Driving is more expensive than you think (2020)(news.harvard.edu)
news.harvard.edu
Driving is more expensive than you think (2020)
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/massachusetts-car-economy-costs-64-billion-study-finds/
225 comments
I did the same math and decided I wouldn’t buy a car since I could just use Uber when I need one. Turns out I never use Uber anyway since I live near a train station and major bus stop, I can get anywhere from public transport easily.
I'm sure not all, but I feel so many of these calculations do not include how much is your time worth, which unlike money you can't make more of.
I'm in a sub-sub-urb of a big city in the US so a car is a necessity; I don't like it, but it's what it is. But even if I lived near a train station (and I have used them in the UK, New York, and Western Europe), not having a car is still a cost in time. How much I never put to paper, but it's not zero. (I'm also discounting the cost and hassle of having a car in a "big city" - when I lived in NY, no way I'd own a car there.)
I'm in a sub-sub-urb of a big city in the US so a car is a necessity; I don't like it, but it's what it is. But even if I lived near a train station (and I have used them in the UK, New York, and Western Europe), not having a car is still a cost in time. How much I never put to paper, but it's not zero. (I'm also discounting the cost and hassle of having a car in a "big city" - when I lived in NY, no way I'd own a car there.)
This is true but cuts both ways: car owners spend time dealing with maintenance and repairs, parking, etc. It very much depends on where you live but one thing I’ve noticed is that most drivers are chronically late because they’re thinking of the time spent driving on roads, not actual door-to-door travel time including things like the time they spent looking for a more subsidized parking spot or waiting for other drivers to leave.
The other thing is quality of life. Walking, biking, and even using transit are better for your health – the first two can meet your exercise needs - and they all allow you to do something other than sit immobile looking at a tailpipe, so you have to make a fuzzy comparison in many cases. Where I live, driving can be as fast as riding a bike if you’re lucky on traffic but even if I take transit it’s only like 10 minutes slower so I’d have to weight 30 minutes of reading and 15 minutes of walking against 25 minutes of driving.
The other thing is quality of life. Walking, biking, and even using transit are better for your health – the first two can meet your exercise needs - and they all allow you to do something other than sit immobile looking at a tailpipe, so you have to make a fuzzy comparison in many cases. Where I live, driving can be as fast as riding a bike if you’re lucky on traffic but even if I take transit it’s only like 10 minutes slower so I’d have to weight 30 minutes of reading and 15 minutes of walking against 25 minutes of driving.
I am very happy with my current life right now, which does not require a car at all on a regular basis, but I was lucky enough to inherit an old car that I use for weekend trips out of town and generally getting around to areas that would be difficult or impossible to reach by public transit. I drive about once a week on average, but that average belies just how tremendously valuable the car has been in terms of saving me time. It's been worth every penny and then some. But This is more or less an ideal scenario that I wish everyone had access to, even though I know most people don't. Often you have to choose 2 of the 3: good access to transit, room to park a car, and enough money in the budget for a car.
Yeah, cars certainly have utility but I always remind myself that the total cost is higher than we think and it’s especially harsh for people who aren’t very comfortable financially. I’ve been at the mechanic’s when someone is trying to figure out what they can do to keep their car running enough to avoid losing their job, or praying that a tire patch will hold.
The problem in the United States is that a lot of infrastructure was deliberately built to exclude poor people so there aren’t great options in many suburbs for improving transit or bike access short of building road connections through someone’s bank yard. This has a nasty ratchet as cars have been getting more expensive while those suburbs age and need maintenance far in excess of what the property taxes cover.
The problem in the United States is that a lot of infrastructure was deliberately built to exclude poor people so there aren’t great options in many suburbs for improving transit or bike access short of building road connections through someone’s bank yard. This has a nasty ratchet as cars have been getting more expensive while those suburbs age and need maintenance far in excess of what the property taxes cover.
As others mention: it’s more complicated than just travel time in car < travel time on public transit. To add something they haven’t yet mentioned: when not a driver, one can focus on other tasks and be productive. Less so when driving a car, where one’s focus is primarily on the road and only hands-free tasks are possible.
I just moved out of a metro area to about 20 miles out of town and have been running these numbers. How you calculate time is something few people talk about but seems incredibly relevant to this calculation.
I'm an independent hourly consultant so my time has a literal dollar rate, but only if I would be working vs whatever activity is in question.
Assuming I 1: have work available I can contribute quality work to in the time allotted and 2: that I actually would be doing that work in this time slot are two things that rarely match up with when I'm doing personal activities that require transit. One obvious exception is going to or from a client site during the workweek, but with a phone hotspot I can start billing on the bus. Something I can't do driving.
If 1 and 2 above are not both true then my hourly rate is not at all my billed rate and is instead some subjective measure of value. I have yet to determine if that measure of value is best expressed in dollars. So far I'm beginning to think it isn't. Instead, reversed feels better. "Is it worth X dollars to not have to carry my groceries home on a bus?"
I'm an independent hourly consultant so my time has a literal dollar rate, but only if I would be working vs whatever activity is in question.
Assuming I 1: have work available I can contribute quality work to in the time allotted and 2: that I actually would be doing that work in this time slot are two things that rarely match up with when I'm doing personal activities that require transit. One obvious exception is going to or from a client site during the workweek, but with a phone hotspot I can start billing on the bus. Something I can't do driving.
If 1 and 2 above are not both true then my hourly rate is not at all my billed rate and is instead some subjective measure of value. I have yet to determine if that measure of value is best expressed in dollars. So far I'm beginning to think it isn't. Instead, reversed feels better. "Is it worth X dollars to not have to carry my groceries home on a bus?"
100% agree, that's more or less how I ended up evaluating my time
Absolutely true, but the beauty is that you can calculate exactly how much a car costs, monthly, how much time is wasted by not having it and how much time is wasted by having it, since you are in control of all of this.
I calculated I'm at least saving $1000/month, I live near a car sharing service spot, a major bus stop and the train, so we get to love car-free.
I'd argue that having a car sharing service really highlights how much you spend for a car when is just "sitting there". You see the expense going up when you don't use it. If there was a similar calculator but for your own car, it would make it way easier to think twice about owning one
I calculated I'm at least saving $1000/month, I live near a car sharing service spot, a major bus stop and the train, so we get to love car-free.
I'd argue that having a car sharing service really highlights how much you spend for a car when is just "sitting there". You see the expense going up when you don't use it. If there was a similar calculator but for your own car, it would make it way easier to think twice about owning one
For me, the train is much faster. Whenever I go somewhere with a friend in their car. We spend so long stuck in traffic and then finding parking. While the train leaves every 5 minutes and brings me pretty much directly to my destination.
It's very dependent on local public transit, whether you reasonably have to use a private car of some sort (whether you drive it or someone else does) for commuting to work etc., and your general lifestyle (i.e. if your car needs are to drive somewhere on the odd weekend or so, maybe a Zipcar now and then to visit someone, or the odd roadtrip when you can just get a rental you can probably get by without a car).
I never got around to learning to drive (always worked in Dublin, and moved into the city centre after college), and was quite shocked to discover just _how_ much people were spending on it (for instance, apparently avg price of a new car here is 35k; I'd have guessed maybe 10-15 if you'd asked me)?
Of course, there are tradeoffs there; my house cost a _lot_ more than a house in the middle of nowhere, certainly. But all in all I'm glad I avoided tethering myself to a car (I do plan to learn at some point, as it feels like the sort of thing I should be able to do before I'm 40, but I can't see myself actually buying one).
Of course, there are tradeoffs there; my house cost a _lot_ more than a house in the middle of nowhere, certainly. But all in all I'm glad I avoided tethering myself to a car (I do plan to learn at some point, as it feels like the sort of thing I should be able to do before I'm 40, but I can't see myself actually buying one).
To your point, the people who use/think they need cars probably have a lot of misconceptions about not having them.
But at least they’ve both had and have not had cars.
Not to your point, if you’ve never had a car or even experienced the joys of driving itself or simply being able to go far away on a moment’s notice, your “gladness” of its avoidance may ring as hollow as the blind individual who is “glad” they aren’t bound to the tyranny of visual entertainments. I mean, that’s a nice story you’re telling yourself, but do you really have to information to know?
In particular, once you have children, a vehicle becomes a near-necessity anywhere outside a city.
But at least they’ve both had and have not had cars.
Not to your point, if you’ve never had a car or even experienced the joys of driving itself or simply being able to go far away on a moment’s notice, your “gladness” of its avoidance may ring as hollow as the blind individual who is “glad” they aren’t bound to the tyranny of visual entertainments. I mean, that’s a nice story you’re telling yourself, but do you really have to information to know?
In particular, once you have children, a vehicle becomes a near-necessity anywhere outside a city.
> simply being able to go far away on a moment’s notice
Buy intercity bus ticket on internet, 15 minute bus journey to where the intercity buses congregate, get on bus. Or train, but Irish Rail likes to charge roughly 2x as much for same-day intercity tickets as next day.
Now, if you want to go to the middle of nowhere, that's harder, I suppose, but towns and cities are easy enough (caveat: Ireland's transport system is rather poorly designed and ~everything radiates out of Dublin, so this probably only works well if you live _in_ Dublin).
As I say, I do plan to get around to learning to drive at some point (my last attempt was foiled by covid; I got a provisional license in Feb 2020), but honestly it's hard to prioritise.
Kids would be more of an issue, granted. I mostly walked or got the bus to school, but I do think that’s less common these days. As a late-30s gay man, not something I have to personally worry about too much, tho.
Buy intercity bus ticket on internet, 15 minute bus journey to where the intercity buses congregate, get on bus. Or train, but Irish Rail likes to charge roughly 2x as much for same-day intercity tickets as next day.
Now, if you want to go to the middle of nowhere, that's harder, I suppose, but towns and cities are easy enough (caveat: Ireland's transport system is rather poorly designed and ~everything radiates out of Dublin, so this probably only works well if you live _in_ Dublin).
As I say, I do plan to get around to learning to drive at some point (my last attempt was foiled by covid; I got a provisional license in Feb 2020), but honestly it's hard to prioritise.
Kids would be more of an issue, granted. I mostly walked or got the bus to school, but I do think that’s less common these days. As a late-30s gay man, not something I have to personally worry about too much, tho.
Few issues highlight just how different the US is from most European countries as well as public transit. Intellectually we all know the US is huge but we don't have a conceptual model of just how crazy big it is in comparison to any European country.
> Not to your point, if you’ve never had a car or even experienced the joys of driving itself or simply being able to go far away on a moment’s notice
I own a car after living for years without one, and for every “I can go away on a moment’s notice” (what they sell you) there is 100 times you spend in traffic at rush hour moving at 4mph.
There’s something truly liberating in living in a city where you can just take the bus to a fancy restaurant, get drunk and not put other lives in danger. Or just walk to the park, the playground or the library.
I own a car after living for years without one, and for every “I can go away on a moment’s notice” (what they sell you) there is 100 times you spend in traffic at rush hour moving at 4mph.
There’s something truly liberating in living in a city where you can just take the bus to a fancy restaurant, get drunk and not put other lives in danger. Or just walk to the park, the playground or the library.
Or I don't drive into the city at rush hour (usually, sometimes circumstances are different but I try to take the train). But I use my car all the time.
I think that's part of the difference though in what you're interested in though.
Where I live, If you were shooting long range rifle on a 900+ meter range, public transit isn't going to have service that area because it's 90 minutes outside of the city on dirt roads. The more modern pistol / carbine shooting facility nowadays are outside of city limits as well. You get similar issues with if you play paintball, airsoft, if you're into mountain biking, hunting, fishing, etc. Most of the ways to access those are out in far flung rural areas that you can't get to by bus.
If things in the city are what interest you then I can see where you're coming from. Me personally it isn't overly interesting though. I detest bars, I don't eat out, I haven't watched a movie in the last decade, I find live music and theater dull, boring, and uninteresting, and most of my shopping is done at Costco, the grocery store, or online. So... more or less that cuts out 99.99999% of the venues inside of a city for me personally.
Where I live, If you were shooting long range rifle on a 900+ meter range, public transit isn't going to have service that area because it's 90 minutes outside of the city on dirt roads. The more modern pistol / carbine shooting facility nowadays are outside of city limits as well. You get similar issues with if you play paintball, airsoft, if you're into mountain biking, hunting, fishing, etc. Most of the ways to access those are out in far flung rural areas that you can't get to by bus.
If things in the city are what interest you then I can see where you're coming from. Me personally it isn't overly interesting though. I detest bars, I don't eat out, I haven't watched a movie in the last decade, I find live music and theater dull, boring, and uninteresting, and most of my shopping is done at Costco, the grocery store, or online. So... more or less that cuts out 99.99999% of the venues inside of a city for me personally.
Yes. Though I’ve been paintballing once or twice, years ago; looks like the place I did it is an hour away (two buses, 10 minute walk) or 30 mins by car. Got to admit shooting never even crossed my mind, but there seem to be a few rifle ranges about an hour away. There seems to generally be a lot of this stuff in the outer suburbs.
My visits to the US have been fairly limited, and mostly to San Francisco, so I’m not sure how typical this is, but one thing that surprised me about San Francisco was that, while there’s a reasonably extensive public transport system in the actual city, it more or less stops dead once you leave. Here, it certainly fades out, but areas where suburban becomes rural are often fairly accessible.
My visits to the US have been fairly limited, and mostly to San Francisco, so I’m not sure how typical this is, but one thing that surprised me about San Francisco was that, while there’s a reasonably extensive public transport system in the actual city, it more or less stops dead once you leave. Here, it certainly fades out, but areas where suburban becomes rural are often fairly accessible.
Perhaps. Forgive me for doing so, I did google some rifle ranges in Ireland and the only comparable rifle range to the one I'm speaking of is the Midlands National Shooting Center of Ireland near Tullamore, and it has similar problem to what I was talking about for our long range facilities. We have smaller ranges I think similar to the the ones I believe you're talking about much closer to the city limits and a handful of indoor ranges within city limits.
>but one thing that surprised me about San Francisco was that, while there’s a reasonably extensive public transport system in the actual city, it more or less stops dead once you leave.
I suppose it's a jurisdiction issue. The city here is quick to expand bus service whenever the borders expand or to new communities, but they do not service anything outside of the limits whatsoever. There's little in the way of public transit outside of the municipal level.
