In cities sure, but there’s plenty of us who do not want to live in cities. Heck, I don’t even want to live within eye sight of neighbors, stores, or really anything else except some pristine woods. That’s not possible without a car.
Sure there are always going to be people like us who want an 'archaic' life style which require an archaic mode of transportation, but the world shouldn't be optimizing for these people, and I see nothing wrong with making these people pay extra for the externalizes their lifestyles impose.
But in the US, it is the (vast) minority who wants to live a pedestrian lifestyle.
If you look around the US you will see that even today, investment in suburbia far outpaces investment in "urbanism".
Trucks and SUVs are slowly cannibalizing sedan sales in the US. So not only do people like driving, the vehicles they tend to purchase are increasing in size.
If you are suggesting that society somehow prioritizes the 0.3% of young single males who want to live as pedestrians in urban cores...put it to a vote and watch what happens.
This entire thread is about optimizing cities for young single males. I can't wait until HN turns a median age of seventy...everyone will be in here screaming about a society that punishes the aged.
Car centric life is not better for the elderly and the disabled, quite the opposite.
Elderly and disabled people are often can't safely drive due to either physical limitations (eyesight, reaction time, arthritis, seizures, limited movements, dizziness and fainting, etc., etc., etc.) or practical limitations (a car that accommodates a driver in a wheelchair with hand controls is a specialty item that costs $90,000+, I'm not making that number up, there was an article about it on HN a bit ago). Even if and individual has a ride it can be difficult to transport a motorized scooter in a standard sedan or compact car: going to the park with the grandkids is out without a folding wheelchair, which, depending on the individual's limitations, can make that person dependent on someone else to push them around.
Whereas electric scooters and wheelchairs can navigate easily and independently in pedestrian friendly zones when designed with accommodation in mind. And accommodation is now the law.
Also women and married people don't exactly, by definition, prefer driving over walking, dunno where you're getting that from. In fact, women drive less than men on average.
Society built around cars isn't too optimal for the elderly, quite the opposite.
I think the issue is that people don't know what they are missing until they get it. If your city is built around car, no proper public transport exists, why on earth wouldn't you want a car? For me the mind shift switched when I moved from a car city to a higher-density city (Toronto) for work reason. That's when I realized that I actually didn't want to use my car every day.
Well, that's the problem with the tyranny of the majority. The fact that people want unsustainable living doesn't mean unsustainable living should be encouraged. See also Hume's guillotine [1]
How exactly is it unsustainable? Are we running out of something? Are we running out of electricity?
The idea that cars are unsustainable is ridiculous. Just because they may not fit into sonmeone’s desire for increased government control of mobility doesn’t make them unsustainable.
Every generation seems to think their generation will be the last, unless we “do” something. They were likely debating horse carts in England a thousand years ago with equal fervor.
Yeah, money. In the US, new transportation projects are generally financed with federal help, while maintenance is left to the local government. This essentially creates a Ponzi scheme, where cities are going bankrupt due to depreciation on infrastructure, and not even realizing it. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
In my opinion, roads are essentially underpriced. They're expensive to maintain and given out for free. (Similar arguments apply for parking, expressed humorously here: http://cityobservatory.org/parking-where-we-embrace-socialis...) This bothers me, as someone who doesn't own a car but lives with worse air quality and safety due to those who do.
Call me when all cars are electric and all that electricity – not to mention the batteries and everything else – is produced by sustainable means. Burying your head in the sand and figuring that someone is going to solve the problem at some point does not work. Never mind all the people who want to believe the problem doesn't exist in the first place, in order to maintain the belief that their lifestyle is fine.
Google reports the population of the US at 325.7 million, and the population of New York City at 8.54 million. So, your "0.3%" is a tenth of the population of one urban core.
Trucks and SUVs are slowly cannibalizing sedan sales in the US. So not only do people like driving, the vehicles they tend to purchase are increasing in size.
I think this statement is misleading. The market has filled with SUVs that are adapted from compact and midsize sedans (e.g. Toyota RAV4, Highlander). The giant SUV market still exists, but I don't believe it's growing anything like it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. I probably see forty Rav4's for every Ford Expedition I see.
I think you’re underestimating the total acreage of “pristine” wilderness in the United States. Any realistic demand for a lifestyle like koolba‘s would find ample supply.
I’m not so sure. How much land would you need to be completely isolated, no other houses in sight? A square mile? More if you live high on a hill (which many people would like to do).
Wikipedia says the area of the USA is only 3,794,100 square miles, so there aren’t very many square-mile patches to hand out compared to the size of the population.
Generally speaking, about 2-5 acres is enough. Most rural build to suit lots are in this range. A square mile is a ludicrous amount of land and not at all typical for rural living. If you have that much land, you're a farmer, have had it given to you, a significant portion is unuseable, there's a large pond/lake on the property, or you're just eccentric. Even out in the country, there's an amount that's practical and beyond that is just a waste. Once you get over 30 acres, it really starts to become silly.
A square mile is way more than needed. it is 640 acres. My parents recently retired out to a small farm in Missouri with 60 acres. With even 1/5th of that you would not have to see or hear neighbors. And assuming everyone around you has an equal amount, that is quite a buffer.
If you were to distribute all people in the US uniformly, everybody would have about four soccer fields of space. If you distributed them over the forest area of the US everybody would have about one soccer field of space. In either case if you account for yards and access roads you wouldn't have what I'd call pristine woods anymore.
I feel like we should at least exclude people under 18. We can then, in addition, account for couples, and perhaps even prisoners/institutionalized, college kids, the military, and so on.
Pristine woods is probably a bit of a high bar but you can get plenty of separation from neighbors with a lot less land, especially if some of the land is shared conservation space such as near where I live. A square mile is 640 acres which is a lot of land. Between myself and a couple neighbors we're on about 75 acres much of which is orchard, a Christmas tree farm, and adjacent woodland. We can see each other but we're pretty separated.
To quote koolba: "That [lifestyle] is not possible without a car."
Living in a dense urban area, taking trains, walking, and biking. Goods delivered all in close vicinity. Large building with the opportunity to be more energy efficient than your single family home.
All that, I'm convinced makes the carbon footprint of the average urbanite much lower than someone who often drives miles for errands
I know this must feel contrary to the intuition to those who live very close to nature
