS essentially what we do when we have a vehicle on constant standby. We are paying for the fixed costs of having it wait around all the time. There's a daily cost to tie up that capital. It's 1/30 of your monthly payment. And an hourly cost.
In any case, individuals will be able to choose the option that suits them. And go back and forth. Some days you may value immediate pickup and you could rental a vehicle by the day. Other days you may not care and want to save money. Or you use your vehicle to care around tons of stuff and it's better for you to own. It's all good.
I agree that this will be the case, I thought you were arguing that private car ownership will virtually disappear. We are already in the situation you described. Sure, maybe use of public transportation and Uber type services will go up some, but I can't see anyone who has a private car in their driveway using Uber or public transit in anything other than unusual circumstances (need to go to airport, need a designated driver, you are on vacation it business travel, the car is in the shop with no loaner, etc), just like the majority of people I know do today. Admittedly, I don't live in a city center, but unless housing prices decrease substantially, I don't see the influx to dense metropolitan areas necessary for the kind of mass transit you're envisioning.
Eventually, it will happen. Teenagers will be able to cheaply go anywhere they want without learning how to drive. When they get their first apartment and the one without a garage or parking spot is several hundred dollars cheaper, they'll probably not bother getting a car.
Sure, many people are set in their ways. In the long run, that doesn't matter.
Sure, many people are set in their ways. In the long run, that doesn't matter.
A family of six or more is quite unusual. 62% of households are two people or less, 78% are three or less and 91% are four are less. Your use case does not need to get solved for there to be a huge reduction in the number of privately owned cars.
That's true.
But that use case will be solved too. Automated vehicles will come in all sizes. Families aren't the only groups that like to travel together.
If there is a market for such vehicles, somebody will offer it.
But that use case will be solved too. Automated vehicles will come in all sizes. Families aren't the only groups that like to travel together.
If there is a market for such vehicles, somebody will offer it.
I'm not arguing that these vehicles and markets won't exist, merely that I don't think they will eliminate or become even the majority mode of transportation in America. I feel like there are many unrealistic techno-utopian assumptions that have to be made to get to a future where private car ownership in America is for collectors and edge cases.
[deleted]
Yeah taxis don't have sufficient capacity. You'd just double the cars on the roads. Autonomous buses on the other hand could make a dent (since the primary cost of buses in rich countries is labor).
I mean, both can exist. The middle class in Beijing use taxis/didi fairly ubiquitously, poorer people use the subway and buses more.
Autonomous taxis could also easily caravan reducing their capacity disadvantage over autonomous buses.
Autonomous taxis could also easily caravan reducing their capacity disadvantage over autonomous buses.
I'm curious about this. How do you arrive at the conclusion that autonomous taxi adoption results in a doubling of the number of cars? Do you have a link?
Nobody wants to take a cab to drive from CBD to suburb at 10am. The cabs still have to drive to somewhere to park themselves until most of them are needed again at 5pm.
Cars in general are mainly used at both rush hours and are parked somewhere in between. Sharing cars won't magically change human behaviour.
Some googled "traffic by time of day" graphs: http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~cs1173/images/SATraffic3Intersection... and http://www.cmt4austin.org/Traffic_By_Time_of_Day.htm
Cars in general are mainly used at both rush hours and are parked somewhere in between. Sharing cars won't magically change human behaviour.
Some googled "traffic by time of day" graphs: http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~cs1173/images/SATraffic3Intersection... and http://www.cmt4austin.org/Traffic_By_Time_of_Day.htm
Because order half the time they'll be empty driving to their next pickup.
The increase in ride-sharing has already greatly increased congestion: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180316/issue01/1803...
The increase in ride-sharing has already greatly increased congestion: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180316/issue01/1803...
But in the most popular areas, many cars get multiple riders and find their next rides in the same area.
And out in the boonies, some people will keep their personal cars, as it will take longer to get a ride.
Also, the average car size will shrink. Not only will we lose the driver's seat, but peak demand as people go to work may be met with even smaller one-seat cars.
You won't need a car that can handle your worst-case scenario for most of the time. Bigger cars will still be available, of course, because people do like to travel with their friends and family whenever possible.
All in all, it's a lot more likely that that most seats will be filled.
And out in the boonies, some people will keep their personal cars, as it will take longer to get a ride.
Also, the average car size will shrink. Not only will we lose the driver's seat, but peak demand as people go to work may be met with even smaller one-seat cars.
You won't need a car that can handle your worst-case scenario for most of the time. Bigger cars will still be available, of course, because people do like to travel with their friends and family whenever possible.
