Might be a silly question, but would it be better if we somehow turned suburbs into being more akin to rural towns? Like the suburbs could maybe have nearby town centers that they could walk to in 10-15 minutes that would allow small businesses to operate in.
I don’t live on the mainland, so no idea how it actually works.
Yes, absolutely. You can also combine both proposals, and have apartment blocks near those neighborhood shopping centers. The people who want their yards and lawns can have them, there’s room for more people who don’t mind living in an apartment, and the businesses that open in those town/neighborhood centers have more customers living close by. I live in a city in the Netherlands that has put this concept into practice, and it’s really great.
I mean, that’s kind how it is where I live. I live in a 1400sf home on .23 acres of land. I’m five blocks from downtown, where there’s businesses, a courthouse, a train station, thousands of apartments. All the schools are walkable. Parks are walkable, with amenities like pools/splash parks, playgrounds, a paved trail network. We fit about 6,000 people per square mile, which is pretty dense.
I don’t think it exactly fits the 15m city concept, because I don’t think there are enough jobs in town to support everyone, but it’s a pretty good mix. A variety of housing types is important, simply because people want what they want, and I think it makes a more cohesive society to try to have something for everyone.
"Streetcar suburbs" were a thing in this country for a long time. Towns would get built up along streetcar lines, and people would walk to the streetcar to commute into the city. Because there weren't huge numbers of cars density was a lot higher and it was very walkable.
The US. Denver used to have 160 miles of streetcars. The Streetcar Conspiracy that they make fun of in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Straight up what happened.
Absolutely. Back in the day before the car, even rural towns were built fairly densely, typically around a train station. They had to be, because you had to be able to walk everywhere in town, and the train was the main way to get in and out of town. Even to this day, many streetcar suburbs exist, where they had lain out a streetcar line radiating from the city center into the countryside and built mid-density along it. Many of these suburbs exist to this day, and they are often dense, walkable, transit-oriented, highly desirable, while not being anything so dense as Manhattan.
This style of development has been made literally illegal in most of North America through restrictive zoning codes, parking minimums, setback requirements, and other local regulations.
If we just made a return to traditional ways of building communities, our cities and towns and suburbs would all be vastly more human-centric than they are today.
I can’t see the NYT article, it’s behind a paywall, or maybe just an email wall, I dunno, but I find it hard to believe that “most” of America restricts density. I live in NJ and density is almost a must these days, we’ve essentially developed everywhere. Even the towns with multimillion dollar homes are being forced to accept density.
Personally, the solution needs to be tax land higher. You want your 2 acre property? You’re gonna pay for it. And that money will be used to help keep housing affordable.
I look to my own state because it’s what I know. A city like Jersey City has an R-1 zone for it’s least dense zone. At a minimum, you’re talking two family housing. Replacing old housing stock is a process, and so while the zoning has changed to allow for greater density, it’s just taking time.
New York looks pretty good to me, and I think could be a model. I think even 65/35 would be a good mix of high and medium density to single and two family housing.
In regards to all these cities, zoning may be in place for SFH, but how old is that zoning? Some places just don’t update their master plans. And like I said, I can’t really speak outside of NJ because the law is going to be different anywhere. I like to think it’s just a matter of time before things get modernized, but I don’t know.
For sure, agreed. But there’s so much goddamn land and so few people. It’s not like the sprawling suburbia of NJ. I just don’t know that we can apply the same standard, or what the value would be for doing so. It makes sense along the northeast corridor. Land is valuable, and it’s a great place to live, and in an effort to keep things affordable we can apply density. Out west, in states that, when I look at a map, I need to really think about what state it is, I don’t know that the density is as necessary. And where it is necessary, cities exist. But I’ll admit, I’ve been to St. Louis once, but probably nowhere else within maybe 250 miles of it, so it’s a mystery to me.
I’m not even sure what I’m talking about anymore, I’ve lost the point.
I like the idea of a villiage square type plan. You have a bunch of 2-5 story buildings around a central green area. Each square is essentially a little community and you can allocate some of the ground level space to retail.
