Whenever I’m in the States I hate the fact that everything is a 20 minute car ride away. I understand why road rage can be a thing if you spend so much time in the car.
The government was literally giving away land under the homestead act 100 years before that. You could just go stick some stakes in the ground and that was your 100+ acres, so long as you produced something with the land.
Unfortunately it’s zoning that caused most of this issue. Not size. Dense residential was disallowed for not entirely un-racist reasons, so it spread out enormously instead. On top of car companies lobbying in various ways to make cars essential.
Suburban sprawl is also an issue. It takes 20 minutes or more just to walk out of my massive subdivision. It takes 3 or 4 minutes to drive out of the subdivision. And we’re out of city limits, so no bus. It sucks. The only thing that I can say for it is that it’s very safe in terms of crime.
I stay home because I can, and it’s awesome. All my cool stuff and my family is here, but if I wanted to get out and do stuff it’s a short car trip to numerous options for cool stuff to do.
Suburbs are subsidized by urban areas. Zoning in North America means medium and high density can only be built in limited locations, meaning demand often outstrips supply, increasing the price. The decision of “house with land” vs “tiny apt” isn’t a direct comparison and price influences people’s decisions. If these perverse incentives weren’t in place, more people would consider living in higher density areas with more amenities vs having lots of land and being far away from everything.
If anything this means Europe’s cities just can’t accommodate cars, because they weren’t built for them. The weird thing is that American cities were built for cars and yet still can’t accommodate cars. Traffic, lack of parking, road rage… it’s a huge mess, and it seems like the more you commit to cars, the worse it all gets. That’s the trouble with cars. They just don’t work.
I don’t really understand this comment though. It doesn’t take thousands of years to achieve urban density. And what does America’s sprawl have to do with loving large cars? You don’t need a huge car to drive medium distances.
You need density to support a train system. You need a large number of riders to make it economical and you need them living within a reasonable distance of the stations. The US is very spread out. You can blame cars for that but that is the world we live in. The US is also very big with large rural areas, the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869. Europe was built around compact cities based on horses and walking long before cars.
I agree that we are too car focused and it has become a sort of arms race, build more roads, more cars, more roads, etc.
The focus on cars is emotionally driven. The car symbolizes freedom and independence. Besides this it’s a huge status symbol. And the industry is working hard to keep it this way.
The lack of decent public transportation is by design.
Adding to this, I think cars are also often a person’s only private space. Look at the YT videos that are people ranting from their car. It’s all they have. They’re very attached to it.
Further, a lot of Americans are in terrible physical shape. Obese and weak, injured, etc or all of these. But behind the wheel of a beefy car they can feel the joy of movement and power. It’s literally an extension of their body.
Freedom, independence, privacy, strength and power… yeah Americans have a lot invested in their cars. I was brought up into this culture and subscribed to it myself for a long time. Fortunately I just have other ways to feel good about myself now and caring about cars seems stupid and pathetic.
You’re absolutely correct, but a bicycle tideuor bus trip or train journey is also a feeling of freedom, too. Reframing ‘freedom’ so people don’t feel they have to get a $70,000 crew cab pickup to drive to the bar or store is the thing.
A bus felt liberating before I got my driver’s license. And driving felt liberating before I got ahold of aircraft controls for the first time. One day I’ll get this jetpack to work and then forget about planes.
There is a continuum and its hard to go in the other direction without feeling the additional restrictions.
Quite literally, same here. There’s nothing wrong with bikes, but used cars became unreasonably expensive and younger people never tasted the freedom. Planes are like that with even smaller percentages of pilots and even more unreasonable prices (last affordable in the 1960s, while cars were affordable until the early 2000s or so). People hate what they don’t have or understand. Personal vehicles are incredibly liberating for those of us who get it. We’re being shamed for appreciating an independence everyone should experience, but can’t because there are too many people, too much demand, and all the ecological problems that come with it. Yes, human impact could be reduced if everyone lived in abject poverty, but guess what, poor people in developing countries want Western amenities too. Everyone should.
I actually spent 8 years going to Burning Man and while I was there I volunteered to fix people’s bikes. A bike is really the best way to get around there but many people borrow one that’s in dubious condition, get out there, and realize it doesn’t ride well, or has no air in the tires, whatever. We helped so many people get those shitty bikes into a rideable state. Lots of flat fixes. Many lube jobs. A lot of people just needed the seat adjusted but didn’t have a wrench. A lot of bad derailleurs we would just remove, turning the bike into a single speed.