All in all, it's a lot more likely that that most seats will be filled.
I disagree. The article I linked suggests in NYC that Ubers are empty 1/3 of the time on weekdays. The problem of course is that no city is so mixed use that destinations are equally likely to be origins at any given time of day.
taking labor out of the equation it will become cost effective to be empty an even larger fraction of the time (presumably humans stop driving when they're not getting enough fares to be worthwhile). It may also be economical for these vehicles to never park (not only because parking costs money or might be far away, but because it increases latency) for large fractions of the day.
taking labor out of the equation it will become cost effective to be empty an even larger fraction of the time (presumably humans stop driving when they're not getting enough fares to be worthwhile). It may also be economical for these vehicles to never park (not only because parking costs money or might be far away, but because it increases latency) for large fractions of the day.
> Eventually, mass transit will fail and underground subways will be repurposed for AVs.
No matter how autonomous the vehicle, a tunnel of cars will never have the the same throughput capacity as a subway. For supporting the kind of dense cities that we need to in order to have a somewhat sustainable society in the long-term, that's crucial.
Unless you're talking about fully autonomous subway systems, in which case those already exist - like in NYC.
No matter how autonomous the vehicle, a tunnel of cars will never have the the same throughput capacity as a subway. For supporting the kind of dense cities that we need to in order to have a somewhat sustainable society in the long-term, that's crucial.
Unless you're talking about fully autonomous subway systems, in which case those already exist - like in NYC.
The NYC subway system is not autonomous. Every train has a driver. Autonomous subways do exist though.
> The NYC subway system is not autonomous. Every train has a driver.
The L train is actually fully self-driving and self-operating. The TWU has a contract with the MTA that requires them to hire someone to sit around and press a keepalive button every so often, though that doesn't make the train any less autonomous.
(The TWU has a history of striking these sorts of "deals" with the MTA - typically, they take the form of requiring the MTA to pay for the cost of any jobs that are eliminated due to technological advancements. In other words, it becomes more expensive for the MTA to introduce technology - even technology that's already been standard practice for decades elsewhere in the world - than to keep using older and more expensive systems.)
So at this point, we're talking about political barriers to self-driving trains, rather than technological ones, and "repurposing subways for self-driving car tunnels" has all of those same barriers, on top of being a dramatically less efficient way of moving people around.
The L train is actually fully self-driving and self-operating. The TWU has a contract with the MTA that requires them to hire someone to sit around and press a keepalive button every so often, though that doesn't make the train any less autonomous.
(The TWU has a history of striking these sorts of "deals" with the MTA - typically, they take the form of requiring the MTA to pay for the cost of any jobs that are eliminated due to technological advancements. In other words, it becomes more expensive for the MTA to introduce technology - even technology that's already been standard practice for decades elsewhere in the world - than to keep using older and more expensive systems.)
So at this point, we're talking about political barriers to self-driving trains, rather than technological ones, and "repurposing subways for self-driving car tunnels" has all of those same barriers, on top of being a dramatically less efficient way of moving people around.
>Taking taxis everywhere will be cheaper than owning your own vehicle.
People say this but it's very unclear it will be the case. Especially outside of places where the environment (salted roads for example) take a toll, most of the cost of owning a car is ultimately distance, not time.
A lot of factors could make pay-per-use fleet cars a bit cheaper or more expensive than owner but it's not clear that the economic difference will really be all that great.
I also see people expecting drastically cheaper prices than Uber but the overall costs (including those associated with getting the car to you) are still going to be 50 cents a mile or so.
People say this but it's very unclear it will be the case. Especially outside of places where the environment (salted roads for example) take a toll, most of the cost of owning a car is ultimately distance, not time.
A lot of factors could make pay-per-use fleet cars a bit cheaper or more expensive than owner but it's not clear that the economic difference will really be all that great.
I also see people expecting drastically cheaper prices than Uber but the overall costs (including those associated with getting the car to you) are still going to be 50 cents a mile or so.
The distance traveled will be a bigger part of the cost of robotic travel. That's what happens when you are sharing the capital cost with many other users.
And that is a big part of why AVs will be cheaper. Paying 1/10 of $500 a month is better than paying $500.
The cost will also depend on how big a vehicle you need. For many people going to work, they only need room for one person and a little space for cargo. Paying for 1/4 of a vehicle is cheaper than paying for a whole vehicle.
So even the variable cost of your transportation will go down.
And that is a big part of why AVs will be cheaper. Paying 1/10 of $500 a month is better than paying $500.
The cost will also depend on how big a vehicle you need. For many people going to work, they only need room for one person and a little space for cargo. Paying for 1/4 of a vehicle is cheaper than paying for a whole vehicle.