I live in an area with great green space and great neighbours, I just wish I didn’t have to leave my area to get to literally any shop.
Sorry, but fuck this idea in its entirety. This would allow for MORE apartment buildings to be built, since that is how capitalism works, which results in more damage to the surrounding wildlife. L
We need more regulations, and we need a more conscious approach to our housing in general. We should be approaching this with symbiosis in mind, cooperating with nature rather than bending it to our will.
Those houses on the left? Yeah, you could cram so many actual gardens that give you actual food and which could bring so much biodiversity, but we sticking to flat, pure grass gardens that do nothing other than be flat and look green. Fuck everything here.
Sure, let’s build what we NEED to build in a conscious way, but have you seen the housing market as of late? China was printing useless buildings everywhere they could just to keep their faux market going, and any place without regulations will try to cram as many people as possible in as little space as possible, forgoing any quality of life or even safety designs in place of profitable designs.
We love to come together in big cities, and even jobs that don’t need to be on-site end up being on-site, thus worsening the problem. There’s a ton of land out there that could be turned into sustainable housing solutions that could benefit both the people and the environment. I’m just saying we should probably consider other alternatives to “suburban hell” and “communist hell”.
I don’t think we’re anywhere close to having to even think about the possibility of developers building too much housing. And yes, regulations solve the issues you bring up, we absolutely need to enforce the ones we have and many areas need more. Soundproofing should be mandatory in multifamily buildings for example.
The GO Train pictured in your lawful neutral served 35,234,400 passengers in 2022 and covers 526km connecting 27 cities (rough count).
The old diesel-electric fleet was replaced for higher efficiency/lower emission units about a decade ago and these models are now being converted into even lower emission units.
In the next decade a large portion of tracks will be electrified.
Yeah, I heard the GO trains are undergoing some massive upgrades to provide better frequency and through-running lines. I wish they would do something to modernize the sorely lacking Exo trains here in Montreal. At least we got the REM now, though.
Go is amazing. I can get on a train in Toronto West, like 5 minutes from my house and that train takes me straight to Niagara falls in comfort. I can’t wait till we get faster trains
@uriel238@Album yeah! Let's vote for a high speed rail, give the contract to a racist antisemitic jerk who will dig a few feet of test tunnel then throw a party with flamethrowers.
yea man, i was wondnering too. trains are the least harmful, even the most polluting ones, the amount of torque they deliver for the amound of fuel consumed ratio is just beyond consideration
Accessible trains that cover long distances (particularly high-speed rail) with trains that have floors at the level of the platform, like any European country with a competent public transport system. “Your mother” could also use something like a microcar to get to the station, which is allowed on bike lanes in the Netherlands as long as she can prove she has a disability.
No, but your sons would have an easier and safer time getting around with protected bike lanes, which is precisely why parents in the Netherlands never have to do school runs.
Your groceries will get to you faster the less unneccessary road users are there due to less induced demand. Do you honestly think countries that heavily rely on public transport don’t have businesses that use the road regularly? Do you honestly think they have no emergency services (ambulances, firetrucks, police cars)? Have you actually thought about examples of how countries that actually exist using good public transport amenities and dense housing operate? Or are you just against change?
You meticulously avoided all hard questions. No problem, I just repeat them for you:
I wonder how a train is picking up my walking disabled mother from three Kilometres afar?
Will a train stop at my house to pick up my some two tons of gardening scraps per year?
At which time will it deliver my 100kg of groceries per week?
Also, How does a long distance train help my mother to get the 3km to her doctor?
How does a train help me buying building materials? Last week I bought 400kg of tiles. One drive with a car. It would have taken ten travels with a train if the train did stop inside the hardware store and directly in front of my house. Delivery by truck would have cost €50.
A “micro car” is not only insanely expensive, it also has no room for my mothers wheelchair.
