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.
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
See, though you're fortunate to live in a city with good Public Transport. What about cities (like L.A) who pretty much depend on having a car?
I just don't think that's giving people options.
Also, I believe our Top 10-15 cities should all have reliable transportation AT LEAST in the city limits (everywhere not just a couple of color lines!) & it needs to be rapid.
I agree with eek, America (as a team) is far behind everyone else. But then when we "catch up" the other countries are looking at us like "Oh." Because they already been there and done that while we're thinking it's revolutionary. For America to be "the most powerful" blah blah blah, we suck at the most basic things.
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.
Sorry, I think I just like calling Europeans racist.
I was mainly just referring to transit inequality in general, which is a problem even in the US where commuter rail lines for white-collar workers are often promoted ahead of working-class bus service.
And no, I'm definitely not saying that every immigrant in the US has a car. That's absurd. And of course, plenty of poor people everywhere in the world have cars.
All I really want to add to this discussion is some understanding of economies and a realization that widespread good transit isn't effective for every type of urban economy.
American cities definitely have to still play catch-up--they need transit improvements for sure--but they also need better infrastructure of all sorts (including car bridges and better roads).
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.
Speaking of knee-jerk reactions, what is "transit dependence?" Are you saying once we build better public transit, we're going to outlaw cars or something? Do you really believe that? Depending on transit is an individual choice -- why wouldn't you still be able to drive your car as much as you want?
Transit dependence is a common term in planning -- transit dependent people don't have access to personal autos (they have no choice but to depend on transit).
Widespread transit dependence will happen whether we like it or not, just because of rising energy prices. I'm not saying anyone is going to "create" transit dependence.
All I'm saying is that we need to acknowledge that people have had more access to opportunities due to cars, on the whole (Yes, I realize that in the US we have gone WAY too far one way and have made it terrible for the existing transit-dependent).
As people start to become priced out of driving, we need to make sure that transit dependence doesn't just put people in "second-class citizenship" as it does now.
The people who "choose" transit--like the people on this site who could easily afford a car but choose not to--will always be fine since their education, background, appearance, experience, etc. affords them access to the jobs that are easily accessible via transit (i.e. white collar jobs in downtowns). It makes sense that often these people only think of cars as luxuries.
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
Exactly! It's all about balance and options. It's just that we've gone to far over the past 50 years in promoting auto-dependency. Slowly andd surely, many cities are moving back to a more balanced multi-modal transportation system.
If I was king of the Metro area, I'd provide fast, frequent transit to all corners of the city. I wouldn't waste dollars on sending buses out to sparsely populated suburban areas. I also wouldn't spend $ adding 20 miles of new lane to an existing freeway just so exurban dwellers could save 5 minutes on their commute every day. You wanna live in the burbs and drive your car? No problem, but you'd have to pay for the privlege in money and/or time. No more "free rides" for the automobile. And this from a guy who LOVES to drive!
It's mostly city-data. Sure cities are trying to density and reduce oil dependency but most people in real life are not so ardent and pro desnsity/public transit that they sh*t on a city for not being as dense/walkable as another. Most people in real life care about JOBS, stuff to do/culture, markets and affordability more then anything else. Density/walkability/public transit/ car dependency is on icing on the cake for real people.
I agree with this. I am single and about to turn 29. I think living in a big city might be exciting for a little while but like anything else you'd start taking it for granted. Right now I live in Lafayette, Louisiana, a small growing town of about 120k and there is very little walkability in this city outside of downtown itself and a few select neighborhoods. However to me, culture is more important, as well as the fact that I am employed, even if it means I dont live in the prettiest state, the most progressive city (Lafayette is at least trying) or the nicest area. I am surrounded by the Cajun culture that I love so much and family who for one reason or another, keep coming back here despite living in such far-off places as NY, Hawaii, Denver, Houston...
All that matters is I grew up here, Im not depressed all the time, there is maybe a week of actual winter cold, and more festivals and parties to count. I can fish and hunt to my hearts content, and the traffic is not absolutely ridiculous. People are genuinely friendly and open here. There are plenty of places to hang out and shop at even though it isnt the upper echelon stores. For car lovers there is a variety of exotica driving around the wealthier part of town. for nature lovers the beautiful Atchafalaya swamp land is 20 minutes away. The Pine national forests of central Louisiana are about an hour away. The music is unique and genuine. The food even more so.
Im sure its exciting being able to go outside your house and be enveloped in a million people walking by and stuff to do, but again,I could see it getting tired after a while and people just wanting to settle down someplace quieter and with a more sane pricetag. Here you can live some of the bigger city life but never be more than 5 miles from the great outdoors. Thirty minutes gets you to the Gulf, 2 hours to NOLA, and 4 hours the other direction to Houston. Its not a bad compromise if you think about it. And all of this is in a city that still operates like a smaller town and has pretty terrible infrastructure. Is this a great city for urbanites? Not likely. Is it a great city for many other people? Certainly yes!
Back when I was younger in the 80s and 90s, LA was largely considered to be a more exciting, dynamic, hip city than Chicago. Even without all the public transportation improvements in LA, and other great attractions in addition to everything else built in the last 20 years (IE: Getty Center) so many on online forums, think Chicago is a "real city", a better, or more "urban city"
I think what it all comes down to is basically centrally located convenience. Yes, public transportation is very important, absolutely, but do you think its simply trendy in the 2000s to simply be so anti-car?
People were no so anti-driving as they were 15-20 years ago as they are now. Do you think that it is more of a novelty to judge cities based on their public transportation and centralization than what the city and surrounding area actually have to see and do? I mean seriously.
I don't want this to turn into another LA versus Chicago thread. But the only thing I can think of, is that people are simply so extremely pro centralized and anti-driving to the extreme.
It does seem in the world outside of online forums, its not nearly so intense, but even still, people seem to feel as if they have to drive somewhere its not worth going to.
No, I think it's a lifecycle of sorts. Cars were really cool, convenient and exciting for decades. They were new and newly affordable for the general populace. People were sick of big urban cities because that's what cities were historically (and there were many issues there). The US was redefining lifestyle, and the nicer/fancier car you had, the better.
This is not the case anymore, at least from my perspective (maybe it's just starting on the decline). Gas prices are rising and roads have become MUCH MUCH more congested, thus reducing the quality of life for those that have to rely on them for many things. People my age have grown up sitting in cars, and I think that they're starved for something more interactive and more gritty.
That being said, I think places like LA were big because Hollywood was really big at that time and because car culture was at its pinacle (and for other reasons...LA is a great city). Now, I think that people want to be walk, be outside in a more interactive environment and thus trends are changing. Combine that with more urban cities fixing their pre-automobile issues (water quality, garbage removal, remodeled downtowns with less industry). That's all I got.
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.