So even the variable cost of your transportation will go down.
But there is no $500/month. There is some Time Value of Money involved, yes, when I plop down $30K for a vehicle that will last for 150K miles or whatever. ADDED: It would be silly to let it sit for 5 years before using it because that $30K could hopefully have been earning money elsewhere. The "$500/mo" is just the financing vehicle you've chosen to purchase the car.
But mostly there is $0.50 / mile or so which is reasonably constant whether I put 10K miles on my car per year or 50K.
There's some savings in provisioning for average usage rather than peak usage as to type of vehicle and so forth. But I'm skeptical how significant this will be beyond city dwellers who are on the cusp of not owning their own vehicles (or their own second vehicles) anyway.
But mostly there is $0.50 / mile or so which is reasonably constant whether I put 10K miles on my car per year or 50K.
There's some savings in provisioning for average usage rather than peak usage as to type of vehicle and so forth. But I'm skeptical how significant this will be beyond city dwellers who are on the cusp of not owning their own vehicles (or their own second vehicles) anyway.
lmao
The cost and availability of parking is one of the primary deterrants to car ownership and driving. If that is removed, then due to induced demand, the price commuting by car will substantially decrease. Following induced demand again this means the amount of traffic on the road will substantially increase, which will be a nightmare for cities.
Autonomous cars will not solve anything and will in all likelihoods make the situation much worse.
The only thing that will take cars off the road is simply to reduce the amount of road available to them.
The cost and availability of parking is one of the primary deterrants to car ownership and driving. If that is removed, then due to induced demand, the price commuting by car will substantially decrease. Following induced demand again this means the amount of traffic on the road will substantially increase, which will be a nightmare for cities.
Autonomous cars will not solve anything and will in all likelihoods make the situation much worse.
The only thing that will take cars off the road is simply to reduce the amount of road available to them.
One thing that will take cars off the road is to provide better alternatives modes of transportation.
Nope again due to induced demand. As people abandon their cars for public transit options, less traffic incentivizes people to choose to drive.
Traffic will always fill to occupy the available space available.
This is why LA and Houston have built incredibly wide highways and have never solved their traffic issues.
Traffic will always fill to occupy the available space available.
This is why LA and Houston have built incredibly wide highways and have never solved their traffic issues.
>> Parking spaces are everywhere, but for some reason the perception persists that there’s “not enough parking.”
I imagine most people will perceive that there's not enough parking unless there's an open spot right out front of where they're going when they get there.
Services that facilitate parking further away from your destination might help.
I imagine most people will perceive that there's not enough parking unless there's an open spot right out front of where they're going when they get there.
Services that facilitate parking further away from your destination might help.
In the USA, from what I have seen, public transportation is a punishment for being poor.
It would be fun to do the math if every one of the parking spots had EV charging
I wonder what we’ll do with all this space once AVs take over.
You either pay for parking or get a ticket. It must make incredible amounts of money for all involved.
Self-driving cars will solve the whole parking problem.
Yeah some idiots would just let their car drive around all the time without them. I remember reading an article that they wanted to make a law specifically against this before it happens, but I can't find the link. Now if people can share the autonomous cars, that's a different story.
How? Being self-driving doesn't make a car take up less space.
Multi-car parking areas (garages, e.g.) could be compressed somewhat if humans no longer need to be in the space. (When the car drops you off and then goes and parks itself.) There's space used for fault tolerance, and just opening doors, that would no longer be necessary given a "perfect" driver. I bet you could get another 20% usage spacewise. And there might even be other efficiencies to take advantage of. Even now there are parking garages where cars are stored on top of each other using some kind of mechanical lift.
A self-driving car will ideally drop you off in front of your commute target and go find a parking space at a convenient location that might even be outside town.
This would multiply traffic in cities, which would be a terrible alternative.
It would add some traffic to/from parking lots but reduce the “find a parking space near my target” traffic.
edit tl;dr there is plenty of parking where it's not needed and too little parking where it is needed.
I think the main problem is not the amount of parking but the distribution of parking. I live in NYC and avoid driving around the city as much as possible except off peak and short local runs.
The big problem is commercial centers tend to be high density and clustered together. For example, queens boulevard between Forest Hills and Rego Park has dozens of restaurants and shops where the number of parking spots on the block vs. the number of people concentrated on that block is where the problem begins. A restaurant with one or two parking spots in front might have two dozen people people inside including staff requiring at least six parking spots (assuming couples).