>but one thing that surprised me about San Francisco was that, while there’s a reasonably extensive public transport system in the actual city, it more or less stops dead once you leave.
I suppose it's a jurisdiction issue. The city here is quick to expand bus service whenever the borders expand or to new communities, but they do not service anything outside of the limits whatsoever. There's little in the way of public transit outside of the municipal level.
Yeah, that might be the difference. We used to have a national system and a Dublin system, but the Dublin system had a very expansive definition of ‘Dublin’ and operated well outside the Dublin local authorities. We now have a national system, though in practice Dublin and area is still a bit of a special case.
Where I live, If you were shooting long range rifle on a 900+ meter range
they'd ask why you aren't shooting across your own land at 5,000 meter and who calls 900m long range anyway? ( watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE )
they'd ask why you aren't shooting across your own land at 5,000 meter and who calls 900m long range anyway? ( watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE )
Well, "average" price of a car is inflated by people who buy way more car than they need. A 35k average includes all sorts of high-end SUVs and sports or luxury cars. A basic car for modest needs is still under 20k euro. (Not that this invalidates your point, cars are indeed expensive, but just clarifying.)
And that is only on the personal level. The hypothetical societal benefits from tightening up streets and houses (no need for a garage) are probably big too. Hard to realise once a city is built though. Just look at the amount of prime land locked up for traffic. It is pretty amazing to think about how much dead space there is in a typical city.
Since the privatization of public transport it has declined considerably, especially in rural areas. This is one of the reasons why I think things like public transport should always be a government affair and never be run at a profit.
In Ireland about a decade ago we privatised about 15% of the existing Dublin bus network. And... no-one noticed; the old state monopoly and the new private company now run buses under the livery of a new state organisation, TFI, which sets fares and dictates routes. Quite why the private company wanted anything to do with this is slightly unclear to me. The incentive for Dublin Bus was... possibly simplification of operations? They seem to have taken the opportunity to more or less entirely get rid of their single decker buses.
But, so far so... good? It's working surprisingly well so far, though I do find the routes operated by the private company a little less reliable than the Dublin Bus ones. It probably helped that this was done as part of an overall expansion, not just a re-allocation; Dublin Bus lost about 15% of its fleet but got replacements; AFAIK it kept all its drivers.
But, so far so... good? It's working surprisingly well so far, though I do find the routes operated by the private company a little less reliable than the Dublin Bus ones. It probably helped that this was done as part of an overall expansion, not just a re-allocation; Dublin Bus lost about 15% of its fleet but got replacements; AFAIK it kept all its drivers.
Nice to see a success story. Here in NL it is the other way around. We used to have fantastic public transport, and then, since the 90's ever expanding privatization which means that 100's of local bus lines have been cancelled and the only places that have good public transport are the places that need them the least.
Old people in rural areas are in real trouble, more so because the same has happened to healthcare which in turn led to a whole wave of hospital closures. And that doesn't seem to have ended. Highly annoying because it was those old people in the first place that helped to pay for all of the infra we use daily.
The end result of 4 liberal conservative cabinets in sequence.
Old people in rural areas are in real trouble, more so because the same has happened to healthcare which in turn led to a whole wave of hospital closures. And that doesn't seem to have ended. Highly annoying because it was those old people in the first place that helped to pay for all of the infra we use daily.
The end result of 4 liberal conservative cabinets in sequence.
Caveat: I just looked it up, and there are a lot of complaints about one of the privatised routes.
I had the opposite experience: using taxis/Uber/Lyft was far more expensive than owning a car so after Uber stopped subsidizing rides I had to buy a vehicle.
That was in a city with a metro system, living in one of its main boroughs.
Even today, a cab to anywhere (even 3 miles) would cost me at least $10 each direction, and we have at least 5 such trips weekly. This easily surpasses the cost of the car, including depreciation and fuel.
Even today, a cab to anywhere (even 3 miles) would cost me at least $10 each direction, and we have at least 5 such trips weekly. This easily surpasses the cost of the car, including depreciation and fuel.
$10 each way is $100 a week, a car’s going to cost you more than $400 a month?
More than $400/mo wouldn’t be surprising if the true cost is calculated over a year. Insurance, parts, maintenance, gas, putting the winter tires on, etc, etc, etc.
No. A car can cost much less than $400. Hence I own a car instead of taking taxis.
I own a car and I need one where I live. But I question that owning a car can cost much less than $4800 a year given insurance, maintenance, gas, fees, and other costs. As a purely financial decision, I'd trade for a driver if that were my real cost.
Yes, Western Europe is definitely "streets ahead" of the US in public transportation.
One thing to note though is that costs can be drastically lower if you a) buy used, and b) learn how to do most maintenance yourself.
Most things that typically go wrong with a vehicle aren't that difficult to fix, and parts aren't that expensive, but a mechanic's hourly labor costs tend to add up very quickly.
One thing to note though is that costs can be drastically lower if you a) buy used, and b) learn how to do most maintenance yourself.
Most things that typically go wrong with a vehicle aren't that difficult to fix, and parts aren't that expensive, but a mechanic's hourly labor costs tend to add up very quickly.
[deleted]
this submission is not about individual cost of a car but overall societal cost of people using cars.
Well, it touches on both; it’s claim is that the per capita common cost is more than the per capita user cost.
I enjoy dense and quality mass transportation, which is often faster and cheaper in large cities.
However, the trigger that made me buying a car was to start having kids. Between groceries, medical visits and leisure, it started to be very, very complex to manage it without a car.
Most public transportation infrastructure is hostile to strollers and babies; you don't want to see a crackhead do his thing next to your newborn (classic in the french subway); peak hour in a bus is hell with a baby; taxis often won't take you if you don't have a child seat, which is quite inconvenient, etc etc.
Until we solve those problems, and I believe we won't, then I'll use my car.
However, the trigger that made me buying a car was to start having kids. Between groceries, medical visits and leisure, it started to be very, very complex to manage it without a car.
Most public transportation infrastructure is hostile to strollers and babies; you don't want to see a crackhead do his thing next to your newborn (classic in the french subway); peak hour in a bus is hell with a baby; taxis often won't take you if you don't have a child seat, which is quite inconvenient, etc etc.
Until we solve those problems, and I believe we won't, then I'll use my car.
Very true. However, at a certain age (10, 12, ...?) taking pub transport with the kids is liberating. And empowering, for them. I highly recommend it, as do my children.
Cargo ebikes can make a lot of this work if you live in a city, tho the more kids you have the harder that gets
Cargo ebikes are very dangerous for kids, and you can't sit a 0-3 year old in it. It can't be used in winter.
Aside from this, in many european cities, it will get stolen if you leave it in the street a bit too long.
Main problem currently is with bikes, where I live (Riga). Everyone rides on the sidewalk, making it a very dangerous place for pedestrians and kids. I would be keen to forbid bikes in the city center (and electric scooter), as bikers really can't seem to understand that they should go on the road.
Aside from this, in many european cities, it will get stolen if you leave it in the street a bit too long.
Main problem currently is with bikes, where I live (Riga). Everyone rides on the sidewalk, making it a very dangerous place for pedestrians and kids. I would be keen to forbid bikes in the city center (and electric scooter), as bikers really can't seem to understand that they should go on the road.
Do you think banning bikes would be easier/less costly to enforce/better for your community than making it safer for cyclists to share the road with cars (which is usually why cyclists ride on sidewalks in a given area)? If a ban was established on bikes, but not cars, to parts of your city where people need to go, and cyclists continued to go to the places they needed to go… what would enforcement of that ban look like? Pulling them off their bikes?
I support bicycle lanes, but I believe that riding on the sidewalk is a very dangerous behavior that should be punished handsomely.
It happens in many cities, and those are the ones where bike riders are the most respectful usually.
Ask any deaf/old/parent about how it feels to walk while being overtaken at 25km/h by bike riders with headset on the head and phones in their hands. If you don't care about the weakest on the road, you don't deserve to be protected.
It happens in many cities, and those are the ones where bike riders are the most respectful usually.
Ask any deaf/old/parent about how it feels to walk while being overtaken at 25km/h by bike riders with headset on the head and phones in their hands. If you don't care about the weakest on the road, you don't deserve to be protected.
Cargo e-bikes are not dangerous to children. It is the cars that are dangerous to children. The cargo e-bike does not kill, the car does.
Cargo e-bikes are dangerous for children. Urban infrastructure is not pristine and contains risks even without cars. In Estonia for instance they don't salt the streets in winter. In Paris you have random public works stuff that were forgotten on the road. You can have potholes. Etc etc.
I don't see how a children wouldn't be injured while sitting in the front of a cargo bike, protected only by a thin slice of wood. Please show me a crash test.
I don't see how a children wouldn't be injured while sitting in the front of a cargo bike, protected only by a thin slice of wood. Please show me a crash test.
I took my daughter to preschool every day in a cargo bike from ages 2-4, winter included.
I ride year round with my 2 kids in Colorado as long as the roads are decent. I wouldn't ride main roads with them when the bike lanes are crowded with snow but there are plenty of neighborhood routes and bike paths around town.
I'm very happy for you that you took this risk.
- Did you drive on the sidewalk? If yes, you basically transfered the risk to other walkers. - How is the infrastructure? In many countries you'll see potholes for instance. - In case of a frontal crash, what is your % estimation that none of the kids will be injured?
- Did you drive on the sidewalk? If yes, you basically transfered the risk to other walkers. - How is the infrastructure? In many countries you'll see potholes for instance. - In case of a frontal crash, what is your % estimation that none of the kids will be injured?
Why so cynical? I ride on the road (or bike trails!) and follow all traffic laws, as I've done since reaching the age of 14 or so. I don't feel any less safe using this mode of travel than I do when traveling by car. I've never hit a walker.
I'm glad that you behave like this; many don't respect those basic rules, especially with kids.
I love that you want to ban bikes because they are dangerous for pedestrian when I would bet that most casulties are due to cars. Maybe build bike lane and limit/slow car traffic and they will stop riding on the sidewalk ...
The problem is that even in streets with no risk for bikes (on way, low speed limit), bikes ride the sidewalk. And why would bikes have the priority over walkers, endangering them in the process? The weakest has the priority. You're ok to threaten my kid who's learning how to walk because you feel unsafe on the road? I don't see how a bike riding at 25km/h is innocuous for pedestrians at 4km/h. You're just behaving like a car driver, accept it.
I rode a bike in Paris for 3 years, and it's as hostile as it can get for bikes. Never had a problem,never rode on a sidewalk. Why? I know how to behave with cars. I stop at red lights. I ride in the middle of the road to prevent them from overtaking me dangerously. I'm speedy and I can keep the pace with a late taxi driver if needed.
This kind of reasoning confirms that indeed, bikers are not reasonable and bikes should be forbidden on sidewalks.
I rode a bike in Paris for 3 years, and it's as hostile as it can get for bikes. Never had a problem,never rode on a sidewalk. Why? I know how to behave with cars. I stop at red lights. I ride in the middle of the road to prevent them from overtaking me dangerously. I'm speedy and I can keep the pace with a late taxi driver if needed.
This kind of reasoning confirms that indeed, bikers are not reasonable and bikes should be forbidden on sidewalks.
Why the rant ? You said "forbid bikes in the city center" to which I answered if you want to ban something, ban cars then you'll have space for bike.
Nowhere I said that bike should ride on the sidewalk or have priority over walkers ...
Nowhere I said that bike should ride on the sidewalk or have priority over walkers ...
I don't see why cars should have the precedence over bikes since cyclists behave just like them. Cars respect traffic lights and don't drive on the sidewalk. Bikes don't.
Sounds like you know how to ride a bike. Why do you assume no one else does?
Because many people don't. The sheer amount of cyclist that don't respect red lights and run through pedestrians crossing demonstrate this. I could film a busy crossing where I live and catch an infringement in less than 5 minutes.
My wife, while pregnant, got hit by a cyclist while crossing in Paris. She was well aware of what she was doing, had a very expensive bike and surely was riding everyday to work. But heh, can't slow down to let the peasants cross the road, right?
My wife, while pregnant, got hit by a cyclist while crossing in Paris. She was well aware of what she was doing, had a very expensive bike and surely was riding everyday to work. But heh, can't slow down to let the peasants cross the road, right?
of course you can put a newborn in a cargo bike. It's no different than a car if you have the proper equipment.
Please show me a crash test for a cargo bike with a baby in it.
Show me a crash test for a stroller with a baby in it. Crashes are always bad and there are risks to living.
A stroller goes at 3km/h, I'm pretty sure that a collision with a wall at this speed is pretty innocuous.
How about a cargo bike at 20km/h? I can twist my foot while jumping on the ground, however I wouldn't say that base jumping is the same since you go up in the air in both cases.
How about a cargo bike at 20km/h? I can twist my foot while jumping on the ground, however I wouldn't say that base jumping is the same since you go up in the air in both cases.
I'm not worried about crashing on my own at 20 km/h. I'm worried about cars.
So yeah, I probably wouldn't take my infant on busy roads shared with cars, but i absolutely would put on a cycle path.
So yeah, I probably wouldn't take my infant on busy roads shared with cars, but i absolutely would put on a cycle path.
I moved to NYC a year ago and I really don't like using the MTA. It's dirty, chronically delayed, and randomly alternates between swelteringly hot and freezing cold. Getting anywhere here takes half an hour. Outside of a few choice streets, bike infrastructure is abysmal. Riding the train feels like you're schedule is at the mercy of the whims of some random MTA employee or a weirdo who pull the emergency brake and it makes me wish I had a car again.
I used to be much more sympathetic to these types of articles when I lived in Seattle. Buses in Seattle were generally quite nice and more predictable (Google maps would usually give you a good estimate on your arrival time). Biking was a much nicer experience.
I think cities looking to make better public transit should copy the Seattle model rather than the NYC model.
I used to be much more sympathetic to these types of articles when I lived in Seattle. Buses in Seattle were generally quite nice and more predictable (Google maps would usually give you a good estimate on your arrival time). Biking was a much nicer experience.
I think cities looking to make better public transit should copy the Seattle model rather than the NYC model.
> I think cities looking to make better public transit should copy the Seattle model rather than the NYC model
What is the “Seattle model” vs. “NYC model”?
They are vastly different places. For one, NYC has over 3x—and Manhattan over 8x—the population density of Seattle.