My goal was to help people have a week of joy on a bike and remember how awesome they can be. Most Americans ride a bike when they are kids and then abandon them. It gave me a lot of satisfaction to bring all those adults a taste of that joy and freedom again. I hope some of them returned home with a renewed interest in bikes.
the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869
The western US didn’t really develop until the government started giving land that had already been ceded to indigenous peoples and couldn’t actually support dense settlement to white settlers, at the behest of railroad companies who needed an artificial reason to build railroads in the first place.
I totally get that fact. I also think that it would not be bad to copy some things from other countries to make the cities in the States more liveable without car dependency. There’s enough space to do that.
At the very least we could link cities with rail systems. Don’t put a million stops on them either though. Try taking Amtrack from DC to Boston and you’ll see what I mean.
Passenger trains exist in the U.S. They used to be popular. Then planes and affordable automobiles put them out of business. If you don’t live in a dense urban area, you almost certainly have a car, meaning you aren’t beholden to train schedules and destinations. If you are in an area where you get by without a car, an Uber to the airport gets you to your destination much faster.
I agree and disagree with this. I don’t think the US inherently must be car centric because it’s big. But I do agree that Europe has superior pedestrian infrastructure because it developed for most of its history without cars. Auto and oil industry lobbying has instigated the situation in the US, but their agenda was only achievable because the technology existed to make large scale changes to the terrain, mass produce vehicles, etc. It’s very likely that there were people throughout Europe’s history who tried to monopolize bridges or horse wagons or other forms of transport, but the technology wasn’t sufficient for it to materialize. Warsaw was destroyed during WWII and rebuilt, and it’s developed to be very car-centric compared to other cities in Poland and Europe.
Whenever I’m in the States I hate the fact that everything is a 20 minute car ride away. I understand why road rage can be a thing if you spend so much time in the car.
deleted by creator
USA didn’t start building bullshit suburbs until 1950s. before that it was dense cities.
No it wasn’t. Like 80% of the population lived in rural areas before the 50s. Apparently this sub really doesn’t like facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Europe is much more population dense than the US, a quick fact check easily confirms this.
The government was literally giving away land under the homestead act 100 years before that. You could just go stick some stakes in the ground and that was your 100+ acres, so long as you produced something with the land.
deleted by creator
Indeed, prior to European settlement it was extremely rural.
Not necessarily.
And yet everything in a village was a walk away. If a man shagged his wife, he could hear his neighbor complain.
Unfortunately it’s zoning that caused most of this issue. Not size. Dense residential was disallowed for not entirely un-racist reasons, so it spread out enormously instead. On top of car companies lobbying in various ways to make cars essential.
Suburban sprawl is also an issue. It takes 20 minutes or more just to walk out of my massive subdivision. It takes 3 or 4 minutes to drive out of the subdivision. And we’re out of city limits, so no bus. It sucks. The only thing that I can say for it is that it’s very safe in terms of crime.
People also spread out because they could - most people would prefer to have a house with land rather than live in a tiny apt
deleted by creator
where do you spend your internet time? while at work or?
I stay home because I can, and it’s awesome. All my cool stuff and my family is here, but if I wanted to get out and do stuff it’s a short car trip to numerous options for cool stuff to do.
Suburbs are subsidized by urban areas. Zoning in North America means medium and high density can only be built in limited locations, meaning demand often outstrips supply, increasing the price. The decision of “house with land” vs “tiny apt” isn’t a direct comparison and price influences people’s decisions. If these perverse incentives weren’t in place, more people would consider living in higher density areas with more amenities vs having lots of land and being far away from everything.
If anything this means Europe’s cities just can’t accommodate cars, because they weren’t built for them. The weird thing is that American cities were built for cars and yet still can’t accommodate cars. Traffic, lack of parking, road rage… it’s a huge mess, and it seems like the more you commit to cars, the worse it all gets. That’s the trouble with cars. They just don’t work.
I don’t really understand this comment though. It doesn’t take thousands of years to achieve urban density. And what does America’s sprawl have to do with loving large cars? You don’t need a huge car to drive medium distances.
You don’t even need a huge car to travel huge distances.
You need density to support a train system. You need a large number of riders to make it economical and you need them living within a reasonable distance of the stations. The US is very spread out. You can blame cars for that but that is the world we live in. The US is also very big with large rural areas, the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869. Europe was built around compact cities based on horses and walking long before cars.
I agree that we are too car focused and it has become a sort of arms race, build more roads, more cars, more roads, etc.