My neighborhood Ozone Park is in south Queens and live is a part that is a block from the A train. Super convenient location as everything is in walking distance of a few blocks including the train. There is also a school around the block. So every morning dozens of commuters pack the neighborhood looking for parking for the train and then add the teachers and other school staff who only get about two dozen reserved spots and half are blocked by construction. Your driveway is frequently partly blocked and finding street parking during weekdays is brutal until about 7-8PM.
So the blocks along the train stations are municipal free-for all parking lots. As you push out into the back areas away from the commercial cacophony there is street parking so long as the neighborhood was built with sanity meaning homes have functional driveways (most don't or can only fit a single car). And there are plenty of those areas spread throughout the city but the parking goes to waste. Then throw in neighborhoods of row houses with no driveways and again, the housing density outweighs the parking.
Face it, no planning was done for the automobile in major cities. Parking allotment is abysmal and to make things worse, maximizing the dwelling square footage is what all developers aim for to maximize the value. So there is zero incentive to build in sane parking. This is an example of a nearby 10 apartment home that was built with parking for about 8-10 vehicles if people park front to back and side-by-side underneath the front half: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.683022,-73.8445675,3a,75y,75...
Not exactly a pretty example. Down the block from me a single story ranch with a big back yard was bought by a developer, demolished and three two family homes built with the easy ability to add an illegal basement apartment with a little modding (it was so obvious when we toured them during sale). There used to be more parking on weekends before those homes went in. Now even weekend parking can be tough. And this type of development is happening all over NYC. Single family homes are bought up demolished and replaced with 4+ apartments each of which usually bring one car into the neighborhood. They also build little or no parking in. The requirements for parking are easily cheated with a long driveway that is only practical for one or two cars to use as you can't practically park six cars back to back. No one is building single family homes anymore.
Summary: it's a damn mess.
I think the main problem is not the amount of parking but the distribution of parking. I live in NYC and avoid driving around the city as much as possible except off peak and short local runs.
The big problem is commercial centers tend to be high density and clustered together. For example, queens boulevard between Forest Hills and Rego Park has dozens of restaurants and shops where the number of parking spots on the block vs. the number of people concentrated on that block is where the problem begins. A restaurant with one or two parking spots in front might have two dozen people people inside including staff requiring at least six parking spots (assuming couples).
My neighborhood Ozone Park is in south Queens and live is a part that is a block from the A train. Super convenient location as everything is in walking distance of a few blocks including the train. There is also a school around the block. So every morning dozens of commuters pack the neighborhood looking for parking for the train and then add the teachers and other school staff who only get about two dozen reserved spots and half are blocked by construction. Your driveway is frequently partly blocked and finding street parking during weekdays is brutal until about 7-8PM.
So the blocks along the train stations are municipal free-for all parking lots. As you push out into the back areas away from the commercial cacophony there is street parking so long as the neighborhood was built with sanity meaning homes have functional driveways (most don't or can only fit a single car). And there are plenty of those areas spread throughout the city but the parking goes to waste. Then throw in neighborhoods of row houses with no driveways and again, the housing density outweighs the parking.
Face it, no planning was done for the automobile in major cities. Parking allotment is abysmal and to make things worse, maximizing the dwelling square footage is what all developers aim for to maximize the value. So there is zero incentive to build in sane parking. This is an example of a nearby 10 apartment home that was built with parking for about 8-10 vehicles if people park front to back and side-by-side underneath the front half: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.683022,-73.8445675,3a,75y,75...
Not exactly a pretty example. Down the block from me a single story ranch with a big back yard was bought by a developer, demolished and three two family homes built with the easy ability to add an illegal basement apartment with a little modding (it was so obvious when we toured them during sale). There used to be more parking on weekends before those homes went in. Now even weekend parking can be tough. And this type of development is happening all over NYC. Single family homes are bought up demolished and replaced with 4+ apartments each of which usually bring one car into the neighborhood. They also build little or no parking in. The requirements for parking are easily cheated with a long driveway that is only practical for one or two cars to use as you can't practically park six cars back to back. No one is building single family homes anymore.
Summary: it's a damn mess.
I’m from Italy, and until I lived in America for a while I’d never understood just how massive the US really is. I lived on two coasts, in two states that were both much larger than my entire country! People like to point to Berlin or Paris as model cities, but they’re population centers in countries that could fit inside Texas without making a splash. I’m not saying that US car culture is entirely healthy, or that it couldn’t benefit from more and better public transport in major cities. I’m always annoyed though, to see these conversations on HN ignore the sheer size of the country in question. Of course it’s spread out, it’s enormous!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Hifamb4LTgQooDBYj/worth-reme...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Hifamb4LTgQooDBYj/worth-reme...