Many times in NYC, the subway is as fast or faster than a car. Folks often complain their “schedule is at the mercy” of a train, but forget that the same is true of car travel with traffic, road closures, etc. Don’t get me wrong: there are a lot of things about NYCT that suck, but being worse than car travel in NYC (for areas with subway service) is not one of them.
And yes, NYC needs a better bike experience. Still, Citi Bike had 114,000 rides per day last month (a far cry from ~3 million weekday subway rides).
What is the “Seattle model” vs. “NYC model”?
They are vastly different places. For one, NYC has over 3x—and Manhattan over 8x—the population density of Seattle.
Many times in NYC, the subway is as fast or faster than a car. Folks often complain their “schedule is at the mercy” of a train, but forget that the same is true of car travel with traffic, road closures, etc. Don’t get me wrong: there are a lot of things about NYCT that suck, but being worse than car travel in NYC (for areas with subway service) is not one of them.
And yes, NYC needs a better bike experience. Still, Citi Bike had 114,000 rides per day last month (a far cry from ~3 million weekday subway rides).
The "schedule at the mercy" issue has more to do with really bad estimates of commute times. The bus rapid transit in Seattle has good estimates so even though it might be slower it is at least predictable. My understanding is that MTA's ancient switching system can't be effectively computerized, hence the poor estimates.
Citi Bike ridership indicates a lot of pent up demand for missing-middle transit, but the execution is pretty bad compared to on-demand bikes in Seattle (although I haven't been back there in a few years and I've heard it's gotten worse there too, so, grain of salt). The electric Citi Bikes are chronically unavailable, meaning you're stuck with huge clunkers that make you work up a sweat at the first hill. Also it can cost 2-3x as much as the bus or metro for a single trip. It makes way more sense to own your own bike, but that still doesn't fix the fact that half your trips invariably contain some section of "cross this four lane road without a marked bike lane".
Citi Bike ridership indicates a lot of pent up demand for missing-middle transit, but the execution is pretty bad compared to on-demand bikes in Seattle (although I haven't been back there in a few years and I've heard it's gotten worse there too, so, grain of salt). The electric Citi Bikes are chronically unavailable, meaning you're stuck with huge clunkers that make you work up a sweat at the first hill. Also it can cost 2-3x as much as the bus or metro for a single trip. It makes way more sense to own your own bike, but that still doesn't fix the fact that half your trips invariably contain some section of "cross this four lane road without a marked bike lane".
Creating a robust bus network with dedicated bus lanes vs an extensive rail system.
I've also lived in both cities and Seattle's buses are timely and clean. MTA buses are much, much worse.
I've also lived in both cities and Seattle's buses are timely and clean. MTA buses are much, much worse.
In general, for a big city, you need _both_; there is only so far you can push the capacity of a bus lane (even the most ambitious BRT lanes are really only comparable to trams, not heavy metro rail, capacity wise), but it’s not feasible to serve everywhere with rail. You also ideally want simple interchange between them.
One thing we did in Dublin that greatly improved intermodal journeys was a travel card that works across everything. You tap it on rail/bus/tram, you’re debited 2 eur, and anything else you get on in the next 90 minutes, you’re charged nothing. This replaced a baroquely complex staging system, and it’s amazing how much simpler it has made things.
One thing we did in Dublin that greatly improved intermodal journeys was a travel card that works across everything. You tap it on rail/bus/tram, you’re debited 2 eur, and anything else you get on in the next 90 minutes, you’re charged nothing. This replaced a baroquely complex staging system, and it’s amazing how much simpler it has made things.
If everyone riding the NYC subway every day took a bus instead, it would need over 3x the bus capacity (2022 subway ridership was 1B, buses were 425M). Personally, I don’t think that’s going to make bus timeliness any better, even with more dedicated bus lanes. The answer is likely that we just need way fewer cars in the way even now. Have a look at 14th St. as an example.
Everyone should really be copying Hong Kong, where subways are the main method of transportation for most people, not just poor people and they’re phenomenal.
Honk Kong, Taipei, Beijing or Tokyo have top notch subways, but people there are very respectful and organised, which is quite different than Europe or the US, for instance . Also, they built their network very late, and weren't constrained by the existing infra.
Respect isn’t the issue, having the proper finding to offer a high quality service is.
Shocked you’d say that. Where did you live? Brooklyn and queens are underserved and car brained, but manhattan’s train service is a dream. Yes the MTA needs more budget for infrastructure and renovations but could you imagine if every person who took transit were driving, and needed a place to park in Manhattan?
The upcoming congestion charge is a great way to make private the public costs of cars, and I hope that we manage to fully internalize driving’s externalities with tolls taxes and congestion charges, which can provide enough general funds for robust public transportation.
MTA's issues aren't really funding issues, it's just not done very well in comparison to other large cities. For example, for legacy reasons MTA cars can't be automated like the cars in subways in most other places that have them, so you end up with a lot more humans being in the loop, which results in more delays due to human fallibility. It's a very old system that has been largely reluctant to upgrade and is falling behind the rest of the world in many ways (admittedly no where else in the US though).
Aside from walking, getting around Manhattan is probably somewhat painful generally. It's a city that it would take a lot to get me to live there full-time although that's true to a lesser degree of most cities.
Cities like Seattle and Boston have generally OK public transit. But pretty much everyone I know personally (tends towards older) in Boston still owns a car because they do frequent weekend activities and regularly visit friends outside the city.
Cities like Seattle and Boston have generally OK public transit. But pretty much everyone I know personally (tends towards older) in Boston still owns a car because they do frequent weekend activities and regularly visit friends outside the city.
> Cities like Seattle and Boston have generally OK public transit. But pretty much everyone I know personally (tends towards older) in Boston still owns a car because they do weekend activities and regularly visit friends outside the city.
I (French) lived in Boston for 9 months and I was pleasantly surprised how good the city is for cycling, there was not that many dedicated infrastructures (except along the Charles river, which still help a lot) but the reasonable density of the left bank means there's lots of small streets with very few cars and you can go pretty easily from one place to another: I was commuting from center Somerville to Chinatown and except during the few months with 2 meters of snow everywhere, cycling was much more pleasant and faster than public transport, and I would never have considered driving a car there given the cost and traffic.
I (French) lived in Boston for 9 months and I was pleasantly surprised how good the city is for cycling, there was not that many dedicated infrastructures (except along the Charles river, which still help a lot) but the reasonable density of the left bank means there's lots of small streets with very few cars and you can go pretty easily from one place to another: I was commuting from center Somerville to Chinatown and except during the few months with 2 meters of snow everywhere, cycling was much more pleasant and faster than public transport, and I would never have considered driving a car there given the cost and traffic.
I've never heard Cambridge called the Rive Gauche :-) But, yes, I don't bike personally (and don't live in the city) but Cambridge has done quite a bit to improve cycling infrastructure and there are also the bike paths on the Esplanade and in the Emerald Necklace. I won't say a lot of people cycle but a fair number of people do, probably in part because there are a lot of students.
> I've never heard Cambridge called the Rive Gauche :-)
Oh I didn't know it was a only French thing to name places this way. TIL
Oh I didn't know it was a only French thing to name places this way. TIL
I don't know if it's only a French thing, but I've never (in decades) heard the term used here. What you do get is Cambridge people who take (very mild) umbrage at being lumped in with Boston :-)
Boston and Cambridge’s transit is deteriorating rapidly. I used to live in East Cambridge and regularly visited Harvard and Kenmore. I watched as both trips ballooned in time due to longer headways and speed restrictions on the train. The buses also never seem to be on time during 8-10AM and 5-7PM. I soon came to the realization it’s significantly quicker, and more predictable, for me to bike than to take the bus or train for most trips nowadays.
To add to that, the rate of car ownership has actually been increasing here, although I should acknowledge Boston’s percentage of young professionals is greater than in previous decades. Also, our MBTA ridership is still below pre-pandemic levels
To add to that, the rate of car ownership has actually been increasing here, although I should acknowledge Boston’s percentage of young professionals is greater than in previous decades. Also, our MBTA ridership is still below pre-pandemic levels
I'm in the city quite seldom and take the T even less so I'm admittedly not very plugged into the day to day experience.
You're probably right about young professionals. I'd guess that relatively few mid-career+ professionals don't own a car. But I know a number of recent hires at my company who were typically interns at a university in the city and quite a few are basically continuing their college lifestyle for now (including leaning on their friends who do own cars).
I think last time I looked, both T and commuter rail ridership were still way down. Maybe a bit over 50%. I know when I take the train in a train that would be packed standing room only starting at at least Waltham there are almost always empty seats today.
You're probably right about young professionals. I'd guess that relatively few mid-career+ professionals don't own a car. But I know a number of recent hires at my company who were typically interns at a university in the city and quite a few are basically continuing their college lifestyle for now (including leaning on their friends who do own cars).
I think last time I looked, both T and commuter rail ridership were still way down. Maybe a bit over 50%. I know when I take the train in a train that would be packed standing room only starting at at least Waltham there are almost always empty seats today.
I was in Seattle recently. Just visiting briefly and didn’t use the bus; everything I needed was in walking distance. I did, however, use the light rail to and from the airport, and… maybe it was just unlucky timing (I think there was some maintenance) but the complete disregard for schedules was surprising (and I’m coming from Dublin, where the transport operators are pretty lax about schedules by European standards).
Also, the stations were very… urine-y. Noticed this in San Francisco as well; both cities’ public transport infra could greatly benefit from more public toilets. (I’m being semi-serious here; I expect it puts users off and it seems to mostly be an American thing).
Generally liked Seattle, but worst rail journeys I’ve had in a while.
Also, the stations were very… urine-y. Noticed this in San Francisco as well; both cities’ public transport infra could greatly benefit from more public toilets. (I’m being semi-serious here; I expect it puts users off and it seems to mostly be an American thing).
Generally liked Seattle, but worst rail journeys I’ve had in a while.
NYC does a far better job at moving its citizens via transit than Seattle. As a result, NYC commuters are the least dependent on cars in the nation. For all of its inefficiencies, NYC is the gold standard of density here in the US.
During my trip to Seattle recently, I was really unimpressed with transit. It looked robust where I stayed in SLU, but it’s not really extensive. As far as anecdotes go, the one time I took the train, to get to SeaTac, some crazy guy tried to fight me.
During my trip to Seattle recently, I was really unimpressed with transit. It looked robust where I stayed in SLU, but it’s not really extensive. As far as anecdotes go, the one time I took the train, to get to SeaTac, some crazy guy tried to fight me.
Seattle's growth in public transit ridership is the best in the nation (or at least was up to 2017) [0]. I remember one year Seattle and Minneapolis were the only two cities in the nation to have a drop in car commuters. NYC has way more density but it's a decaying system. NYC could start backing bus rapid transit to make it time-competitive with the subway and it would probably be both a better experience and save the city a lot of money.
[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattle-area-transit-ridership...
[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattle-area-transit-ridership...
I don't understand your comment, the point of those article is to make more visible that roads are expensive and that some of it might be better used to improve transit or alternative transportation (it's in the subtitle).
So all your complaints on NYC transit and bike lanes illustrate that money should be redirected to improve those ...
So all your complaints on NYC transit and bike lanes illustrate that money should be redirected to improve those ...
Well the article includes things like lost productivity due to sitting in traffic, so I think it's fair to point out that there's lost productivity due to train delays.
The MTA creates a lot of its own issues though. The bare minimum for a public transit system, in my opinion, should be reliable estimates of how long it will take you to get somewhere, but for non-rush hour trips estimates on the MTA are pretty hit or miss. I've heard this is because the switch operators are all running on some ancient system which is impossible to computerize, but for a system that has tens of billions of dollars in funding I find it hard to buy that they've exhausted every possible option.
The MTA creates a lot of its own issues though. The bare minimum for a public transit system, in my opinion, should be reliable estimates of how long it will take you to get somewhere, but for non-rush hour trips estimates on the MTA are pretty hit or miss. I've heard this is because the switch operators are all running on some ancient system which is impossible to computerize, but for a system that has tens of billions of dollars in funding I find it hard to buy that they've exhausted every possible option.
MTA? Mail transport agent is the only thing I can think of!
Cost break down for the state of Massachusetts, the area covered:
> Using publicly available data, the authors put the annual public tab at $35.7 billion, which amounts to about $14,000 for every household in the state. Those that do own vehicles pony up an additional $12,000 on average in direct costs.
> Using publicly available data, the authors put the annual public tab at $35.7 billion, which amounts to about $14,000 for every household in the state. Those that do own vehicles pony up an additional $12,000 on average in direct costs.
I think the public massively funds personal car usage, but don’t think it’s as high as portrayed here.
Also FTA:
“Beyond those for individual drivers, road maintenance, snow removal, and policing, there are less-obvious ones, such as those associated with […] lost productivity from sitting in traffic”
All other things staying equal, those costs may increase when replacing cars with something else (e.g. bicycles and public transport)
“The team also went through the overall state budget and those of various agencies like the Department of Conservation and Recreation to calculate all the money going to roads”
Part of those costs are for transporting goods (e.g. to shops), or for maintenance due to wear from public transport.
There also are costs that won’t fully go away if people stop driving cars (for example, they may get stuff delivered bro their homes instead of fetching it themselves. That may induce fewer public costs, but it won’t induce zero public costs)
Also FTA:
“Beyond those for individual drivers, road maintenance, snow removal, and policing, there are less-obvious ones, such as those associated with […] lost productivity from sitting in traffic”
All other things staying equal, those costs may increase when replacing cars with something else (e.g. bicycles and public transport)
“The team also went through the overall state budget and those of various agencies like the Department of Conservation and Recreation to calculate all the money going to roads”
Part of those costs are for transporting goods (e.g. to shops), or for maintenance due to wear from public transport.
There also are costs that won’t fully go away if people stop driving cars (for example, they may get stuff delivered bro their homes instead of fetching it themselves. That may induce fewer public costs, but it won’t induce zero public costs)
The whole road cost argument doesn’t make sense to me. The problem is density, not mode of transport - we all need roads! The common denominator access requirement for all housing is a fire truck and ambulance for safety and delivery trucks to make space livable with bulky items like furniture, which also account for most of the wear and tear.
