The future is dense, walkable cities.

[BrightShinyGirl]

Car suburbs were a failed experiment from the last century. Forcing people to drive everywhere was great for the oil and car industries, but private cars turned out to be an ecological disaster, not to mention the fact that many American cities were gutted to build car infrastructure. Entire neighborhoods were razed to build highways and parking lots.

The way forward is to redirect public spending on car infrastructure to buses and trains. Convert lanes that are currently used for on-street parking into dedicated bus and bike routes. Bring back streetcars. Impose heavy penalties on careless drivers who kill pedestrians.

It will take decades to undo the damage that the private car has done to American cities, but European and Japanese cities can be used as models for how we can get rid of traffic and make our cities easier to get around in.

 

[jaF0]

Dun do'od this thread ....

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/15-minute-cities.1585754/


.

 

[KeithD]

I don't see Americans giving up personal conveyances.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don't see Americans giving up personal conveyances.

I do, if public transit is both cheaper and faster at getting people from point A to point B than personal vehicles.

That just leaves the niche for travel, which would reduce the need for houses to have multiple cars.

 

[KeithD]

I do, if public transit is both cheaper and faster at getting people from point A to point B than personal vehicles.

That just leavers the nitch for travel, which would reduce the need for houses to have multiple cars.

There is a whole hell of a lot of territory that isn't covered by cities, isn't going to be covered by cities, and isn't ever going to be anywhere close to cities. If you look at a grid map of rail coverage in Europe against that of the United States, you get a very good idea of the grip the personal conveyance has on the United States. Mass transit isn't improving in the United States. It is, at best, remaining static.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Out of sheer curiosity, does anyone not have a car? (Relying primarily on public transit)

Just speaking for my urban world - Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, California - public transit takes easily three or four times as long to get anywhere, unless everything is on schedule and you time it perfectly, then it only takes twice as long.

 

[YDB95]

Just speaking for my urban world - Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, California - public transit takes easily three or four times as long to get anywhere, unless everything is on schedule and you time it perfectly, then it only takes twice as long.

In my experience (and I have spent some time in Santa Clara), that's an exception for areas of that size. It's at just exactly the wrong position in an area where the lay of the land means you have to spend a lot of time going around bodies of water.

 

[Paul_Chance]

In my experience (and I have spent some time in Santa Clara), that's an exception for areas of that size. It's at just exactly the wrong position in an area where the lay of the land means you have to spend a lot of time going around bodies of water.

Yeah, definitely challenging here due to geography and sheer size. I imagine each urban/suburban environment has its own similar challenges, such to make it one size does not fit all. You can get where you need to go, it's just very time consuming and the spread of bus stops (necessitating significant walking between stops) is pretty broad.

 

[wholesome_soul]

Speaking to this from Canada where everything is so freaking spread out. I didn't bother getting my license until very recently because living close to the city or just made so much more sense to use transit. The cost of a car, and driving into the city and around the city would take as much time and cost less than just using the subway. City people complain about the transit but having come from a smaller town, I promise their transit works much better than they think.

It's harder outside of the city area and the smaller towns, but everything in those towns is like a 15-20 minute drive that could easily be accomplished with public transit. It's just like a self fulfilling prophecy where the transit is so bad and people turn to cars and the lack of use and apathy kills the transit system.

There are so many little areas of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area where people who have cars just take transit because it's easier and faster than driving and having to find and pay for parking.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Car suburbs were a failed experiment from the last century. Forcing people to drive everywhere was great for the oil and car industries, but private cars turned out to be an ecological disaster, not to mention the fact that many American cities were gutted to build car infrastructure. Entire neighborhoods were razed to build highways and parking lots.

The way forward is to redirect public spending on car infrastructure to buses and trains. Convert lanes that are currently used for on-street parking into dedicated bus and bike routes. Bring back streetcars. Impose heavy penalties on careless drivers who kill pedestrians.