Public transportationdoesn’t have to be economical, it’s a service.
The focus on cars is emotionally driven. The car symbolizes freedom and independence. Besides this it’s a huge status symbol. And the industry is working hard to keep it this way. The lack of decent public transportation is by design.
Adding to this, I think cars are also often a person’s only private space. Look at the YT videos that are people ranting from their car. It’s all they have. They’re very attached to it.
Further, a lot of Americans are in terrible physical shape. Obese and weak, injured, etc or all of these. But behind the wheel of a beefy car they can feel the joy of movement and power. It’s literally an extension of their body.
Freedom, independence, privacy, strength and power… yeah Americans have a lot invested in their cars. I was brought up into this culture and subscribed to it myself for a long time. Fortunately I just have other ways to feel good about myself now and caring about cars seems stupid and pathetic.
You’re absolutely correct, but a bicycle tideuor bus trip or train journey is also a feeling of freedom, too. Reframing ‘freedom’ so people don’t feel they have to get a $70,000 crew cab pickup to drive to the bar or store is the thing.
A bus felt liberating before I got my driver’s license. And driving felt liberating before I got ahold of aircraft controls for the first time. One day I’ll get this jetpack to work and then forget about planes.
There is a continuum and its hard to go in the other direction without feeling the additional restrictions.
Quite literally, same here. There’s nothing wrong with bikes, but used cars became unreasonably expensive and younger people never tasted the freedom. Planes are like that with even smaller percentages of pilots and even more unreasonable prices (last affordable in the 1960s, while cars were affordable until the early 2000s or so). People hate what they don’t have or understand. Personal vehicles are incredibly liberating for those of us who get it. We’re being shamed for appreciating an independence everyone should experience, but can’t because there are too many people, too much demand, and all the ecological problems that come with it. Yes, human impact could be reduced if everyone lived in abject poverty, but guess what, poor people in developing countries want Western amenities too. Everyone should.
This is so true. Bikes are a wonderful feeling.
I actually spent 8 years going to Burning Man and while I was there I volunteered to fix people’s bikes. A bike is really the best way to get around there but many people borrow one that’s in dubious condition, get out there, and realize it doesn’t ride well, or has no air in the tires, whatever. We helped so many people get those shitty bikes into a rideable state. Lots of flat fixes. Many lube jobs. A lot of people just needed the seat adjusted but didn’t have a wrench. A lot of bad derailleurs we would just remove, turning the bike into a single speed.
My goal was to help people have a week of joy on a bike and remember how awesome they can be. Most Americans ride a bike when they are kids and then abandon them. It gave me a lot of satisfaction to bring all those adults a taste of that joy and freedom again. I hope some of them returned home with a renewed interest in bikes.
America exists because of the train, which it has since abandoned
The western US didn’t really develop until the government started giving land that had already been ceded to indigenous peoples and couldn’t actually support dense settlement to white settlers, at the behest of railroad companies who needed an artificial reason to build railroads in the first place.
Vancouver runs trains through SFH development. Montreal does too. Hell, so does London.
You’re an untravelled idiot and it shows.
Uncalled for antagonism. Boooo.
Don’t say stupid shit if you don’t want to be called out for it 🤷♀️
I totally get that fact. I also think that it would not be bad to copy some things from other countries to make the cities in the States more liveable without car dependency. There’s enough space to do that.
At the very least we could link cities with rail systems. Don’t put a million stops on them either though. Try taking Amtrack from DC to Boston and you’ll see what I mean.
just have more than one set of tracks and you can have a regional and express service train!
Passenger trains exist in the U.S. They used to be popular. Then planes and affordable automobiles put them out of business. If you don’t live in a dense urban area, you almost certainly have a car, meaning you aren’t beholden to train schedules and destinations. If you are in an area where you get by without a car, an Uber to the airport gets you to your destination much faster.
I agree and disagree with this. I don’t think the US inherently must be car centric because it’s big. But I do agree that Europe has superior pedestrian infrastructure because it developed for most of its history without cars. Auto and oil industry lobbying has instigated the situation in the US, but their agenda was only achievable because the technology existed to make large scale changes to the terrain, mass produce vehicles, etc. It’s very likely that there were people throughout Europe’s history who tried to monopolize bridges or horse wagons or other forms of transport, but the technology wasn’t sufficient for it to materialize. Warsaw was destroyed during WWII and rebuilt, and it’s developed to be very car-centric compared to other cities in Poland and Europe.