My country has one of the best public transport systems in the western world. Everything you mention is available here. We can drive EVERYWHERE for a €49 flat rate and we have three bus stops within 100 metres. Still that doesn’t help to solve a single problem I mentioned earlier.
Oh, and spending €245 for a family trip in a train? Not gonna happen. With the car it is a €10 trip.
But there is a actually a solution which could work: Robotaxis at very low prices per km. It wouldn’t lower the traffic but reduce the parked cars and the TCO of personal transport.
Please give me moar bullshittery to mock you. It is fun.
I didn’t avoid your questions but if you would like to move your goalposts I can attempt to accomodate you.
The use of a microcar with a wheelchair is a very realistic possibility. In actual fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they already exist precicely because microcars are designed for people who are disabled. You know, the same people most likely to be wheelchair users?
I also find it so funny that you’re complaining about the potential cost of purchasing a microcar but a full size car is a justifiable expense to you.
Where in the fuck is a trip costing 235 Euros that costs you 10 Euros by car? That type of cost disparity is not even a thing in the UK, where there is some of the worst teains in all of Europe. That’s simply a shit public transport system. Unlimited journeys through the interrail system across 33 countries in Europe for one month costs 704 Euros.
That’s not even taking into account the fact that your mother would not be 3km away from some form of public transport service if your mother’s government was actually made of competent people.
In the United States, I don’t know how you’d accomplish this. It would be impossible for almost all rural neighborhoods unless we’re going to build a grocery store within walking distance of most homes.
This is one of those liberal (I rarely leave my home) notions whose heart is in the right place but is ultimately stupid.
Note the picture says “urban”, not rural neighborhoods. There’s no reason to think we can’t have train infrastructure connecting to rural areas though. The point would be to make our infrastructure human centered and supplement it with appropriate public transportation based on density. It can be done by rethinking how we zone and getting away from designing everything with cars and space for cars in mind. Not saying we do away with cars because they definitely serve a purpose the way we have things now, but gradually build up the non-car infrastructure so that cars are less needed over time. If we can imagine it in a way that works, we can accomplish it.
Yeah, but am I incorrect that the Netherlands is a fairly temperate place, if not on the cooler side? I don’t think you’ll convince most people to bike to work in the south, in the country, in 95+ degrees fahrenheit heat.
Ebikes can work wonders for that, in my experience. I’ve biked to work in 95 and humid weather and wasn’t super sweaty by the end (office job). The ebike allows you to pedal less and get more breeze going past you, which makes a MASSIVE difference in how hot and sweaty you get, especially on hills.
I would not have even considered that with a non-electric bike.
Ooh well in fact millions of people do ride bicycles for transportation every single day.
In Japan, like many other countries, women ride bikes for everyday transportation. They are so ubiquitous they are called “mamacharis” which loosely translates to ‘Mom-chariots.’
Every train station, shopping center and school in Japan has hundreds of not thousands of bicycle parking racks, similar to what you would find in the Netherlands.
My wife bought a bike in Japan for $400 and rode everyday, even in the countryside you see riding everyday. It’s totally normal. You see it all over in Asia. So people do ride, even when it’s hot and humid. Often with 1-2 kids on top of groceries, which weigh upwards of 50+ pounds of weight.
They can, but it’s a multi trillion dollar century plus endeavor that well require eminent domain millions of properties in order to make enough space for the conversion. Infrastructure still needs to go some place, and you need to replace millions of sfh with apartments. My city doesn’t even have any land left to build more train lines. It’s just 30 miles of gridded small lots.
Further, policy-wise, we don’t need eminent domain. We don’t need to forcefully destroy everything. We just need to abolish the restrictive zoning and parking minimums that are stopping the invisible hand of the free market from providing us with density, walkability, and transit-oriented development.
That’s not going to fly today. Today, citizens can sue the jurisdiction and actually win, unlike the 1950s or '70s. And cities aren’t going to be able to target minority dominated neighborhoods like they did in the past, or they’re going to be in a real shitstorm both politically and legally.
