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.
do people who drive cars consider any concession of the public realm to pedestrians, public transit or bicycles to constitute advocacy of "completely car-free" cities?
Conversely, do people who don't drive cars consider that streets were built for vehicular traffic, from the horse and mule cart on up? Or that people might actually *gasp* enjoy driving?
I'm saying that going on about people's "insecurities" is a way of accusing them of having mental health issues, yes. It puts the accuser in the role of the "well" person, while the accused is "sick".
My opinion is that you're once again exaggerating. Most people are insecure about something, some more than others. I have my insecurities in life, and I don't have any mental health issues (my wife may occasionally disagree with that). Your categorization of what I said is a diagnosis that I disagree with, so don't pin me as accusing people of being sick.
Conversely, do people who don't drive cars consider that streets were built for vehicular traffic, from the horse and mule cart on up? Or that people might actually *gasp* enjoy driving?
So can I take a mule cart out on Little River Turnpike?
I didn't think so. I recall once seeing a print of a NYC street from the late 19th century - a disorganized mass of carts, carriages, street cars, pedestrians, push cart vendors, etc - didnt look like ANYTHING could move efficiently in that.
I am not sure why that would be considered a model for transportation infrastructure today.
Most people I know who call themselves "urbanists" own and drive cars. Many or most car free households include licensed drivers, who find being car free works for them in their current position. Most people who are not licensed drivers, use a bus, cab, or get a ride in a car from time to time. So I suspect pretty much all of them accept that infrastructure has to accommodate the automobile.
Conversely, do people who don't drive cars consider that streets were built for vehicular traffic, from the horse and mule cart on up? Or that people might actually *gasp* enjoy driving?
Actually, that isn't true--streets were a mixture of wagon, rail and pedestrian traffic until well into the automobile era. Look at street scenes prior to about 1910-1920 and you see a mixture of everything on the road: bicycles, streetcars, human-drawn and animal-drawn wagons and carts, people on foot. Similarly, intercity roads were intended for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
I own a car, so I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of people who don't drive. If someone enjoys driving, that's fine by me...but why should I have to subsidize their hobby?
given the success of this business Car Sharing, an alternative to car rental and car ownership – Zipcar
I would suggest that most people who dont own cars are NOT interested in an ideological boycott of the automobile. They have simply made a pragmatic (and maybe a little bit idealistic) lifestyle choice.
the thing is its so divorced from the reality of real world urbanist analysis, which IIUC has spent a lot of time talking about the benefits to family budgets of one less car per household, not turning 2 or 3 car households into car free ones.
I agree. No one is going to advocate for a car-free city. Just a city that focuses more on the pedestrian and supplements good public transit in, out and around the city.
I've stated before that I hate driving, but part of our plan to become carless is to get involved with a car-sharing program. This allows us to cut our living expenses, while still being able to function comfortably in our lifestyle. If we need a car once or twice a month, then we'll have one for an hourly rate. It's a lot less of burden than all the headaches of owning a car.
I live in a neighborhood where there is little direct need for a car; however i own and use my car frequently; my job requires it but even without i would still own a car. I love the urban and car free environment but also do not advocate that people should not have their choice. That being said i am in general an advocate for much less car reliance in development style
As someone who lived in both an urban environment using the NYC Subway system and in suburban CT using a car, I much prefer using a car in a suburb. A car provides an unparallelled level of freedom over a train/subway/rail. A car can transport you to a very precise location on a map, and you are allowed to blast your music as loud as you wish, without sitting next to a smelly stranger. You can also adjust heating and AC controls to your liking. You can also store heavy items in your vehicle, instead of lugging bags all over the place. Been there done that. And no waiting times for a train to arrive. People who work in large metro areas, such as NYC generally have long commutes. The average commute time in the U.S. is 25 minutes. If the U.S. switched to 100% high speed rail, I guarantee you that number will increase. Who the hell wants to spend hours a day commuting? No thanks.
I wouldn't even use public transportation if it was available in my area, to get to work. It's also not practical for running errands. What if I have to stop at a store to go grocery shopping on the way home? What about getting a haircut? These things are not always easily located right next to a train station.
I haven't read all of the threads on this forum, but I haven't noticed a strong car-free bent; I'm living without a car and sometimes share those experiences, but I don't think that it's likely that everyone out there can or wants to live like that.
As far as making things less auto-centric, I think focusing on making it possible for people to live more of their life (and ideally all of their life) without a car makes sense. That way even if you DO have a car (and plan on keeping it), you can still do everything you need to do when your car is in the shop, or if you have a family and want to cut down to one car without giving up independence.
I agree that the car-sharing programs are one of the most exciting developments out there. So many people (including on some of these threads) have said that they don't want to get rid of their car because they want to go to the grocery store, or IKEA, or wherever; it's a significant investment to buy, maintain, and insure a car for such uses. For those people it's often both cheaper and easier (assuming they live in an area where car-shares are available) to just ditch the car and go with the car-share for the big shopping trips, and rent a car when taking a driving trip. They also work great for second car uses.
I don't think cars are evil or that no one should ever drive, just that society should be reworked to make driving truly optional. I think there are environmental, social, and economic benefits to doing so. I think that type of community is good for everyone, drivers and non-drivers alike. And as someone who had a medical issue (seizure) a few years ago and would have had my license suspended for six months, I was happy that I already had planned my life so that I could get around without depending on a car.
In any case, I think focusing on addressing how people can live without a car helps those who only want to less dependent on their cars, too. I don't think people need to or should get militant about it, as cars definitely have their uses.
(although as far as car-free cities go: got to say, Venice is my all-time favorite city, in part because there are no cars! It's such a compact, walkable place. I don't think it's possible to artificially replicate it, but there are lessons to be learned from there. Some things work very well, others not so well.)
If the U.S. switched to 100% high speed rail, I guarantee you that number will increase. Who the hell wants to spend hours a day commuting?
One more time folks. High Speed Rail is an intercity mode, as a general rule that term is NOT applied to commuter rail or light rail. Why is this so confusing?
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.
Conversely, do people who don't drive cars consider that streets were built for vehicular traffic, from the horse and mule cart on up? Or that people might actually *gasp* enjoy driving?