For some, the grass is always greener on the other side. It is stylish today to criticize every tradeoff the U.S. has made in order to credibly claim that every habitable square foot of every state is "inhabited", but a lot of it makes perfect sense.
There is one piece of public transit which makes a lot of sense in the U.S.: the bus (both local and coach buses), but it is unstylish and so gets no attention.
Imagine how much better it would be getting from city to city if the money that went into subsidizing AmTrak (which approximately nobody uses, least of which the lower classes) was available as a grant or credit for every passenger mile on the already-thriving network of American bus carriers (Greyhound, Megabus, and 24 others in the long-distance category alone).
There is one piece of public transit which makes a lot of sense in the U.S.: the bus (both local and coach buses), but it is unstylish and so gets no attention.
Imagine how much better it would be getting from city to city if the money that went into subsidizing AmTrak (which approximately nobody uses, least of which the lower classes) was available as a grant or credit for every passenger mile on the already-thriving network of American bus carriers (Greyhound, Megabus, and 24 others in the long-distance category alone).
Amtrak is very popular on certain routes, predominantly in the Northeast Corridor. And, in fact, those routes are being upgraded. But poor people certainly don't use it. They take something like Megabus. And the money Amtrak makes in the northeast covers, though not entirely, a lot of long haul routes that aren't competitive with air.
Sure, if AmTrak restructured around a lack of federal subsidies for lines in the red, the Northeast Corridor (possibly incl. Acela Express) would clearly remain in operation. It's just that a major part of the network is composed of routes where the subsidy exceeds the fare, and the fare is still too high for most people to consider.
Also, not really sure why the federal government is subsidizing $10-40+ one-way fares (receiving an average of 25 dollars in federal subsidy) as "commuter" service, even in the less-bad Capitol Corridor.
Also, not really sure why the federal government is subsidizing $10-40+ one-way fares (receiving an average of 25 dollars in federal subsidy) as "commuter" service, even in the less-bad Capitol Corridor.
Personally very excited Travis (former Uber CEO) is CEO of City Storage Systems now to basically future proof antiquated urban real estate like parking or retail.
> Parking is also extremely expensive to construct and maintain.
Say what? It's a fucking concrete slab.
Maybe they mean expensive in land cost.
Say what? It's a fucking concrete slab.
Maybe they mean expensive in land cost.
If it is nothing but a concrete slab, the cost is the land.
Parking structures reduce the amount of land per car, but then you have to pay for the structure.
Parking structures reduce the amount of land per car, but then you have to pay for the structure.
“Without tunnels we’ll be in traffic hell forever” -Elon Musk
This is good-- it's where those fantastic barn-finds come from.
We can build over all of the parking lots once driverless cars become a thing, can't we?
Public transportation looks awfully like a dead end in that light. If you don't have to park and drive them, cars are better in nearly every way.
Public transportation looks awfully like a dead end in that light. If you don't have to park and drive them, cars are better in nearly every way.
Public transport also reduces the amount of congestion in roads that driverless cars can only worsen.
Probably true, but completely missing my point.
Buses are inflexible solutions, far from ideal transport. You have to find the bus, abide by its schedule, and the bus can only deliver its passengers sort of near its destination. If the bus isn't near full, it's also very wasteful.
A better solution would be on-demand, and could come much closer to the passenger for pickup and dropoff. It would be cheaper to scale as needed.
I think that describes driverless cars, and less perfectly Uber/Lyft. Improving congestion is a matter of improving thoroughput, and our society would be better off focusing on ways to pack more driverless cars into less road, or have more roads, or have more road alternatives (point to point electric scooters), or have better traffic routing, than make a bunch of buses and have people drive them around all day.
And I don't even need to mention the crushing inflexibility of subways and trains.
Buses are inflexible solutions, far from ideal transport. You have to find the bus, abide by its schedule, and the bus can only deliver its passengers sort of near its destination. If the bus isn't near full, it's also very wasteful.
A better solution would be on-demand, and could come much closer to the passenger for pickup and dropoff. It would be cheaper to scale as needed.
I think that describes driverless cars, and less perfectly Uber/Lyft. Improving congestion is a matter of improving thoroughput, and our society would be better off focusing on ways to pack more driverless cars into less road, or have more roads, or have more road alternatives (point to point electric scooters), or have better traffic routing, than make a bunch of buses and have people drive them around all day.
And I don't even need to mention the crushing inflexibility of subways and trains.
Being used to high density housing and underground parking spaces all those open parking lots seem nonsensical to me, even more considering the alleged housing shortage over there.