The money nondrivers pay in taxes for roads aren’t a subsidy to drivers, it’s the cost they pay for the safety and convenience we expect from modern civilization
The money nondrivers pay in taxes for roads aren’t a subsidy to drivers, it’s the cost they pay for the safety and convenience we expect from modern civilization
You need a lot more road for everyone to have individual cars than you do just for deliveries and emergency vehicles.
http://lncarden.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/3/6/28369831/1419566_...
http://lncarden.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/3/6/28369831/1419566_...
I don't see the data outside of GIS databases, but I'd be willing to bet that in a lot of (most?) places a significant majority of roads [ADDED: total mileage] are 2 lane roads to home and business endpoints. Add in the fact that you're going to have an interstate/etc. highway system even if you only had truck traffic and the wider roads are mostly denser suburbia main routes and areas within cities.
Less traffic might mean you don't need a 4 lanes road and less maintenance maybe ? You don't think it would impact budget ?
You are very correct about the maintenance. The fourth power law [1] states that trucks are about 10'000 times as destructive as cars, and cars in turn are 160'000 times(!) as distructive as bicycles.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
From your citation: "The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts"
I’m sure it would impact the budget but based on the state of roads here in California, the vast majority of the damage seems to be from trucks.
A lot of those four lane roads can’t be sized down without blocking emergency vehicles’ basic mobility. They’re sized for worst case scenarios and at least in my small hometown, for example, meant to allow large numbers of emergency vehicles to move quickly between suburban sprawls in case of large fire or earthquake.
A lot of those four lane roads can’t be sized down without blocking emergency vehicles’ basic mobility. They’re sized for worst case scenarios and at least in my small hometown, for example, meant to allow large numbers of emergency vehicles to move quickly between suburban sprawls in case of large fire or earthquake.
Yes truck does most of the dammage on specific axes and they probably could be limited to even less, you don't need 40t trucks in city center.
Unless you are on a narrow one way street (not common in the us I believe) I would say that congestion is the limiting factor for emergency vehicule mobility. And there is quite a lot of study that wider street do not reduce congestion.
Unless you are on a narrow one way street (not common in the us I believe) I would say that congestion is the limiting factor for emergency vehicule mobility. And there is quite a lot of study that wider street do not reduce congestion.
> Unless you are on a narrow one way street (not common in the us I believe) I would say that congestion is the limiting factor for emergency vehicule mobility. And there is quite a lot of study that wider street do not reduce congestion.
Congestion is a separate problem from road design and it's not the limiting factor most of the time. Emergency vehicles need a grid of arteries with two lanes in each direction so cars can pull over in normal traffic conditions to let them through. These arteries lead into smaller 1 or 2 lane roads which don't see much traffic so there's little risk of the emergency vehicle getting impeded. In the suburbs of my city, for example, these arteries are placed every 1/2 mile to every mile depending on population density, which super-stroads every four-ish miles.
Areas with real congestion like main thoroughfares and city cores need different solutions like specific road designs (no center dividers) so that emergency vehicles can move onto oncoming traffic.
Congestion is a separate problem from road design and it's not the limiting factor most of the time. Emergency vehicles need a grid of arteries with two lanes in each direction so cars can pull over in normal traffic conditions to let them through. These arteries lead into smaller 1 or 2 lane roads which don't see much traffic so there's little risk of the emergency vehicle getting impeded. In the suburbs of my city, for example, these arteries are placed every 1/2 mile to every mile depending on population density, which super-stroads every four-ish miles.
Areas with real congestion like main thoroughfares and city cores need different solutions like specific road designs (no center dividers) so that emergency vehicles can move onto oncoming traffic.
> Emergency vehicles need a grid of arteries with two lanes in each direction so cars can pull over in normal traffic conditions to let them through.
I've seen emergency vehicles handle two-lane roads (i.e. one lane per direction) well by having drivers in both directions pull over to the edge of their lane and driving in the middle of the road.
An alternative setup that does not require four car lanes is what is in front of my house: A four-lane road where the outer two lanes are for cars and the inner two lanes are for trams only. Emergency vehicles use the tram lanes as required. Makes it much nicer to cross as a pedestrian, too, since you're only crossing single car lanes at a time.
I've seen emergency vehicles handle two-lane roads (i.e. one lane per direction) well by having drivers in both directions pull over to the edge of their lane and driving in the middle of the road.
An alternative setup that does not require four car lanes is what is in front of my house: A four-lane road where the outer two lanes are for cars and the inner two lanes are for trams only. Emergency vehicles use the tram lanes as required. Makes it much nicer to cross as a pedestrian, too, since you're only crossing single car lanes at a time.
Almost all the roads around where I live are one lane in each direction, including many numbered state "highways." Yes, there are some four lane interstates and other highways but two-lane roads are pretty much the norm everywhere--50 miles outside of Boston. Emergency vehicles manage; even where there is minimal shoulder people find a way to create a path.
> Emergency vehicles need a grid of arteries with two lanes in each direction so cars can pull over in normal traffic conditions to let them through.
As someone to lives in 'downtown' Toronto, where streets are two lanes in each direction, and we have street parking outside of rush hour that takes up one lane, and we have streetcars: emergency vehicles seem to be able to get around just fine.
As someone to lives in 'downtown' Toronto, where streets are two lanes in each direction, and we have street parking outside of rush hour that takes up one lane, and we have streetcars: emergency vehicles seem to be able to get around just fine.
"Congestion is a separate problem from road design" what ??
I will just say compare the space dedicated to cars between a random american city and Amsterdam, so much space wasted and so much more infrastructure to maintain; and I believe emergency vehicule are still able to circulate (might even be faster with less cars ?).
I will just say compare the space dedicated to cars between a random american city and Amsterdam, so much space wasted and so much more infrastructure to maintain; and I believe emergency vehicule are still able to circulate (might even be faster with less cars ?).
> "Congestion is a separate problem from road design" what ??
Sorry that was poorly phrased. I mean that road design has to respond to congestion so that it's not a limiting factor to emergency service mobility. A low density suburb can afford to have a four lane road every mile with beautiful center dividers with plants whereas downtown needs four lane streets every block and they have to be completely flat to accommodate emergency vehicles moving into oncoming traffic lanes to get around congestion.
City planning/permitting is (usually) supposed to prevent situations where congestion might become a problem as a matter of life and death. For example, a large housing development next to my house was recently forced to stop building after completing less than 20% of the planned units because they miscalculated worst case traffic flow. Wildfires are a concern and the fire marshal calculated that the roads feeding into the development would not be able to handle all the traffic from people evacuating and emergency vehicles coming in.
> I will just say compare the space dedicated to cars between a random american city and Amsterdam, so much space wasted and so much more infrastructure to maintain; and I believe emergency vehicule are still able to circulate (might even be faster with less cars ?).
The average American city has a third to a fifth the population density of Amsterdam, awful biking infrastructure, and little to no public transportation. The density and age of old world cities have so many side effects that I think it's impossible to meaningfully compare them with American cities.
That said, don't read this as an endorsement of urban planning in the average American city. Here in SoCal even the suburbs are relatively dense and well designed (tons of parking lots notwithstanding) but I've seen some really awful examples like Salt Lake City where it seems every other street is a six lane megastroad.
Sorry that was poorly phrased. I mean that road design has to respond to congestion so that it's not a limiting factor to emergency service mobility. A low density suburb can afford to have a four lane road every mile with beautiful center dividers with plants whereas downtown needs four lane streets every block and they have to be completely flat to accommodate emergency vehicles moving into oncoming traffic lanes to get around congestion.
City planning/permitting is (usually) supposed to prevent situations where congestion might become a problem as a matter of life and death. For example, a large housing development next to my house was recently forced to stop building after completing less than 20% of the planned units because they miscalculated worst case traffic flow. Wildfires are a concern and the fire marshal calculated that the roads feeding into the development would not be able to handle all the traffic from people evacuating and emergency vehicles coming in.
> I will just say compare the space dedicated to cars between a random american city and Amsterdam, so much space wasted and so much more infrastructure to maintain; and I believe emergency vehicule are still able to circulate (might even be faster with less cars ?).
The average American city has a third to a fifth the population density of Amsterdam, awful biking infrastructure, and little to no public transportation. The density and age of old world cities have so many side effects that I think it's impossible to meaningfully compare them with American cities.
That said, don't read this as an endorsement of urban planning in the average American city. Here in SoCal even the suburbs are relatively dense and well designed (tons of parking lots notwithstanding) but I've seen some really awful examples like Salt Lake City where it seems every other street is a six lane megastroad.
Smaller highways? I guess. House streets won’t get any smaller though.
> The money nondrivers pay in taxes for roads aren’t a subsidy to drivers, it’s the cost they pay for the safety and convenience we expect from modern civilization
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
Various goods and services managed to be delivered even before cars/trucks. FedEx is experimenting/using cargo bikes for example:
* https://curbsidecycle.com/blogs/blog/fedex-launches-first-no...
The 'extra' use by personal vehicles and non-essential transport trucks adds to shortened lifespans and higher maintenance costs.
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
Various goods and services managed to be delivered even before cars/trucks. FedEx is experimenting/using cargo bikes for example:
* https://curbsidecycle.com/blogs/blog/fedex-launches-first-no...
The 'extra' use by personal vehicles and non-essential transport trucks adds to shortened lifespans and higher maintenance costs.
[deleted]
Those average direct costs seem rather high. I think I spend more like $3000/yr for quite a nice car.
> I think I spend more like $3000/yr for quite a nice car.
You are lucky! Currently the average cost of a new car is ~$48k. Not including fuel, if I priced out a car to around $40k and took a loan at 5% interest for five years. I would already be looking at about $10k a year. Add in insurance, fuel, excise tax, registration, inspection, etc. it would go up to ~$13k for the first 5 years.
My fifteen year old car costs about $6,000 for me this year (with repairs, oil changes, and fuel costs, insurance, etc.). If I lived in an urban environment with good transit like NYC it would cost me about $2k-$3k a year in commuter costs if I traveled by bus and subway every day round trip.
You are lucky! Currently the average cost of a new car is ~$48k. Not including fuel, if I priced out a car to around $40k and took a loan at 5% interest for five years. I would already be looking at about $10k a year. Add in insurance, fuel, excise tax, registration, inspection, etc. it would go up to ~$13k for the first 5 years.
My fifteen year old car costs about $6,000 for me this year (with repairs, oil changes, and fuel costs, insurance, etc.). If I lived in an urban environment with good transit like NYC it would cost me about $2k-$3k a year in commuter costs if I traveled by bus and subway every day round trip.
As someone who has owned cars for decades and drives them basically until they're not economical to keep running, that seems low. Just simple division (no time value of money) for a new $40K car for 10 years is $4K/yr. Maybe you bought used and didn't spend too much more on maintenance and maybe even got a bit of a trade-in but I think that's in the ballpark. $1K/year for insurance is probably low for more urban people. Excise tax/registration/inspection probably a few hundred more. And even a fairly modest 5K miles per year is about $700/yr. just in fuel at today's prices. And add at least something for oil changes and other maintenance even if just routine.
> a new $40K car for 10 years is $4K/yr
Well no, because the new 40K car doesn't evaporate after 10 years. You can sell it for some money or just keep using it longer to bring your yearly average down.
Also nobody needs a new 40K car. If you can afford it want to enjoy that, have fun. But if you're trying to bring transportation costs down, buy a used 10K car and drive that one for ten years.
Well no, because the new 40K car doesn't evaporate after 10 years. You can sell it for some money or just keep using it longer to bring your yearly average down.
Also nobody needs a new 40K car. If you can afford it want to enjoy that, have fun. But if you're trying to bring transportation costs down, buy a used 10K car and drive that one for ten years.
> Those average direct costs seem rather high.
Averages going to average.
The direct costs of someone with a VW versus and Audi versus a Porsche are going to be different.
Also: depreciation doesn't show up on a dealer work order or credit card statement, but it's a real thing.
Averages going to average.
The direct costs of someone with a VW versus and Audi versus a Porsche are going to be different.
Also: depreciation doesn't show up on a dealer work order or credit card statement, but it's a real thing.
Personally I'm all against cars, but I don't see why these unexpected costs don't apply to public transport as well.
The noise of trains also reduces the value of the properties next to the tracks.
The noise of trains also reduces the value of the properties next to the tracks.
Only speaking for the NL here (though I am from the US):
Trains are loud when they pass, but they are not a constant stream at certain times like cars are. They are also usually not moving at full speed when passing through urban areas as they are accelerating or decelerating anyway.
Someone also mentioned that property values are generally higher here near the train because it's a convenient way to travel. This is also (AFAIK) true in larger cities like Tokyo with more sophisticated commuter rail.
Just no contest between trains and cars.
Just no contest between trains and cars.
I've lived near train tracks and near busy roads and highways. I'll take the traintracks any time. You get used to them pretty quickly because they are always the same sound. Whereas the highway is a continuously variable source of noise depending on your current sample of exhaust technology (or lack thereof).
Well, I for one concur that the highway is kind of a "continuos source" of noise, but that is precisely the reason I actually prefer it over that of tracks/trains, and I think most people do too...
It doesn't really matter which "exhaust" technology is used; at highway speeds that is the most irrelevant part of the noise (the pollution side is another story), with the air/wooshing sounds dominating heavily.
It doesn't really matter which "exhaust" technology is used; at highway speeds that is the most irrelevant part of the noise (the pollution side is another story), with the air/wooshing sounds dominating heavily.
Where I live I can hear both trains, a nearby busy road and the highway. The trains are really not a problem, there is a well defined maximum and they gradually ramp up and down in noise level but the road & highway have me sitting up straight at times wondering what on earth is going on. Usually either a truck that uses its air brake or a bunch of motorcycles without damper that suddenly open up. Especially at night that can be enough to wake me up and good luck trying to sleep after that.
Trains are also vastly more efficient, space-wise, at moving people than cars.
As the article mentions, increasing rail infrastructure would logically include regional connections first. It's not like we'd be building a train track everywhere there's a road
As the article mentions, increasing rail infrastructure would logically include regional connections first. It's not like we'd be building a train track everywhere there's a road
Additionally, train noise is predictable. With car/motorbike noise my ears are primed for the low-esteemed person who needs to make a Big Wroom Wroom.
They certainly should be counted: that noise is why a lot of that land was historically industrial and there’s a century precedent for noise ordinances. We should take noise pollution far more seriously: studies increasingly show it reduces lifespans and health measurably.
