Me, I would love to see cars disappear tomorrow, but we have issues that is feeding each other, keeping transportation in the US static.
Public transportation in the US is pretty much non-existent, except maybe in and around New York City. In the area where I use to live, public transportation now is rather dangerous to the people using it.
I rode a bicycle to work for and lite errands for more than 30 years, and am probably still alive because of that. But I have been hit by cars more times then I can count (no serious injuries). And I was in rather bicycle friendly area. I spent some time in the Detroit area 15 years ago, the area I was in, bicycling there is a form of suicide. As I said before, Montreal, to me, is a bicycle commuter paradise.
So what can people do in the US ?
I believe right now, the only way out of this automobile mess is to raise gas prices to $10 per Gallon. Then people and the Government may start changing, otherwise we are driving straight into a worldwide catastrophe.
One thing people that are against changes to the urban environments miss is that the desire is not for cars to be banned, just deprioritized. The aim is to reduce the need for personal vehicles, not eliminate them entirely. There are 289MM cars in the US (.87 cars per person), in The Netherlands there are 8.7MM cars (0.5 cars per person). Even with such a "small" numeric difference, the effects are drastic to livability.
Why would you seek to change the US vs. relocating your person to The Netherlands though? They're both impactful and costly, but the former is almost impossible while the latter well within the abilities of a motivated actor.
People always suggest this ("if you like it better in Europe, why don't you move there!"), and it's such a facetious argument.
1. All my friends/family/professional networks are based in the US. Do I need to convince all of them to move with me to the Netherlands?
2. I would need to uproot my children from their schooling and friends and move them to a foreign country.
3. I would have to get a job in NL--perhaps doable for me, but what if you don't have in-demand tech skills and don't already speak Dutch?
4. I would have to work in NL for five continuous years before being eligible for permanent residency.
These hurdles are indeed not totally insurmountable for some people, but to pretend like it's a viable option for anyone who wants to live in more functional cities is silly. Why can't we just try to make our cities better? Look around at which cities in the world are working better, and learn from them!
When you understand how quickly the Netherlands changed (it used to be just as car-centric at the US), you might change your view about what's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E
I believe the GP is arguing against change because they like the status quo. It is not "go there to get what you want", it's "go there so you don't bother me".
Now compare the area of the two countries and the population densities. Now compare the variance in climate across Netherlands vs. the United States. Now compare the variation in altitude within Netherlands vs the variation in altitude in the United States. Now compare when the cities in Netherlands were founded and formed vs the age of cities in America. Are you being intentionally absurd for some reason I'm not seeing?
Climate variance works both ways, and I'm not sure which side is more important.
For example harsh winters and big temperature differences make maintenance of motorways significantly more expansive compared to railways and walking paths. Hence you have trans-siberian rail but no trans-siberian motorway network.
Also Netherlands did car-centric design in 50s. Then they stopped and reverted it because they realized it sucked.
The size of a country is irrelevant to this discussion: it is about urban centers. The density of cities in both countries is relevant, and of course they are different: that's precisely what the conversation is about.
I remain unconvinced about the argument around climate: when it is too cold to walk less than 15 minutes, roads are also unsafe to drive.
What does altitude have to do with anything? San Francisco has plenty of hills, yet people still manage to move around by bike.
When a city was founded has little to do with what to do with them going forward. Many american cities were very walkable, and then urban freeways where built in them, displacing people and disconnecting neighborhoods. Amsterdam itself was very car-centric in the 70's, yet they are now considered the biking capital of the world. Cities are living organisms, that can and should change over time.
If you don't see how being able to walk when you need milk helps with having a good quality of life then I don't know what to tell you.
Edit: the comparison is relevant because it gives us a good idea of what the lower bound of what it realistically means to downsize the usage of cars in urban environments. It's a very clear example of a place where half the population (which includes children!) has a car, but cities are entirely navigable by foot, public transport or bikes.
$10/gal gasoline is not the answer, because it's a regressive tax that just prices the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder out of the transportation they need to get to work. It also adversely affects businesses that can't use public transit, like technical service people with tools and materials, and delivery drivers. The actual answer is to build a comprehensive mass transit system that makes driving unnecessary for most people. Trying to force people to use an inadequate public transit system by making the alternative unaffordable is just a shitty thing to do to people.
High gas prices are explicitly why I take transit and avoid driving. I have a car, but it works out to $10 CAD every day to drive to work - so I make the effort to get up a little earlier and take the train when I can.
"It's regressive and has an undue effect on the poor" and "It's moderately effective" are not mutually exclusive. That was a major reason public transit bounced back so fast in the Lower Mainland of BC, Canada - because driving is decidedly not cheap. Moreover, high gas prices are something I endorse, loudly and often, because it subsidises transit, and how much more expensive it makes the biggest (most dangerous to pedestrians) vehicles.
Still need to drive, and don't want to pay an arm and a leg? Skip the Silverado, get a hatchback or moderately-sized SUV or van. Need to haul your boat (or 40-foot camper instead of a tent)? Sounds like an expensive hobby - and anyone who's owned a boat can attest to that.
Can't you put fuel as expense when you have a small business? Then only individuals would pay that tax, not businesses.
> The actual answer is to build a comprehensive mass transit system that makes driving unnecessary for most people
Car-centric design makes building such a system hard in many ways. You have to tackle both side of the equation at once - encourage public transport and discourage cars. Otherways you build it and nobody uses it.
Please for the love of god stop with the "public transportation is dangerous" narrative. The numbers dont bare it out at all. The same goes for an increase in violent crime in most cities (unless your base case is COVID).
I said were I use to live, not everywhere. It is not crime but people being killed by accident on the trains due to upkeep being ignored over the past 40 years.
Your last statement misses the point. I doubt raising the price of gas to $10 per gallon would change care usage all that much (although it would likely greatly increase the pickup speed for electric vehicles) because demand for vehicle transport is very inelastic because the actual problem is zoning and land use making cars the only viable option. Make a bunch of simple changes to zoning and land use laws and sit back and in a couple decades you would be surprised how drastic the change can be because that's 20 years of all construction (including road repair maintenance) pushing the shape of the city in a direction that supports a multitude of transport options and ultimately makes the city a lot more vibrantly human rather than loud, dreary car based annoyances.
Public transportation in the US is pretty much non-existent, except maybe in and around New York City. In the area where I use to live, public transportation now is rather dangerous to the people using it.
I rode a bicycle to work for and lite errands for more than 30 years, and am probably still alive because of that. But I have been hit by cars more times then I can count (no serious injuries). And I was in rather bicycle friendly area. I spent some time in the Detroit area 15 years ago, the area I was in, bicycling there is a form of suicide. As I said before, Montreal, to me, is a bicycle commuter paradise.
So what can people do in the US ?
I believe right now, the only way out of this automobile mess is to raise gas prices to $10 per Gallon. Then people and the Government may start changing, otherwise we are driving straight into a worldwide catastrophe.