You actually should have a grocery store in walking distance. And a pharmacy, a dentist, a doctor, bars and restaurants, a kindergarten,… That’s how you get wrid of cars, indeed.
You could just put yourself in a coma and get fed by a tube. But yes, you can order from online stores. And if we all confine ourself to Amazon and then in the near future they would be governing us because they would be talking care of our basic needs.
You need small businesses. They are a cornerstone of society. Your food that is gron locally has to be sold locally. Otherwise you lose efficiency.
That’s a valid point. And I don’t see any problem with that. You live further form the city? You pay more for drinking water, electricity, etc… Because society has to invest more to bring those basic needs out there. I also feel like road taxes are supposed to be calculated on the distance you travel yearly.
I live in a very densely populated country and to live isolated is quite uncommon but people that build houses more rural are obliged to make some extra investments.
Gas heating is common over here and not so long ago the goal was to provide every house with gas. They changed that and now you have to be mor e self sufficient if you decide to build a house away outside of city limits. Same for sewage. You’ll have to invest in your own filtration. And so on…
A huge problem with public transportation is safety and usability for small children, the elderly, and people with disabilities or who are sick. All these people often can’t use bikes or scooters. They have problems with having to wait standing and constantly out of order escalators and elevators.
I don’t own a car and live in a place with relatively good public transportation. That’s the biggest problem I see, next to how badly organised it is (at least here in Germany).
American here, I have a disabled family member. Cars are ultimately harder on them because they physically cannot lift themselves into a car while also stowing their 200lbs wheelchair.
A bus or train doesn’t have that problem and are therefore better.
And the more walk able the area the better because it makes it far easier. I’m sure there are disabled and elderly people who have an easier time using cars. But to say in a broad sweeping generalization that it’s better for all disabled and elderly people is a mistake. Cars should not be the first go to for a solution.
And kids can’t even use cars. They are dependent on public transportation and the walkability in their area.
It’s just a problem that needs to be fixed and is rarely mentioned (if at all). Especially the unreliable elevators + escalators.
Additionally, many trams and busses here have narrow stairs to enter or a huge gap to the floor. Some bus drivers refuse to help people in wheelchairs, they will just claim the bus is too full so they don’t need to build the ramp. For the trams, there’s no way to get in with a wheelchair.
Ironically, these were meant to have enough space for at least one wheelchair. But the entrance is not friendly, for various reasons.
I have a mild disability and often can’t use the public transport because I struggle with stairs. Than I have to wait for a tram with a new model or walk around the city to a stop with no stairs.
They still build crossings like these and call it “modernized” …
For kids the biggest problem is that in a lot of vehicles the stop isn’t announced. And when the bus is (too) full they can’t see the monitors or out of the windows. (That’s a problem for all very short people I guess.)
I have more trouble with cars in my day to day life than with the issues of public transit. I just wanted to add that public transit has to be done better. But if you dare to criticise it people lose their minds here. And pretend you are against public transit and a car fetishist. -.-
It seems so odd to me that the transit doesn’t have accessibility for those in scooters or wheelchairs. In nearly every city in Canada I’ve been to, their underfunded bus systems all have a wheelchair access door and systems to lower the bus for easier access.
A lot of the busses have it here, but not all. It also depends if you are lucky enough the bus driver is actually helping.
For the trams it’s worse. To safe money they want to wait until the old trams get decommissioned, even when they are hard or impossible to use for disabled people. They also still build crossings made out of stairs, with no other way to reach the other side of the track unless you want to take a huge detour. Just because it’s cheap.
Germany loves their cars more than people realise…
Maybe you could try to get people in your communities to take pictures of these difficulties and write to their politicians how it is inadequate service. Perhaps there could be retrofitting done to the existing services and new regulations made for new devlopments. It seems wrong for transit not to service people with mobility issues, they can often be the ones who can most benefit from it.
The skybridge would be required to be made accessible in the USA, regardless of whether its public or private. There are very limited exceptions to ADA requirements - the second the private company spent money “modernizing” a station without installing accessibility aids, they’d have opened themselves up to a lawsuit to compel them to make the station accessible.