That said, it’s also very important to remember that things come in different flavors: the noise of a massive freight train pulled by diesel-electric locomotives is usually an order of magnitude greater than a light passenger train pulled by an electric motor, and all of those are generally better than busy car traffic which is less consistent and has outliers (boy racers, vehicles which aren’t or shouldn’t be street legal, etc.).
We live near a multipurpose rail corridor and I notice one particular CSX locomotive more than anything else, followed by regular freight trains and automobile traffic. The electric metro trains and newer electric buses are almost unnoticeable.
That said, it’s also very important to remember that things come in different flavors: the noise of a massive freight train pulled by diesel-electric locomotives is usually an order of magnitude greater than a light passenger train pulled by an electric motor, and all of those are generally better than busy car traffic which is less consistent and has outliers (boy racers, vehicles which aren’t or shouldn’t be street legal, etc.).
We live near a multipurpose rail corridor and I notice one particular CSX locomotive more than anything else, followed by regular freight trains and automobile traffic. The electric metro trains and newer electric buses are almost unnoticeable.
If you look at costs such as noise, just as monetary costs they will still exist, but be nearly an order of magnitude smaller. Take a single double-track train route. Its capacity will be 3x or more a massive freeway, take up a tenth or less of space. If you were to put traditional freeway-style sound walls around it, it would probably be quieter than the freeway. Tire noise is massive.
As someone who has lived next to both busy streets and railway tracks, I'd take the train 100% of the time.
Trains are a low rumble for a couple of seconds every ten minutes ago. Cars are a constant whining noise. It is bad enough that I can't work in my home office with the window open next to a busy street, but trains aren't an issue at all.
To be fair, I do live in a country where almost all trains are electric and do not honk at railroad crossings.
Trains are a low rumble for a couple of seconds every ten minutes ago. Cars are a constant whining noise. It is bad enough that I can't work in my home office with the window open next to a busy street, but trains aren't an issue at all.
To be fair, I do live in a country where almost all trains are electric and do not honk at railroad crossings.
In Australian cities walking distance to train stations increases property value.
It does in the US too.
A big problem in the US is that many developers still view trains as an extension to driving. The result is that they end up building a huge car park next to the train station, with low-density suburbia around it. Many other countries essentially end up building a suburban core around the commuter train station, with high-density housing, shops, and midrise office buildings.
I live in a country where train stations are often surrounded by high-density developments. What most tourists don't notice is that there are massive multi-level parking lots underneath all that housing and office buildings, not to mention the train station itself.
So you can have both high-density development around train stations and car parks for people who need to drive. It's not an XOR situation. The U.S. just tends to be wasteful with its land, because it has so much of it.
So you can have both high-density development around train stations and car parks for people who need to drive. It's not an XOR situation. The U.S. just tends to be wasteful with its land, because it has so much of it.
Kinda interesting to look at the satellite images and see this little hub formed around every station. And the retail strips that form along tram routes.
In New Jersey the Midtown Direct line famously paid for itself multiple times over by increasing nearby property values so much the state collected millions more in property taxes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_Connection
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_Connection
I used to live beside a rail bridge that had a train passing about every two minutes at peak times. Most of the time you'd never notice this; it was mostly quieter than the road traffic noise beneath. What you _would_ hear was the track maintenance noise at 2 in the morning from time to time (though it was a 150 year old heavily trafficked bridge that they couldn't shut for long term maintenance without bringing the system to a standstill, so I probably worse for spot maintenance than most).
> The noise of trains also reduces the value of the properties next to the tracks.
There are probably edge-cases where this is so, but in general being near a train station tends to boost property values. Now, obviously being near the station but far from the line would be ideal, but near station near line is probably better than "no train".
(This is assuming commuter service, where if you're near the line you're probably near a station. I suppose long distance lines with no commuter service running through built up areas would be an exception, but that's unusual in most places).
> The noise of trains also reduces the value of the properties next to the tracks.
There are probably edge-cases where this is so, but in general being near a train station tends to boost property values. Now, obviously being near the station but far from the line would be ideal, but near station near line is probably better than "no train".
(This is assuming commuter service, where if you're near the line you're probably near a station. I suppose long distance lines with no commuter service running through built up areas would be an exception, but that's unusual in most places).
I'm all for cars. They're a wonderful tool and give a great freedom that is accessible to even quite poor people.
A very good public transport and walking and cycling city is great, but it is no substitute for a car, as the >50% of households in London, massive fleets of cars in Netherlands, etc will attest to.
A very good public transport and walking and cycling city is great, but it is no substitute for a car, as the >50% of households in London, massive fleets of cars in Netherlands, etc will attest to.
Commuter trains are much less intrusive than freight. Property values are enhanced if there is a station within walking distance.
Busy roads aren’t as noisy or more dangerous though.
Trains are more dangerous? One predictable, well mainted vehicle operated by a professional versus many cars?
It’s nice they look at the costs, but it would be fair to also look at the positive effects of roads for economies, that value probably greatly outweighs the costs for many roads. Goods need to be transported anyways and in many situations there might not be alternatives for roads (e.g. transport food to grocery stores).
Let’s also not forget that economists often state that in a bad economy it can be a good idea to invest in infrastructure (including roads) as it provides employment and can help boost the economy after the economy has recovered from a recession, due to better logistics.
Certainly a country like The Netherlands benefits a lot from it’s high quality infrastructure. Makes it very quick and easy to transport goods from a harbor like Rotterdam to Germany.
Let’s also not forget that economists often state that in a bad economy it can be a good idea to invest in infrastructure (including roads) as it provides employment and can help boost the economy after the economy has recovered from a recession, due to better logistics.
Certainly a country like The Netherlands benefits a lot from it’s high quality infrastructure. Makes it very quick and easy to transport goods from a harbor like Rotterdam to Germany.
I was listening to a show (well there's your problem) talking about the failures of the american freight railway.
If we think for a minute, railroads are WAY cheaper to set up and maintain, compared to a road covering the same route. They are also more fuel efficient than cars.
We could have a system where parcels are brought to your towns post office by train, you get to the post office by feet.
Freight is also much cheaper to move by train, but poor management moved a LOT of freight out of trains into trucks, because we are in a "just in time" manufacturing paradigm (you want to hold as little inventory as possible and receive loads when they need to be processed), where the flexibility of trucks beats trains.
The sunk cost of roads puts us in a weird, uncomfortable place if we want to move forward with a more efficient/green transportation.
If we think for a minute, railroads are WAY cheaper to set up and maintain, compared to a road covering the same route. They are also more fuel efficient than cars.
We could have a system where parcels are brought to your towns post office by train, you get to the post office by feet.
Freight is also much cheaper to move by train, but poor management moved a LOT of freight out of trains into trucks, because we are in a "just in time" manufacturing paradigm (you want to hold as little inventory as possible and receive loads when they need to be processed), where the flexibility of trucks beats trains.
The sunk cost of roads puts us in a weird, uncomfortable place if we want to move forward with a more efficient/green transportation.
> We used to have a system where parcels are brought to your towns post office by train, you get to the post office by feet.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
The question is where do the benefits of those positive effects land and where do the negatives
If I benefit by $5k and you lose out by $1k that's a net gain of $4k (yeay), but it's not good or you.
If I benefit by $5k and you lose out by $1k that's a net gain of $4k (yeay), but it's not good or you.
What we have in the U.S. is highly inefficient, unhealthy, and environmentally destructive. Virtually every store must have a dedicated parking space that is unused most of the time. This causes a huge waste of land resources. What results is a landscape that is hostile to walking and congregating outside, ugly, too spread out, and overly expensive to maintain.
It is good to have well maintained roads. It is not good to have what the U.S. has.
It is good to have well maintained roads. It is not good to have what the U.S. has.
NL is an easy case to make though: super densely populated so there is a large tax base for such projects. Doing the same in the United States, Canada or Eastern Europe is a completely different proposition from a financial point of view.
> NL is an easy case to make though: super densely populated so there is a large tax base for such projects.
See "The Dumbest Excuse for Bad Cities":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
We don't care about the densities of entire countries, we care about the densities of where people live: cities.
For the US, 40% of the population lives in counties on a coast:
* https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
200M people live with-in 100 mi (160 km) of a border:
* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
The US population is already highly concentrated:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:County_population_map.web...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populous_coun...
There are large swaths of the US where there's a whole lotta nothing (population-wise).
See "The Dumbest Excuse for Bad Cities":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
We don't care about the densities of entire countries, we care about the densities of where people live: cities.
For the US, 40% of the population lives in counties on a coast:
* https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
200M people live with-in 100 mi (160 km) of a border:
* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
The US population is already highly concentrated:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:County_population_map.web...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populous_coun...
There are large swaths of the US where there's a whole lotta nothing (population-wise).
Netherlands (1100/sqm) has a lower population density than New Jersey (1200)
The entire eastern seaboard from Boston down to Washington has a population of 50 million and a density of 900/sqm, 3 times the density of France, and 50% higher than Germany, and similar to Benelux (1000/sqm, 30 million)
The "America is big" argument doesn't really apply when you look at regions. Southern California is similar density to Italy and Switzerland.
The entire eastern seaboard from Boston down to Washington has a population of 50 million and a density of 900/sqm, 3 times the density of France, and 50% higher than Germany, and similar to Benelux (1000/sqm, 30 million)
The "America is big" argument doesn't really apply when you look at regions. Southern California is similar density to Italy and Switzerland.
It does apply because just like America NL is still divided up into provinces so 'Federal' level in the United States is the same as 'Country' level in NL.
You can't compare 'New Jersey' with the Netherlands (though, you could compared it to say the province of Utrecht) they are at different levels in the 'org' and that has massive effects for things like public transport. In order to get coast to coast public transport you'd have to take the whole of the country (the United States) into account and then you'll find that that average population density suddenly matters a lot.
Of course you can always chop up that big country into many small pieces and then focus on the few that are above the average of any other country but that's not a useful thing to do.
You can't compare 'New Jersey' with the Netherlands (though, you could compared it to say the province of Utrecht) they are at different levels in the 'org' and that has massive effects for things like public transport. In order to get coast to coast public transport you'd have to take the whole of the country (the United States) into account and then you'll find that that average population density suddenly matters a lot.
Of course you can always chop up that big country into many small pieces and then focus on the few that are above the average of any other country but that's not a useful thing to do.
>In order to get coast to coast public transport you'd have to take the whole of the country (the United States) into account and then you'll find that that average population density suddenly matters a lot.
Sure, but coast-to-coast is not what matters. Moving people between where they need/want to go is what matters. I suppose a very large portion of all trips people in NJ makes on an annual basis is not coast-to-coast. It is within New Jersey or adjacent communities.
Sure, but coast-to-coast is not what matters. Moving people between where they need/want to go is what matters. I suppose a very large portion of all trips people in NJ makes on an annual basis is not coast-to-coast. It is within New Jersey or adjacent communities.
People in France will happily hop the TGV and be in Marseille (or Amsterdam... using the Thalys) a few hours later. Similar connections exist in and between other EU countries, for instance, Germany with the ICE. In the United States, almost without exception anything like that would be an airplane trip. And maybe it's me but I don't see aircraft as 'public transport', though I guess you could lump them in by some definition.
So even if you zoom out from let's say NL to all of Europe and you compare Europe with the United States you still end up with a difference in how public transport is arranged. There simply isn't a nearly empty heartland.
So even if you zoom out from let's say NL to all of Europe and you compare Europe with the United States you still end up with a difference in how public transport is arranged. There simply isn't a nearly empty heartland.
You're looking at the very rare long distance journeys. People don't travel from Paris to Marseille (400 miles) any more than people travel from Washington to Boston (400 miles). They typically would travel from Paris to Athens by jumping on a plane, just like you'd get a plane from New York to Houston (about the same distance)
Compare public transport in the Berlin metro area (6 million, 500 per square mile) with the bay area (7 million, 1100 per square mile), or the Rhine-Main region (5 million, 1000 per square mile)
Compare public transport in the Berlin metro area (6 million, 500 per square mile) with the bay area (7 million, 1100 per square mile), or the Rhine-Main region (5 million, 1000 per square mile)
Washington is on the western side of the US, opposite boston. Are you thinking of New York?
While the points you make are interesting, there is a massive swath of the us in between New York and LA, and I think that's where the argument is made.
I'm in Canada with 38 millions individuals in the second largest country in the world, I can assure you it's quite different from Europe. (Edit: just looked it up and we get about 15 people per mile!)
On average, North Americans also drive about double the distance europeans do per year.
While the points you make are interesting, there is a massive swath of the us in between New York and LA, and I think that's where the argument is made.
I'm in Canada with 38 millions individuals in the second largest country in the world, I can assure you it's quite different from Europe. (Edit: just looked it up and we get about 15 people per mile!)
On average, North Americans also drive about double the distance europeans do per year.
On average most Canadians do not drive from Ottawa to Vancouver.
95% of Canadians who drive on a commute in 2016 drove for under 1 hour, which can reasonably be approximated to under 50 miles [0]
If you remove the 3 territories the population of Canada doesn't change but the density pretty much doubles. 99.99% of Canadians have never even been to one of the territories. In the US, adding Alaska to the union made no difference to the viability of public transport, but massively reduced population density.
Looking at the density of a large country is meaningless. Just because Scotland has a population density the same as Michigan doesn't mean that the Central Belt can't maintain a decent public transport system. The density of that area of Scotland is around the Netherlands level.
What's important in the density of a specific economic area.
[0] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2019001/article...
95% of Canadians who drive on a commute in 2016 drove for under 1 hour, which can reasonably be approximated to under 50 miles [0]
If you remove the 3 territories the population of Canada doesn't change but the density pretty much doubles. 99.99% of Canadians have never even been to one of the territories. In the US, adding Alaska to the union made no difference to the viability of public transport, but massively reduced population density.
Looking at the density of a large country is meaningless. Just because Scotland has a population density the same as Michigan doesn't mean that the Central Belt can't maintain a decent public transport system. The density of that area of Scotland is around the Netherlands level.
What's important in the density of a specific economic area.
[0] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2019001/article...
The 15 people per mile was for my province, Quebec, not the whole country. For Canada it's 4.2, half of what Russia gets at 8. something
You seem to take this to heart so I'll leave you to it.