It will take decades to undo the damage that the private car has done to American cities, but European and Japanese cities can be used as models for how we can get rid of traffic and make our cities easier to get around in.

Another liberal pipe dream that will absolutely never occur. The rural population likes not being jammed into the miserable confines of an urban area where you have no privacy, no peace, and no quiet. If that is your choice have at it. It will never be mine and there are 10's of millions of people just like me with that very same attitude.

 

[YDB95]

Another liberal pipe dream that will absolutely never occur. The rural population likes not being jammed into the miserable confines of an urban area where you have no privacy, no peace, and no quiet. If that is your choice have at it. It will never be mine and there are 10's of millions of people just like me with that very same attitude.

Nothing BrightShinyGirl said contradicts any of this in any way. She was talking about solutions for the cities and suburbs, where a change is both needed and wanted. If you want to live in the country and continue driving everywhere, no one here is trying to stop that.

 

[Bray123]

The estate where I live was built with pedestrian walkways, underpasses etc. back in the 80's. It's within a decent walk / easy cycle ride of town and the industrial areas.

The only people I see using the walkways are those exercising their dogs. It's a nice idea but folks don't want to give up their cars for the commute. They're warm, dry and mean you don't arrive in the office sweating.

 

[jaF0]

I have a station wagon and a Tahoe. I go to town (30 miles away) once or twice a month. I make 5 or 10 stops at different stores, give or take a few depending on needs during that trip. Groceries, other household supplies, sometimes lumber or hardware.

Once I get home, it can take a half hour or more just to get everything unloaded and into the house.

Transit ain't gonna cut it for me.

.

 

[Chernosoth]

Density advocates tend to focus on the square mile and ignore the cubic foot. Without fossil fuels, we won't have air conditioning, elevators, and all sorts of crap that skyscrapers require. Extended families sharing tiny third, fourth, and fifth floor walkups will need healthy legs and tolerance for crowded living, like sharing a bed with the kids and inlaws. That and locally available food supply put the hard limits on population density.

 

[YDB95]

Without fossil fuels, we won't have air conditioning, elevators, and all sorts of crap that skyscrapers require.

Which is why we should be focusing on researching alternatives while there's still time. We beat smallpox and put a man on the moon, we can find a way to power air conditioners and elevators without fossil fuels.

 

[icanhelp1]

Which is why we should be focusing on researching alternatives while there's still time. We beat smallpox and put a man on the moon, we can find a way to power air conditioners and elevators without fossil fuels.

Yah! It’s called nuclear.

 

[Chernosoth]

Which is why we should be focusing on researching alternatives while there's still time. We beat smallpox and put a man on the moon, we can find a way to power air conditioners and elevators without fossil fuels.

That's a variation of what the US has been doing for over 40 years. Instead of expanding on the early attempts towards energy conservation, it chose Reagan's plan to make oil cheaper through big stick diplomacy. Now the oil is running out, so people who refuse to accept the inevitability of energy scarcity assume we can just wave it away with "alternatives." If we could really do that, then there wouldn't be the push for density.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There is a whole hell of a lot of territory that isn't covered by cities, isn't going to be covered by cities, and isn't ever going to be anywhere close to cities. If you look at a grid map of rail coverage in Europe against that of the United States, you get a very good idea of the grip the personal conveyance has on the United States. Mass transit isn't improving in the United States. It is, at best, remaining static.

Again, were not talking the whole country. This is for high density urban and high density suburbs. The big issues to over come are cost and time. AS long as it is cheaper, faster and more convenient to use a personal vehicle, that is what people will choose to do.

 

[YDB95]

Yah! It’s called nuclear.

If we'd funded more research, odds are we'd have achieved fusion by now.

 

[jaF0]

We keep missing the point (that was probably in the previous thread) that we had that all over the US and people chose to abandon it. Small town USA used to be that way. A cluster of businesses and government offices all within a few blocks. Houses surrounded 'main street'. People walked to and from daily, maybe a few times. Those a bit farther out used horses and/or buggies.