I would imagine that Germany is no different that a lot of Western European countries in thinking it is better than the US (because it IS in a lot of ways). Would “we treat the disabled worse than Americans do” effectively trigger German national ego toward change? So long as you keep the convo focused on accessibility and not universal healthcare ;)
I don’t know why it would matter how it is any other country? I’ve only really heard that in a private conversation, like “I was in XY for vacation and they had better whatever”. But never as a political argument lol
Perhaps if it’s a comparison to a direct neighbour like Austria or Switzerland since they are similar and a lot of Germans move there.
Sorry, it seemed like that’s what you were implying.
Additionally, many trams and busses here have narrow stairs to enter or a huge gap to the floor.
It seems like there is quite a bit of difference in the construction of busses/trains between our countries which was causing us to talk past each other. For reference, here is a standard bus entrance:
I know there are some train/tram systems that aren’t as good as this, and it isn’t the standard, but it should be.
They still build crossings like these and call it “modernized”
Yeah that’s some bullshit.
For kids the biggest problem is that in a lot of vehicles the stop isn’t announced.
Here that’s not so much of a problem. All busses have voice announcements and an LED display for the next stop. I’m not quite sure about the trains though because there are basically none in my city.
And when the bus is (too) full they can’t see the monitors or out of the windows. (That’s a problem for all very short people I guess.)
That’s not too hard of a problem at least, as you can run more busses on a line to deal with overcrowding.
You are destroying my fantasy that everything in Western Europe is better. But this would be extremely unlikely to have happened in the US in this day and age - the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) would have required the station (be it public or private) to have reasonable accomodations for the disabled. In Florida, for example, PalmTran stations would have an elevator on either side of the tracks to get you onto the skybridge.
I think people have a somewhat narrow view on countries in Western Europe. Every country is very diverse. It makes a huge difference whether you are in Bavaria, Brandenburg or Hamburg, etc. These are all in Germany but parts of the law can be different.
I live in Nordrhein Westfalen where it is okay if there is any alternative for disabled people. For example, you could drive to another station which has an elevator and than use the bus to come back. ( ་ ⍸ ་ )
I guarantee you, you have universal healthcare, and every one of those provinces. And very little issue with mass shooting. Or a legal system that keeps a significant portion of your minority population from being able to vote
You should make a complete new thread discussing these issues. Fuck Cars shouldn’t be only about moving towards public transportation, but also about making sure that public transportation is good. I have a lot of trouble using buses too, so it is only sensible to bring up the issue to make sure that solutions include everyone.
Elderly people use electric mobility scooters at Disney literally all the time. They’re pretty great for the elderly so long as there’s accessability ramps everywhere.
Escalators and elevators being out of service seems like an issue of lack of investment in public transit.
And cities can be built around public transit and micromobility while still allowing cars. Generally, you’ll have better access for emergency vehicles, and you can do the same for people with disabilities.
I feel like people misunderstand my post. That it is a lack of investment is 100 % true. I want more investment and better public transport. People here seem to think I want to have cars, but that’s not my point?!
One of the leading causes of death for children in North America is from cars. Well funded and built transit should be accessible to all in their urban areas. Stops should have sheltered waiting areas with adequate and maintained seating. Good maintanence and funding would reduce equipment failures in elevators and other equipment. Ideally we densify around this transit as well which would help to reduce travel distances for people with movement disabilties and promote walkability. 95% of the time well designed and funded transit paired with good urban density and zoning will be more accessible to those with disabilities than private vehicle ownership.
Federalism is the key impediment to a sensible transportation policy, though. Corpo stakeholders drive sprawl. Developers have legislatures captured to a degree that exceeds even the gun lobby. 50 different state governments, with thousands of local governments, with a federal government that is unable to plan beyond the next election - the US is fucked. There are way too many entry points for bad faith actors to wreck a good plan. More opportunities for direct democracy and recall could help, plus rank-choiced voting, plus dosing the water with Wellbutrin to turn off people’s worry about supernatural bullshit, and we might get somewhere.