You seem to take this to heart so I'll leave you to it.
From context they are almost certainly referring to the city of Washington (DC), which is part of the northeast corridor described, and not the state of Washington, which is on the west coast.
It's been years I thought it was near Seattle or something. How did I get this mixed up? Feels like a Bernstein bear kind of thing.
Thank you for the correction.
Thank you for the correction.
Calculating exactly how many roads are “necessary” to create a thriving society is very difficult.
For example, we need some amount of farms in rural areas, so we need at a minimum roads to those cars. But we probably also don’t want to force farmers to live completely isolated, so farmers need some amount of rural community. Stores, schools etc… then we need fire, police, water, power. And all of those things require roads for access and maintenance.
Then add in the fact that none of this is centrally planned, and that there’s a definite need for redundancy.
For example, we need some amount of farms in rural areas, so we need at a minimum roads to those cars. But we probably also don’t want to force farmers to live completely isolated, so farmers need some amount of rural community. Stores, schools etc… then we need fire, police, water, power. And all of those things require roads for access and maintenance.
Then add in the fact that none of this is centrally planned, and that there’s a definite need for redundancy.
In any built up area it really doesn't matter how large the country as a whole is, or its population density, to how I can get to the dentist, supermarket, running track or a local friend. Those are mostly results of local planning decisions.
That must be then why the typical European drives just as much as the typical American.
The positive effect of road is almost everywhere ruined by the lower density that car-based city planning cause, and by traffic. Sure you can move good farther and faster, but in fact you're still supplying the same amount of people and companies, so the net effect is zero. It can only work if you're:
- space-constrained so your urban density doesn't reduce because of cars
- have very good public transportation so that most people stay off the road no matter what, otherwise traffic makes your cars too slow to bring anything.
These conditions are almost never met, but maybe they are in the Netherlands as an exception to the rule.
- space-constrained so your urban density doesn't reduce because of cars
- have very good public transportation so that most people stay off the road no matter what, otherwise traffic makes your cars too slow to bring anything.
These conditions are almost never met, but maybe they are in the Netherlands as an exception to the rule.
A very large portion of the goods from Rotterdam to Germany are transported either by rail or by boat. It arrives either in containers or in bulk, so transporting it using trucks makes little sense.
And there are multiple us states larger than Germany, and unlike Germany many of these places are not flowing with navigable rivers all over the place. The closest navigable river to me is an 8 hour drive, and that's still loads closer than where I grew up that didn't have any navigable rivers in the entire state.
(Seriously people out East have no idea what a mountain is, and people out west have no idea what a river is in the US)
(Seriously people out East have no idea what a mountain is, and people out west have no idea what a river is in the US)
Absolutely, but most people in the US live pretty close together, on their respective coasts. It is completely understandable that Iowa isn't going to have excellent infrastructure, but there is no reason why the Northeast Corridor or California can't be more similar to Western Europe rather than their current car paradise.
If anything, being so large and not having waterways should provide a good incentive to use rail transport. Freight trains really suck for short distances, so cross-continental transport is pretty much ideal for them.
Unfortunately the US is stuck with companies like CSX and Union Pacific actively sabotaging rail transport by using "precision-scheduled railroading", actively ripping up tracks and electrification, and strongly resisting any attempts to modernize the network. On paper they are doing great, but their service is really bad and their safety record is abysmal.
If anything, being so large and not having waterways should provide a good incentive to use rail transport. Freight trains really suck for short distances, so cross-continental transport is pretty much ideal for them.
Unfortunately the US is stuck with companies like CSX and Union Pacific actively sabotaging rail transport by using "precision-scheduled railroading", actively ripping up tracks and electrification, and strongly resisting any attempts to modernize the network. On paper they are doing great, but their service is really bad and their safety record is abysmal.
> Goods need to be transported anyways and in many situations there might not be alternatives for roads (e.g. transport food to grocery stores).
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
And goods were delivered. Of course we can still allow automobiles for commercial purposes while discouraging their use for private transport (or at least prioritizing non-auto transport).
A lot of things that seem to require an automobile do not:
> "'One of the causes of frequent bickerings is the bicycle. The Plumbers' Union has a rule, which is rigidly enforced, prohibiting the members from utilizing the bike in connection with their work. The rule is regarded as necessary to protect the men. When the bicycle came into popular use, the plumbers found that some of their number would go spinning around town on their wheels for the benefit of the bosses. The result was that the plumber without a bike soon found himself at a disadvantage. One of them explained the matter in this wise: "'Suppose two men were sent out on a job and both had practically the same kind and the same amount of work to do. They would both leave the shop at the same time, but the fellow with the wheel would reach the place where the work was to be done before his brother plumber would. If some tool or piece of material had been forgotten, the man with the wheel would go spinning to the shop, while the other fellow would have to walk or take a streetcar. The man with the wheel could make better time on a job in consequence, and the boss would be liable to find him a more desirable man, notwithstanding that it was no fault of the other man. In fact, the man without the wheel might be the fastest and best workman. We want this rule against the bicycle enforced in all the shops.'"
* https://heatinghelp.com/dead-men-tales/bicycles-and-heating-...
The Plumbers' Union banned the used of bicycle as they were considered an unfair competitive advantage.
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
And goods were delivered. Of course we can still allow automobiles for commercial purposes while discouraging their use for private transport (or at least prioritizing non-auto transport).
A lot of things that seem to require an automobile do not:
> "'One of the causes of frequent bickerings is the bicycle. The Plumbers' Union has a rule, which is rigidly enforced, prohibiting the members from utilizing the bike in connection with their work. The rule is regarded as necessary to protect the men. When the bicycle came into popular use, the plumbers found that some of their number would go spinning around town on their wheels for the benefit of the bosses. The result was that the plumber without a bike soon found himself at a disadvantage. One of them explained the matter in this wise: "'Suppose two men were sent out on a job and both had practically the same kind and the same amount of work to do. They would both leave the shop at the same time, but the fellow with the wheel would reach the place where the work was to be done before his brother plumber would. If some tool or piece of material had been forgotten, the man with the wheel would go spinning to the shop, while the other fellow would have to walk or take a streetcar. The man with the wheel could make better time on a job in consequence, and the boss would be liable to find him a more desirable man, notwithstanding that it was no fault of the other man. In fact, the man without the wheel might be the fastest and best workman. We want this rule against the bicycle enforced in all the shops.'"
* https://heatinghelp.com/dead-men-tales/bicycles-and-heating-...
The Plumbers' Union banned the used of bicycle as they were considered an unfair competitive advantage.
Question for those thinking car infrastructure costs too much etc:
How many kids do you have?
The way i see it all arguments for reducing reliance on cars comes from people in metropolitan areas enjoying single life and not planning for a family.
Giving the way my generation is with money the hostility most likely comes not from ideological reasons but simply because we are unable to afford them altogether thus it's being masked as some honorable cause instead of petty spite.
How many kids do you have?
The way i see it all arguments for reducing reliance on cars comes from people in metropolitan areas enjoying single life and not planning for a family.
Giving the way my generation is with money the hostility most likely comes not from ideological reasons but simply because we are unable to afford them altogether thus it's being masked as some honorable cause instead of petty spite.
I certainly see families on subways / bikes.
I'm certainly not one of those families; my kids are typically transported like little mafia bosses in the back as they plan their crimes.
My older kid, though, started going to a new school, that's quite far away and he walks down to the train station, gets on the train, gets off at the end of the line and takes a light rail subway 2 stops to his school. It's terrifying, as a parent, to send him off like that, but it's been wonderful for him and he's grown tremendously.
The most dangerous part of that commute, btw, is crossing the street to the train station -- it's 1/4th of a mile from my house, but that specific crossing kills a person every 18 months, almost to the day, and has for the past 15 years I've lived in this neighborhood. Any talk about fixing the problem, especially if the fix may inconvenience drivers, will provoke such rage as you wouldn't believe from otherwise seemingly sane people.
I'm certainly not one of those families; my kids are typically transported like little mafia bosses in the back as they plan their crimes.
My older kid, though, started going to a new school, that's quite far away and he walks down to the train station, gets on the train, gets off at the end of the line and takes a light rail subway 2 stops to his school. It's terrifying, as a parent, to send him off like that, but it's been wonderful for him and he's grown tremendously.
The most dangerous part of that commute, btw, is crossing the street to the train station -- it's 1/4th of a mile from my house, but that specific crossing kills a person every 18 months, almost to the day, and has for the past 15 years I've lived in this neighborhood. Any talk about fixing the problem, especially if the fix may inconvenience drivers, will provoke such rage as you wouldn't believe from otherwise seemingly sane people.
> I certainly see families on subways / bikes.
So metropolitan area. Do you think its by choice or necessity? The way i see it no one would take their sick kid to the doctors by subway/bike if they had a access to a car.
> will provoke such rage as you wouldn't believe from otherwise seemingly sane people.
That's human, we all participate in recreational outrage when it suits us be it drivers or those who oppose them. Sorry to hear about that crossing and hope your kids will be fine.
So metropolitan area. Do you think its by choice or necessity? The way i see it no one would take their sick kid to the doctors by subway/bike if they had a access to a car.
> will provoke such rage as you wouldn't believe from otherwise seemingly sane people.
That's human, we all participate in recreational outrage when it suits us be it drivers or those who oppose them. Sorry to hear about that crossing and hope your kids will be fine.
I know plenty of people in pretty affluent (well, relative to the earth, absurdly affluent) areas who have kids, a car, and still schlep their kids around by bike / train / (rarely) bus. When I lived there I had an old honda scooter I'd use to get around. Where I live now there are enough myopic elderly people driving champagne toyota camrys playing bumper cars that I don't feel safe operating a 2 wheeled vehicle.
This is the "boston / oakland / summerville / cambridge" hipster zone. Some stick it out and some move to Marin or Andover.
[edit]
I should say -- I feel far safer putting my kid on a train than I would letting him carpool to school with other kids his age. Even with the very lethal street crossing. Kids are terrible drivers, especially if you put more than one of them in the car at the same time.
This is the "boston / oakland / summerville / cambridge" hipster zone. Some stick it out and some move to Marin or Andover.
[edit]
I should say -- I feel far safer putting my kid on a train than I would letting him carpool to school with other kids his age. Even with the very lethal street crossing. Kids are terrible drivers, especially if you put more than one of them in the car at the same time.
Had 4 kids in Amsterdam NL specifically because there is good public transit and biking infrastructure. Admittedly, we finally got a car for baby #4, but our other kids walk/bike to school or get taken by bike. I personally found it untenable to have so many kids in USA cities. Car culture makes it hard — you have to take your kids everywhere!!
This video is in Vancouver, BC, Canada and explores why kids don't walk to school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqvQ-5784po
Goes into depth on some of the complexity, with one conclusion that car culture in general is reinforcing for many reasons, including more cars making it more dangerous making cars more attractive.
Goes into depth on some of the complexity, with one conclusion that car culture in general is reinforcing for many reasons, including more cars making it more dangerous making cars more attractive.
Congrats on big family! How do you manage home improvement without car? I always run out of some small stuff during the weekends so its either 30minute turnaround by car or an hour and thirty by public transport and that's usually near the closing hours so its either car, or no one has running water for the day because some kitchen appliance has no valve and the connector hose is leaking.
Congrats on your enthusiasm for DIY appliance repair! I must say, however, some of these scenarios rationalizing car dependency are so highly-contrived as to seem desperate. Are you suggesting they're a reasonable justification for a $14K annual public subsidy per household (TFA)?
How is it highly contrived? Its generic household chores, who does them for you?
> Are you suggesting they're a reasonable justification for a $14K annual public subsidy per household (TFA)?
Yes, i would take those numbers with a grain of salt but yes. If you remove roads and cars neither the goods nor people you hire will get to you.
At that point you are left with just leaving for somewhere else and starting the whole 'defund public infrastructure we rely on' campaign all over again - it's shortsighted at best and borderline malicious.
> Are you suggesting they're a reasonable justification for a $14K annual public subsidy per household (TFA)?
Yes, i would take those numbers with a grain of salt but yes. If you remove roads and cars neither the goods nor people you hire will get to you.
At that point you are left with just leaving for somewhere else and starting the whole 'defund public infrastructure we rely on' campaign all over again - it's shortsighted at best and borderline malicious.
We have a bucket ebike, aka “bakfiets.” It’s a 7 min ride to praxis and I can carry all but the heaviest goods (eg floor sander)
Amsterdam NL is an outlier as the city is extremely flat and and built around bikes, with a very low amount of cars (and very expensive real estate also as a consequence) and a high density of shops. Not sure it can be transposed elsewhere?
Amsterdam wasn’t built around bikes— and least, it wasn’t until the “stop murdering our children” political campaign of the 1970s.
https://irishcycle.com/2019/12/27/stop-killing-our-children-...
They used to have highways through the city and they destroyed them and prioritized biking and pedestrians. Showing: it can be done.
They used to have highways through the city and they destroyed them and prioritized biking and pedestrians. Showing: it can be done.
> How many kids do you have?
Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bikes has two:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
See also:
> Heather Moore-Farley was pregnant with her third child when the family’s car died on route home from vacation. Her husband’s office was walkable from home, as was a Zipcar share. So to help save both money and the environment, the family decided to see how long they could go without a car. Two days before they welcomed their youngest child, “we ordered a cargo bike and just kept going,” said Moore-Farley, who lives in Oakland. That was 10 years ago. They still haven’t replaced the family car.
* https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a40299756/fa...
> Traipsing 3 kids around to school, daycare, and extracurricular activities wouldn’t be easy. How would they grocery shop to fill all those mouths? What about family vacations, weekend trips away, or heading out to the movies – could they survive?
* https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-family-of-5-that-went-car-fr...
> Biking with kids is all the rage in Portland these days, but biking with six kids between the ages of 2 and 11? That’s something I never would have thought possible before I met southeast Portland resident Emily Finch.
* https://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car...
Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bikes has two:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
See also:
> Heather Moore-Farley was pregnant with her third child when the family’s car died on route home from vacation. Her husband’s office was walkable from home, as was a Zipcar share. So to help save both money and the environment, the family decided to see how long they could go without a car. Two days before they welcomed their youngest child, “we ordered a cargo bike and just kept going,” said Moore-Farley, who lives in Oakland. That was 10 years ago. They still haven’t replaced the family car.