Some of those areas remain, but even in those many use motorized vehicles of some sort, even it it's a golf cart type vehicle.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yah! It’s called nuclear.

You remind me of a person in the 1900's saying yah the best transportation is trains,not those new fangled horseless carriages...

Nuclear has it's place,but it's the most expensive generator to build, and we have no real handle on what to do with the spent fuel cells. The US would need to double the number of Nuclear generator stations. While not a perfect system hybrid Renewable s are much cheaper to build and install, and there is much less difficulty to recycle the units at end of life and no spent fuel to deal with.

 

[wholesome_soul]

Density advocates tend to focus on the square mile and ignore the cubic foot. Without fossil fuels, we won't have air conditioning, elevators, and all sorts of crap that skyscrapers require. Extended families sharing tiny third, fourth, and fifth floor walkups will need healthy legs and tolerance for crowded living, like sharing a bed with the kids and inlaws. That and locally available food supply put the hard limits on population density.

Here majority of pollution isn't caused by things like elevators and the like. For AC there are a ton of architectural methods to combat temperature and use design to reduce heat and cold. It's not 100%, but there are ways to impact the use of powered temperature controls that are regional specific outside of the cookie cutter home designs used in the modern suburbs. It's manufacturing and transportation that cause the bulk of the issues, so the fossil fuels used for everyday living by the average person would be massively reduced. You talk about extended family living but the majority of humans and throughout history have lived this way. The isolation of modern cities and Western living arrangements honestly cause more problems that solutions from a sociological perspective.

I would also question the need for fossil fuels, though energy isn't my field. With nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, certainly the efficient use of all of these would reduce the need for fossil fuels?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Public transportation is dangerous in some parts of the country like California. People don’t like sharing trains and light rail with vagrants, junkies, and crazies. The Bay Area is a case in point:

MAIN REASON FOR LOW BART RIDERSHIP, FINANCIAL ISSUES RELEASED IN NEW SURVEY​

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The Bay Area Council released results of a survey Tuesday showing safety is the main reason why BART is experiencing low ridership numbers. Before 2020, BART was averaging around 400,000 riders a weekday. Now, they are only averaging between 100,000 and 150,000 per weekday.

"The system is facing a financial hole that is very hard to fill," said Bay Area Council Chief Operating Officer John Grubb. "Without it, we could lose the entire BART system."

The survey shows ridership declined when many stopped commuting and started working from home. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic under control, ridership still struggles. The survey shows 45% of people are choosing not to ride BART because they don't think it is safe. While 17% describe BART as safe.

https://abc7news.com/bart-ridership-safety-crime-bay-area-rapid-transit/13228110/

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Public transportation is dangerous in some parts of the country like California. People don’t like sharing trains and light rail with vagrants, junkies, and crazies. The Bay Area is a case in point:

MAIN REASON FOR LOW BART RIDERSHIP, FINANCIAL ISSUES RELEASED IN NEW SURVEY​

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The Bay Area Council released results of a survey Tuesday showing safety is the main reason why BART is experiencing low ridership numbers. Before 2020, BART was averaging around 400,000 riders a weekday. Now, they are only averaging between 100,000 and 150,000 per weekday.

"The system is facing a financial hole that is very hard to fill," said Bay Area Council Chief Operating Officer John Grubb. "Without it, we could lose the entire BART system."

The survey shows ridership declined when many stopped commuting and started working from home. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic under control, ridership still struggles. The survey shows 45% of people are choosing not to ride BART because they don't think it is safe. While 17% describe BART as safe.

https://abc7news.com/bart-ridership-safety-crime-bay-area-rapid-transit/13228110/

So it’s not safety, it’s that the people who used to use it to commute to work now work from home.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So it’s not safety, it’s that the people who used to use it to commute to work now work from home.

“The survey shows 45% of people are choosing not to ride BART because they don't think it is safe. While 17% describe BART as safe.”