Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's tempting to think this, but europe has a very unique position in the global economy as a pretty well-buffered low-immigration middleman continent (of course this is very much generalizing, but I'm starting with your generalization).
We do need to become "more" like europe in that we need to increase transit options for our own benefit and for future sustainability. That said, could the US economy function right now if we magically got rid of the suburbs and cars and we woke up tomorrow and all of our cities looked like Europe's? Not at all.
The poor, disenfranchised immigrant residents of Paris's outer suburbs--many of whom must deal with incredibly inequitable transit options like buses that only come a couple times a day--would LOVE to have a car. Having a car would give them many more options, like many immigrants have in the US. (or, you know, the french could stop being so racist and maybe provide some transit options.... but here's my point--transit dependance without a readjustment in our capitalist values will be bad)
I'm not saying the world is hunky-dory for immigrants in the US because they have cars, but the widespread use of the personal auto has allowed for an economy in the US that can accommodate more immigrants than Europe can.
I'm open to debate on this, but I'm firm that everyone at least needs to get beyond knee-jerk reactions and stereotypes and look at things more closely.
That's a pretty good post, but in the middle there I detect that you seem to be saying all immigrants in the US have cars and most if not none of those in specifically Paris don't. Also, how are the French racist by not 'provid[ing] some transit options....'? I would think, if there is a lack of 'transit options', which I'm not sure about, there would be nothing 'racist' about it.
One of worst estate in France
bois du temple (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolasoran/3948150445/in/photostream/ - broken link) by Nicolas Oran (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolasoran/ - broken link)
Generally you have huge car park and housing block around and the car parks are not empty.
it's tempting to think this, but europe has a very unique position in the global economy as a pretty well-buffered low-immigration middleman continent (of course this is very much generalizing, but I'm starting with your generalization).
We do need to become "more" like europe in that we need to increase transit options for our own benefit and for future sustainability. That said, could the US economy function right now if we magically got rid of the suburbs and cars and we woke up tomorrow and all of our cities looked like Europe's? Not at all.
The poor, disenfranchised immigrant residents of Paris's outer suburbs--many of whom must deal with incredibly inequitable transit options like buses that only come a couple times a day--would LOVE to have a car. Having a car would give them many more options, like many immigrants have in the US. (or, you know, the french could stop being so racist and maybe provide some transit options.... but here's my point--transit dependance without a readjustment in our capitalist values will be bad)
I'm not saying the world is hunky-dory for immigrants in the US because they have cars, but the widespread use of the personal auto has allowed for an economy in the US that can accommodate more immigrants than Europe can.
I'm open to debate on this, but I'm firm that everyone at least needs to get beyond knee-jerk reactions and stereotypes and look at things more closely.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with adequate public transit. But we have to be realistic.
being "realistic" is whats holding us back. i don't know if its short sided thinking or thinking that building a single stop must take 234234234234234 trillion but something has to give.
i think i said earlier that it should be done at a federal level. forget the state and local govts for this.
Cars are not uncommon in any developed city, even very crowded ones like Seoul, Tokyo, or Hong Kong. They aren't as common as some other places, but even in Tokyo, the average is one car for every two households. So about half of the households have a car around.
Cars don't have to be eradicated in order to make public transit better.
Cars are not uncommon in any developed city, even very crowded ones like Seoul, Tokyo, or Hong Kong. They aren't as common as some other places, but even in Tokyo, the average is one car for every two households. So about half of the households have a car around.
Cars don't have to be eradicated in order to make public transit better.
Exactly - I need a car for my job - travel often in a hundred mile radius but when home I do not need one. But regardless better transit doesnt mean no cars or carless environements. In many I think of cabs as a form of PT also and buses both motor vehicles
And honestly I walk just about everywhere when I am in the city (or cab and sometimes subway) but also love having my car to get to the shore, visit friends/family in the burbs, trips further afield. All can work together it isnt an either or
Some people confuse being pro-transit as anti-car. There is a time a place for every mode of transit. For example, when I travel to SF, I take transit. It is faster than waiting in traffic and cheaper than paying for parking or circling the block for 30 minutes to find a spot. When I visit other Bay Area cities, I drive. I'd like to have the option to use transit more.
At the end of the day, not every person is going to have a car due to economic reasons, health reasons of personal preference. Right now cities are designed to assume the only way to get somewhere is to drive. I am sure in your town you have one of those mega-strip malls where people drive from one side to the other since traversing the parking lot is dangerous or it just seems really far away. People are looking for urban planning that takes into account all of the uses and audiences: walkers, bikers, drivers, people in wheelchairs etc.
being "realistic" is whats holding us back. i don't know if its short sided thinking or thinking that building a single stop must take 234234234234234 trillion but something has to give.
i think i said earlier that it should be done at a federal level. forget the state and local govts for this.
Plenty if of people use and rely in cars in Asia and Europe. You are the only one talking about getting rid of cars. Also how would you make cities more affordable. Should the FEDs fix that too?
has anybody in the entire thread said that we need to get rid of cars? because i sure haven't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