* https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a40299756/fa...
> Traipsing 3 kids around to school, daycare, and extracurricular activities wouldn’t be easy. How would they grocery shop to fill all those mouths? What about family vacations, weekend trips away, or heading out to the movies – could they survive?
* https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-family-of-5-that-went-car-fr...
> Biking with kids is all the rage in Portland these days, but biking with six kids between the ages of 2 and 11? That’s something I never would have thought possible before I met southeast Portland resident Emily Finch.
* https://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car...
My theory: there is an entire generation approaching the age when their parents "purchased" a home that has lived with near-zero interest rates for most of their lives. This enabled people to finance lifestyles well beyond their ability to outright purchase them, shaping expectations. Not anymore, especially combined with the increases in prices.
In many places kids are able to walk, bike or take public transit themselves to get around. So parents don't have to spend all their time driving kids between activities.
That's not true, how many kids take the bus to daycare?
Also, number of kids and population count of your town please.
Also, number of kids and population count of your town please.
Imagine if there was daycare so close that you didn't have to drive. Imagine!
Despite living in a suburb, this was actually the case for my kids' first daycare! That particular daycare didn't work out, but there was one about 1.5 miles away instead of 1 mile that we did instead. This is what is possible when neighborhoods are built with mixed uses, rather than being miles of only homes, like the typical poorly-thought-out subdivision.
Also, this aggressive asking "oh yeah how many kids and where" to a second person after me is quite off-putting. I have no desire to share that info with somebody who is asking like that.
Despite living in a suburb, this was actually the case for my kids' first daycare! That particular daycare didn't work out, but there was one about 1.5 miles away instead of 1 mile that we did instead. This is what is possible when neighborhoods are built with mixed uses, rather than being miles of only homes, like the typical poorly-thought-out subdivision.
Also, this aggressive asking "oh yeah how many kids and where" to a second person after me is quite off-putting. I have no desire to share that info with somebody who is asking like that.
I have daycare places 60 metres, 280 metres, 750 metres and 1200m from me. Might be something others I've missed.
City of 1.7 million. Probably what you'd call a single-story streetcar suburb with occasional multi-family building.
Also even if parents need to manually transport under-5s everywhere, this should certainly not be the case with older children.
City of 1.7 million. Probably what you'd call a single-story streetcar suburb with occasional multi-family building.
Also even if parents need to manually transport under-5s everywhere, this should certainly not be the case with older children.
As the parent of two kids, I really don't understand this at all, much less the idea that it's some sort of trump card against lower car lifestyles. Have you actually considered what a car does to your life?
Think how much better your life would be if you didn't have to worry about cars killing your children, as it's one of the biggest sources of child death.
Imagine the freedom if your kids could go to sports practice, to school, to music lesson, without you driving them everywhere.
People in he Us have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome with cars. Their are our captor but we seem to love them still.
Think how much better your life would be if you didn't have to worry about cars killing your children, as it's one of the biggest sources of child death.
Imagine the freedom if your kids could go to sports practice, to school, to music lesson, without you driving them everywhere.
People in he Us have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome with cars. Their are our captor but we seem to love them still.
You're implying that everyone should live in a densely urban zone? I grew up in the alps, and spent a reasonable amount of my teens waiting for the bus (1 every 2h) to go in town. Cars are decentralized means of transportation that, in some cases, can be useful.
I am advocating against car dependency, a particular style of development in the US that few Europeans understand until they live in it.
I am not advocating for getting rid of all cars, or even saying that car-dependent areas should be banned! I'm advocating for allowing those who want to choose something other than a car to have that choice. However, the way that US law is constructed, and 99% of land use is planned, a car is needed to fetch a loaf of bread, get to daycare, visit friends, or to perform any of the basics of life. Imagine your house is an island, and every other destination is an island, and your car is the only way to get between them. That's the assumption of the entire US planning professions.
I am not advocating for getting rid of all cars, or even saying that car-dependent areas should be banned! I'm advocating for allowing those who want to choose something other than a car to have that choice. However, the way that US law is constructed, and 99% of land use is planned, a car is needed to fetch a loaf of bread, get to daycare, visit friends, or to perform any of the basics of life. Imagine your house is an island, and every other destination is an island, and your car is the only way to get between them. That's the assumption of the entire US planning professions.
Number of kids and population count of your town please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I grew up in a small rural town where people were not slaves to cars because you could get around with or without a car.
Now I'm in a suburb, and the closest services are about a mile away, so everyone is dependent on a car. I can get most of my day done on bike, and the kids definitely prefer bikes to the car, but as they get older and have needs further out we will be car dependent again
But it doesn't have to be that way. Transit can fill that gap when you want something bigger than a small rural town. However, cars have been baked into most of our suburban design in a way that transit can not grow to fill that gap. We have planned our entire suburban areas around the idea of being stuck in a car for all needs.
My partner and I would honestly prefer a city, but cities have also been planned to keep as many people out as possible, so very few new apartments get built, and when they are built, it's usually almost entirely single and two bedroom apartments because there's such a huge backlog of demand to live in cities.
There is a better life possible, but US law has made it illegal to build.
Now I'm in a suburb, and the closest services are about a mile away, so everyone is dependent on a car. I can get most of my day done on bike, and the kids definitely prefer bikes to the car, but as they get older and have needs further out we will be car dependent again
But it doesn't have to be that way. Transit can fill that gap when you want something bigger than a small rural town. However, cars have been baked into most of our suburban design in a way that transit can not grow to fill that gap. We have planned our entire suburban areas around the idea of being stuck in a car for all needs.
My partner and I would honestly prefer a city, but cities have also been planned to keep as many people out as possible, so very few new apartments get built, and when they are built, it's usually almost entirely single and two bedroom apartments because there's such a huge backlog of demand to live in cities.
There is a better life possible, but US law has made it illegal to build.
The headline seems to conflate roads with driving, as in a personal vehicle. Roads also support the transportation of goods as well as public transportation and bike lanes. Even if we had zero personal vehicles we'd still build many roads, so the cost difference is what should be reported with this headline.
> we'd still build many roads
"Many" is doing a lot of work in your claim.
I recently moved to Houston where it feels like every road is a six lane stroad. If transportation were reduced to mass transit, bike lanes, and commercial transit like deliveries, how many of those roads would we need?
"Many" is doing a lot of work in your claim.
I recently moved to Houston where it feels like every road is a six lane stroad. If transportation were reduced to mass transit, bike lanes, and commercial transit like deliveries, how many of those roads would we need?
I just got back from the Netherlands, which is an interesting contrast. They use probably the same amount of space as a six lane stroad in some places, but instead of being entirely for cars, it looks like this:
- 1 or 2 car lanes (each way)
- a tram line (one each way on each side of the street, or in the middle)
- a separated, 2 way bike lane on either side of the street
- a separated (from the bike lane) sidewalk
- a canal
As you can imagine, this takes up a lot of space. Despite this, things feel much more walkable. The reason? No enormous parking lots around every store. Parking is generally almost entirely done at P+R parking lots outside of town, then taking public transit in.
- 1 or 2 car lanes (each way)
- a tram line (one each way on each side of the street, or in the middle)
- a separated, 2 way bike lane on either side of the street
- a separated (from the bike lane) sidewalk
- a canal
As you can imagine, this takes up a lot of space. Despite this, things feel much more walkable. The reason? No enormous parking lots around every store. Parking is generally almost entirely done at P+R parking lots outside of town, then taking public transit in.
Even Mexican cities like Guadalajara and basically every pueblito are more hospitable.
You can walk from your home to a cafe or corner shop for fresh produce almost everywhere I lived in Mexico.
Not until I moved back to the US did I remember how us sad Americans (or at least Texans) have to pile into a car just to drive to a cafe, though inside the city/suburbs this is also caused by zoning laws.
Granted, I'm just ranting. But I forgot how bad it was. Fortunately, some of this is very slowly changing. Even Houston is laying down more bike paths: https://houstonbikeplan.org/houston-bike-plan-map/
You can walk from your home to a cafe or corner shop for fresh produce almost everywhere I lived in Mexico.
Not until I moved back to the US did I remember how us sad Americans (or at least Texans) have to pile into a car just to drive to a cafe, though inside the city/suburbs this is also caused by zoning laws.
Granted, I'm just ranting. But I forgot how bad it was. Fortunately, some of this is very slowly changing. Even Houston is laying down more bike paths: https://houstonbikeplan.org/houston-bike-plan-map/
No one serious about decent public transit, reducing personal automobile use or transport by bike lives in Houston. In addition those 6-lane highways are all toll roads so they shouldn't be counted as subsidizing private car traffic.
Like any city, Houston has its own set of pro-pedestrian urbanists who are stuck here and are forced to promote the changes they want to see. Very few people are able to shop around for cities based on their car culture ideals.
> In addition those 6-lane highways are all toll roads
6-lane means total lanes, so 3-4 in each direction like Richmond Ave or Westheimer Rd in Houston which you have to take just to get to the gym or grocery store.
But I think you need to go to Houston on Google Maps and look at all of the freeways that are 5-6 lanes in each direction bursting out like tentacles from the center in all directions. It seems like you're not aware that these exist?
> In addition those 6-lane highways are all toll roads
6-lane means total lanes, so 3-4 in each direction like Richmond Ave or Westheimer Rd in Houston which you have to take just to get to the gym or grocery store.
But I think you need to go to Houston on Google Maps and look at all of the freeways that are 5-6 lanes in each direction bursting out like tentacles from the center in all directions. It seems like you're not aware that these exist?
I suspect that in a hypothetical world without significantly fewer personal vehicles, roads wouldn't need to be nearly as wide. Not really the case where I live, but when I see those gigantic 6-lane+ highways around major cities that are loaded to capacity and at a standstill, it does definitely give me pause.
Where I live, we don't really have those, but...
> lost productivity from sitting in traffic
That part of the cost equation is flipped upside down here (where I live) if you start looking at any of the currently-available alternatives. Public transit is a nightmare to navigate. What would be a 12-minute drive from my house to the work shop ends up taking a bit over an hour, assuming the buses all arrive on time and you don't end up missing a connection. And there won't be much productivity happening on that trip, the city uses the busses to move high school students around right around the same time I'd be going to and from work. In the summer it would quicker to bike for sure.
Ultimately, though, I've found the best way of all to cut down on the commute: just work from home! Can't do it every day when we're in the middle of a hardware build, but lots of days it works out just fine.
Where I live, we don't really have those, but...
> lost productivity from sitting in traffic
That part of the cost equation is flipped upside down here (where I live) if you start looking at any of the currently-available alternatives. Public transit is a nightmare to navigate. What would be a 12-minute drive from my house to the work shop ends up taking a bit over an hour, assuming the buses all arrive on time and you don't end up missing a connection. And there won't be much productivity happening on that trip, the city uses the busses to move high school students around right around the same time I'd be going to and from work. In the summer it would quicker to bike for sure.
Ultimately, though, I've found the best way of all to cut down on the commute: just work from home! Can't do it every day when we're in the middle of a hardware build, but lots of days it works out just fine.
Just the cost of parking lots would be significant. Parking areas in car centric commercial zones are gigantic and increase the amount of all other infrastructure like electric lines and water lines.
> Roads also support the transportation of goods […]
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
Various goods managed to be delivered even before cars/trucks.
And it would be possible to restrict/prioritize use towards commercial vehicles.
There were roads before cars and trucks:
> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic
Various goods managed to be delivered even before cars/trucks.
And it would be possible to restrict/prioritize use towards commercial vehicles.
There are of course rails for transporting goods.
Only between stations. You have to bring goods there and from there to homes. Some factories have their own rails, some farms too. Often they don't. Some people can walk to shops (I did when I lived in a city) or use rails, others can't. I can't anymore, I have to use a car. I bought one again after many years without it.
Also, if traffic is lower, lower quality roads could be built.
Or simply smaller. If you drive around most urban areas in the US at any time but rush hour, it’s striking how the roads are barely utilized – if it was just transit and last mile delivery, you’d almost never need more than one lane. Most of those billion dollar projects are trying to handle car commuting spikes.
If cars are lighter they consume roads less. Road consumption is by the fourth power of the load on axles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
This is interesting!
If I understand it correctly, it means that damage to roads is completely dominated by trucks, as long as you have more than 10,000 cars per truck. Near my home I would estimate it at around 100 cars for every truck.
This means that cars are completely negligible, and that supporting road construction and repair by taxes (ideally, direct taxes on the truck users, which is then rolled on to consumers through higher prices) is correct.
If I understand it correctly, it means that damage to roads is completely dominated by trucks, as long as you have more than 10,000 cars per truck. Near my home I would estimate it at around 100 cars for every truck.
This means that cars are completely negligible, and that supporting road construction and repair by taxes (ideally, direct taxes on the truck users, which is then rolled on to consumers through higher prices) is correct.
Cars add cost by requiring the roads to be very smooth. A large truck might be fine with an unpaved road. Places like mines or forests with large traffic of heavy vehicles don't typically pave their roads, I think.
Fewer lanes, asphalt replaced far less often, (almost) no parking lots.
Many people prefer to buy groceries at the grocery store rather than pick them up at the rail depot. As GP observes, moving freight by rail doesn’t eliminate roads.
How about designing neighborhoods in such a way that there is a grocery store within a 15-minute walk from your house? And place a school next to it, so you can grab some groceries when you drop off your kid.
That'd already massively reduce the amount of driving required, as you suddenly no longer need to drive a few miles for your groceries. And because you don't arrive by car the grocery store doesn't need a huge parking lot either.
That'd already massively reduce the amount of driving required, as you suddenly no longer need to drive a few miles for your groceries. And because you don't arrive by car the grocery store doesn't need a huge parking lot either.
This subthread is about “how would the grocery store fill its shelves without roads?” more than it is “how could we avoid the final driving by grocery customers?”
The roads are mostly filled with cars, though. If we only needed roads for trucks to stock stores, we could get rid of 90% of them.
Nobody is proposing getting rid of all roads, they clearly have value. People are just proposing making it possible to live without requiring a car for something as basic as grocery shopping. As long as cities are built from a car-centric perspective first, they will require a car to live in.
Nobody is proposing getting rid of all roads, they clearly have value. People are just proposing making it possible to live without requiring a car for something as basic as grocery shopping. As long as cities are built from a car-centric perspective first, they will require a car to live in.