That’s definitely not a problem everywhere. The buses we use in Canada are very disability friendly and we have programs to teach kids how to ride the bus alone. We have bike racks on the front of our buses too, so we can combine modes of transportation.
The biggest problem with public transit over here is lack of funding and infrastructure. The bus system is intentionally kept shitty here so that people will opt to buy cars where possible.
Here the public transit was sold to private companies by the government. It still costs a huge sum of money but they have less strict laws when it comes to accessibility. The government is very much a boot licker of the car industry here and Germany in general has a weird car culture.
“Barely functioning” is good enough for public transport, that seems to be the overall attitude, even in the general population.
People here have no trouble walking to stops and bikes / scooters are common, so the premises are there. But instead of taking the final leap and improving public transportation so that more people switch, they are currently moving backwards it seems.
That’s nice, not everyone lived in the city as kids and not everyone is comfortable letting their young children roam the city alone. Everyone has different lives.
Even in a country it depends on the state or city. In Munich and even around Tegernsee in Bavaria they have it better organised than in some places here in NRW. It’s because so many different private companies are responsible.
Most of those people can’t drive cars either. A lot of people with disabilities ride public transit because they can’t drive. And you still have people using them as a scapegoat for car dependancy.
A huge problem with public transportation is safety and usability for small children, the elderly, and people with disabilities
Probably because all of them can drive. Sarcasm. You just named all groups that will not get driver license. Expecially children and disabled.
They have problems with having to wait standing and constantly out of order escalators and elevators.
Everyone have to wait. Everyone hates standing. Maybe just do proper benches, maintanance of escalators or remove steps? Well, probably Germany don’t have problems with last one.
I wonder if they made the lane long to allow for more merging options with the bike lane. I wouldn’t want to be in that bike lane, but it may be safer with a longer lane ( at least in theory).
Heck, even free-market capitalists have a good reason to hate cars: parking minimums, exclusionary zoning, and other government policies that prop up, mandate, and subsidize car dependence are massive barriers to the invisible hand doing what it wishes. If we didn’t have those in place, I think the invisible hand would be building us a significantly less car-dependent world than we currently live in.
That’s how you know you’ve likely stumbled upon something good: when wildly different ideologies (maintaining ideological consistency) converge upon the same conclusion. Of course, the matter of ideological consistency (or lack thereof) is exactly how we get self-described libertarians defending restrictive zoning and parking minimums.
This is the angle I come at the issue from. Prohibitive zoning and perverse incentives for car use are skewing what the market would otherwise provide.
One of the few issues where free market liberals 🤝 socialists 🤝 libertarians
Less stressful. I never have to worry about accidentally killing anyone, except for that time I bought worcestershire sauce because I didn’t know it had anchovies
I really like Worcestershire, I was heartbroken to learn it wasn’t vegan. Now I have to put Nando’s hot sauce in my spaghetti sauce and who knows what they put in that?
Not in Singapore, but I see a lot of people in my area doing this. I’ve always wondered how the unafraid part works when the bike is obviously over $5k.
Unfortunately wouldn’t deter anyone where I live… addicts will flip that for $20 within an hour, and go get their drug fix, before the owner even has a chance to catch the thief
Even worse are the organized criminals driving around in SUVs looking for high end bicycles, a good few videos of them all over xitter sadly, brazen enough to follow people home and rob them in their driveway
Death penalty for drugs, chewing gum is illegal, porn is illegal, mandatory national service if you’re a (male) citizen… If you keep looking it looks less and less like a good trade.
The first paragraph is just about every city in Canada right now. Can’t even mow our front lawn with the garage open because they run into your garage and snatch it before you can run after them. Although I haven’t heard of quite the extremes of the second paragraph here yet.
have you seen that ad showing people simulating traffic but without the cars? it’s just even more poignant as it shows how absurdly inefficient cars are at transporting people (on average a car contains 1.2 people).
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.