Much less parking, though. One thing that shocked me about San Francisco, a city with a horrendous housing crisis and absurdly high property values, was the amount of space given over to parking, even in quite expensive areas.
Another unquantifiable but costly expense is stress and its effects on your health and sanity: taking your life into your own hands every time you drive, and no matter how careful and skilled you are, a careless idiot could come along and wipe you out at any moment.
Ok. Some rando can also push you on the track as the subway comes in. I think last year it was close to 100 deaths on the subway in NYC. It's pretty much the same amount of pedestrians who died in a car accident.
Not saying it's completely equivalent. A lot of these were probably suicides and all, but let's not pretend subways are a magical utopia full of unicorns.
Not saying it's completely equivalent. A lot of these were probably suicides and all, but let's not pretend subways are a magical utopia full of unicorns.
You're really stretching and hallucinating to miss the point. Did I mention magic or unicorns?
Look up the facts instead of just making shit up and trying to put your crazy words into other people's mouths.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/02/nyc-subway-track-deaths-soar-d...
>In fact, it’s startling the number of deaths underground could even begin to rival the number of deaths above ground, where unlicensed and drunk drivers speed and take fast turns.
>What’s going on? Of 1,365 known subway-track incidents in 2022 (most of which didn’t end in death), about 15% were accidental falls or medical emergencies, a new MTA analysis finds.
>A thankfully surprisingly low number — fewer than 10% — was suicides or suicide attempts.
>An even smaller percentage was assaults — that is, people being pushed to the tracks. (Though with pushes to the tracks comprising three of last year’s 10 subway murders, a 30-year high, a small percentage is too many.)
>In most cases — well more than two-thirds — people ended up on the tracks voluntarily.
>In 20% of total cases, people were clearly mentally ill (but not attempting suicide); in another 10% or so, people were drugged or drunk.
>And in nearly half of total trespassing cases, the MTA or NYPD found people just walking the tracks — walking to homeless encampments on MTA property, writing graffiti, just . . . wandering about.
>Two such trespassers were graffiti writers from France; they died under a Brooklyn train last April.
>And some “accidents” — more and more — are subway surfers.
>Two 15-year-old surfers have been killed in the past four months, and another 15-year-old lost his arm this year.
The numbers you pulled out of your ass are so extremely off from the reality.
https://jknylaw.com/new-york-car-accident-lawyer/statistics
>How Many Car Accidents Are There in NYC Every Year?
>It depends on the year. In 2019, there were a total of 134,224 car accidents in New York City. In 2020, the year of a raging pandemic, reported collisions declined by roughly 50%, for a total of 88,323. In 2021, a year still largely influenced by COVID, accidents increased to a total of 97,059. As of October 2022, there have been 52,341 car accidents year-to-date in the Big Apple based on preliminary data.
>So, despite the fact that NYC came to a near-halt in 2020, there was still an average of 303 car accidents on the city’s streets every single day that year. And things have only gotten worse since then – although it is too early to tell for 2022. [...]
>How Many Accidents in NYC Are Fatal?
>Every year, hundreds of people are killed in car accidents in New York City:
>How Often Are Pedestrians Involving New York Traffic Accidents?
>In 2021, 8.9% of all motor vehicle accidents in the city involved a pedestrian.
>That year, there were a total of 8,693 pedestrian accidents. 7,205 caused an injury, while the remaining 125 were fatal.
>Brooklyn is the most dangerous borough for pedestrians, while Staten Island is the safest:
Look up the facts instead of just making shit up and trying to put your crazy words into other people's mouths.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/02/nyc-subway-track-deaths-soar-d...
>In fact, it’s startling the number of deaths underground could even begin to rival the number of deaths above ground, where unlicensed and drunk drivers speed and take fast turns.
>What’s going on? Of 1,365 known subway-track incidents in 2022 (most of which didn’t end in death), about 15% were accidental falls or medical emergencies, a new MTA analysis finds.
>A thankfully surprisingly low number — fewer than 10% — was suicides or suicide attempts.
>An even smaller percentage was assaults — that is, people being pushed to the tracks. (Though with pushes to the tracks comprising three of last year’s 10 subway murders, a 30-year high, a small percentage is too many.)
>In most cases — well more than two-thirds — people ended up on the tracks voluntarily.
>In 20% of total cases, people were clearly mentally ill (but not attempting suicide); in another 10% or so, people were drugged or drunk.
>And in nearly half of total trespassing cases, the MTA or NYPD found people just walking the tracks — walking to homeless encampments on MTA property, writing graffiti, just . . . wandering about.
>Two such trespassers were graffiti writers from France; they died under a Brooklyn train last April.
>And some “accidents” — more and more — are subway surfers.
>Two 15-year-old surfers have been killed in the past four months, and another 15-year-old lost his arm this year.
The numbers you pulled out of your ass are so extremely off from the reality.
https://jknylaw.com/new-york-car-accident-lawyer/statistics
>How Many Car Accidents Are There in NYC Every Year?
>It depends on the year. In 2019, there were a total of 134,224 car accidents in New York City. In 2020, the year of a raging pandemic, reported collisions declined by roughly 50%, for a total of 88,323. In 2021, a year still largely influenced by COVID, accidents increased to a total of 97,059. As of October 2022, there have been 52,341 car accidents year-to-date in the Big Apple based on preliminary data.
>So, despite the fact that NYC came to a near-halt in 2020, there was still an average of 303 car accidents on the city’s streets every single day that year. And things have only gotten worse since then – although it is too early to tell for 2022. [...]
>How Many Accidents in NYC Are Fatal?
>Every year, hundreds of people are killed in car accidents in New York City:
2019: 211 car accident fatalities
2020: 235 car accident fatalities
2021: 245 car accident fatalities
>How Often Are Pedestrians Involving New York Traffic Accidents?
>In 2021, 8.9% of all motor vehicle accidents in the city involved a pedestrian.
>That year, there were a total of 8,693 pedestrian accidents. 7,205 caused an injury, while the remaining 125 were fatal.
>Brooklyn is the most dangerous borough for pedestrians, while Staten Island is the safest:
Brooklyn: 2,956 pedestrian accidents (34.0%)
Queens: 2,002 pedestrian accidents (23.0%)
Bronx: 1,748 pedestrian accidents (20.1%)
Manhattan: 1,740 pedestrian accidents (20.0%)
Staten Island: 247 pedestrian accidents (2.8%)
Statistically speaking, about 3 out of every 5 pedestrian
accidents take place in Brooklyn or Queens.
Dude, my numbers are literally in your link
"But as with everything else in New York in the past three years, things went awry. Last year’s 88 track deaths were 35% above the 2018 and 2019 averages — 65 each year.
For context, 120 pedestrians died above ground last year in crashes with cars or trucks, close to the average of 121 in 2018 and 2019"
You are even repeating them - and nicely moving the goal post from "death" to "injury".
Using "safety " to argue against cars is not productive, "safety" can be applied anywhere and everywhere.
"But as with everything else in New York in the past three years, things went awry. Last year’s 88 track deaths were 35% above the 2018 and 2019 averages — 65 each year.
For context, 120 pedestrians died above ground last year in crashes with cars or trucks, close to the average of 121 in 2018 and 2019"
You are even repeating them - and nicely moving the goal post from "death" to "injury".
Using "safety " to argue against cars is not productive, "safety" can be applied anywhere and everywhere.
I have too many outside hobbies (camping) to ditch my car completely. You cannot take a dog, flammable cooking gas, and a canoe on public transport.
I am fine with the idea of banning cars in certain parts of cities and requiring cities (at least downtown) be walkable.
I am fine with the idea of banning cars in certain parts of cities and requiring cities (at least downtown) be walkable.
I desperately want to sell my car. I live in a city with decent public transit by NA standards (Montreal), and can get to my suburban office by train. The main hangup is visiting my family across the border in rural Pennsylvania, there’s not a feasible way to get there which wouldn’t require a relative spending 2+ hours to pick me up from a bus or train station. That, and being able to go camping on short notice.
People often forget an important part of investing into trains instead of cars: It makes it so the people who don't want to drive don't have to. And since the people who just drive because they have to are usually not the best drivers, that would make travelling a much more pleasant experience.
It's a good thing even for the people who love cars.
It's a good thing even for the people who love cars.
I'm incredibly pro-car but it's nice to have real numbers so the externalities can be effectively paid for.
It could cost 60 or 100 or 200 Billion, but I still need to take my kids places...
Deleted.
Most people don't buy a month's worth of groceries at once, though. When there is a grocery store right next to the train station, you just get what you need for the next two or three days when you pass the store during your daily commute.
"wait until the snow melts". How long have you been living in your bubble? You do realize in some parts of the country it would mean waiting for 6 to 7 months before driving again?
I lived in Ohio from 1980 to 1985 and NYS until 2020. There was lots of cold weather and snow. Waiting until the snow melted was fine advice, quite reasonable.
Whats the cost of the surrounding needed to have a moderately effective collective transport (improperly named public, since it's generally private, subsidized by the public since being economically untenable)?
Let's start from the need of density. In the past cities was a nightmare but a need, in the modern era they was the motor of any civilization since they was the place where ideas can be exchanged and so evolve, where most enterprises and customers and workers co-exist. But after the first logistic revolution in the '80s most productions have gone outside the city, in entirely artificial distopic district build around mega-factories, where worker's live, but not where customers live, without really exchange of ideas being "isolated big factories". With TLC/IT (bad) evolution we finally got enough bandwidth and work models to work remotely, exchange ideas remotely, the new agorà is on the internet (BBS, nntp news, then the web).
So? So, well, cities once needed for many reasons do exists only for very few reasons, the most prominent is being kind of labor camps for poor who live to work, to earn enough to pay services they need to live. Unable to substantially improve their condition since costs suck most of their earning.
In that sense the cost of public transport is the cost of keeping up a decadent gigantic structure: the city. A shared cost with some other cleptocratic business, but nothing else. This cost is HUGE.
Some, let's say McKinsey dream flying cars https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... and while I'm less optimistic in timetable and scalability terms that's the cheaper theoretical evolution we can hope for. Because IF we will been able to reach a point where we can move anything by air then we can give up roads who are one of the most expensive logistic infra we need anyway for low density area, far less expensive but since so many road not less expensive than the hyper expensive high speed and high capacity roads links between cities.
IF we will reach such goal (and I'm pretty convinced not so fast, but we will) than the best density balance will be leaving and working spread in vast areas in small buildings, perhaps with just few district for things that we still can't do at smaller scale.
As we chosen to go from mainframe to cluster, for mega-ship and mega-plane to smaller ones, so we will do for living.
Collective transportation does not fit AT ALL despite the contrary interested propaganda.
Let's start from the need of density. In the past cities was a nightmare but a need, in the modern era they was the motor of any civilization since they was the place where ideas can be exchanged and so evolve, where most enterprises and customers and workers co-exist. But after the first logistic revolution in the '80s most productions have gone outside the city, in entirely artificial distopic district build around mega-factories, where worker's live, but not where customers live, without really exchange of ideas being "isolated big factories". With TLC/IT (bad) evolution we finally got enough bandwidth and work models to work remotely, exchange ideas remotely, the new agorà is on the internet (BBS, nntp news, then the web).
So? So, well, cities once needed for many reasons do exists only for very few reasons, the most prominent is being kind of labor camps for poor who live to work, to earn enough to pay services they need to live. Unable to substantially improve their condition since costs suck most of their earning.
In that sense the cost of public transport is the cost of keeping up a decadent gigantic structure: the city. A shared cost with some other cleptocratic business, but nothing else. This cost is HUGE.
Some, let's say McKinsey dream flying cars https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... and while I'm less optimistic in timetable and scalability terms that's the cheaper theoretical evolution we can hope for. Because IF we will been able to reach a point where we can move anything by air then we can give up roads who are one of the most expensive logistic infra we need anyway for low density area, far less expensive but since so many road not less expensive than the hyper expensive high speed and high capacity roads links between cities.
IF we will reach such goal (and I'm pretty convinced not so fast, but we will) than the best density balance will be leaving and working spread in vast areas in small buildings, perhaps with just few district for things that we still can't do at smaller scale.
As we chosen to go from mainframe to cluster, for mega-ship and mega-plane to smaller ones, so we will do for living.
Collective transportation does not fit AT ALL despite the contrary interested propaganda.
I make enough money, so I don't care about the cost. It is budgeted in. It is a necessity.
The problem is that it's not budgeted in : most municipal governments are crumping under the weight of supporting all of the infrastructure needed to support everyone living far apart and going places via car
Ironically it isn't budgeted in, almost all road infrastructure is underfunded and falling apart. Not to mention the externalized cost to the environment. The worst part is that poor people pay more land tax per area than rich people, so you are likely being subsidized by people who don't make enough money.
I live in America and make enough money to spend part of my year in various cities across Europe. It saddens me to think that the average American can't imagine how good life can be with fewer cars.
I live in America and make enough money to spend part of my year in various cities across Europe. It saddens me to think that the average American can't imagine how good life can be with fewer cars.
You also don't care about the costs to other people, the poor, society, and the environment.
Too bad there are so many careless people like you.
Too bad there are so many careless people like you.
I live in a country where the population density is low, settlement is sparse and the winters are gnarly. Distances are huge and not owning a car is for me out of the question.
I have been to Singapore. It is a sort of utopia when it comes to mass transit and public transport in general. I suggest people move there if they want to live in a world technically devoid of cars.
A future without indivual personal transport is one I do not personally, want, will vote for or can support. This goes to the core of individual freedom. Yes people from outside the US also care deeply about individual rights.
I have been to Singapore. It is a sort of utopia when it comes to mass transit and public transport in general. I suggest people move there if they want to live in a world technically devoid of cars.
A future without indivual personal transport is one I do not personally, want, will vote for or can support. This goes to the core of individual freedom. Yes people from outside the US also care deeply about individual rights.
He still ran the numbers.
I was too young to fully understand but basically accounting for every cost it was cheaper to call a cab or rent a car for every situation that actually requires a private vehicle, plus it saved loads of time overall (repairs, maintenance, checks, cleaning...) and headaches in general.
The discussion stuck to me, and I'm always amazed at how it became a realization for so many people decades after.
Granted, this was Western Europe where public transit is ages ahead of most of the US.