It is boggling. We can't even start to think about having nice things until we diagnose this particular social disorder affecting America.
It is boggling. We can't even start to think about having nice things until we diagnose this particular social disorder affecting America.
Many people don't really believe that driving is wrong, or harmful. But supporting radical infrastructure changes to accommodate an alternative means admitting to that to a further extent that most people are comfortable with.
Car sharing. Taxi / Uber. Hybrids. Electric cars. Self driving cars.
The freedom to transport yourself is a powerful force for good, and socialized public transport and bikes are not a real solution in many / most places.
(am a biker, love biking, only commute by bike to work 3 months of the year)
Living somewhere where I commute by bike (or run!) every single workday, I'm curious as to what limits you to 3 months.
If you wish to explore how much, check out the good site: withouthotair.com chapter 3.
I feel like I could go on (road-related injuries, manufacturing sustainability, ...).
But jumping the shark with the personal automobile is certainly wrong and harmful.
From a social standpoint it manufactures inequality. Access to effective transportation is the single greatest factor in determining an individual's opportunity for upward economic mobility. And if you live in a world built for cars and can't drive, well, fuck you.
It's environmentally destructive. This one's easy, but it's important to note that it isn't just the emissions from the tailpipe, it's all the sprawl and infrastructure built to accomodate the car. Mankind has chalked up a lot of black marks in it's short history, but rendering the biosphere uninhabitable? That takes the cake. In the grand scheme of things, what the hell are we doing if we aren't at least making a nominal effort to leave the place in better condition than it was when we arrived?
Economically it's bad for us too. James Kunstler called the suburbs 'the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of western civilization'. When I first read that it struck me as a sensational and hyperbolic statement, but after having it knock around in my head for a few years, I don't think it is an outrageous claim to make.
One of the inherent contradictions of human nature is that we're surprisingly adaptable, yet stubbornly resistant to change. Nobody likes to be told they're doing it wrong, but what else is there to say? You're doing it wrong.
And better public infrastructure for biking here did came after a lobbying and money collection and what not from activists. They did not used the "you are all bad people unless we get what we want" nor "we are hollier then you" strategy. And yep, such strategy breeds more stubborn resistance - because while many people are with accepting bike trail and what not (it does not costs all that much in the grand scheme of things), once you insult them you pretty much lost before you even started.
Compare Washington, D.C., which is a smaller city: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Washington,+DC/@38.914686,.... The urban core is smaller, more like 2-3 miles in radius, but it's part of a large metro area with urban clusters connected by highways. The total population of the metro area is substantially more than double that of Amsterdam's.
If you work in Amsterdam, you probably live in Amsterdam. If you work in D.C., there is a good chance you're commuting in from some suburb. After spending more than an hour in traffic to get to the city, how do you feel about bikers whizzing around in a city with no separated bike lanes? How do you feel about losing traffic lanes to bikes in an already gridlocked city? How do you feel about spending billions on a train (much more than Europeans do on a per mile/per ride basis) that doesn't stop anywhere near your house, or run on time?
I don't think it's possible to redesign a city. It's like trying to rewrite software while its still running. Yeah, it's possible to do hot patches here and there, but you're not rewriting the guts.
> But they've also invested a lot in their train network and most people commute that way.
Most people in say D.C. don't commute by train not because D.C. hasn't invested enough in it, but because the suburbs "look different." D.C., for example, has invested a ton in its train network. As I mentioned above, despite being a smaller city, D.C.'s subway has four times as many miles of track as Amsterdam's. But most people still commute by car, because D.C., like most U.S. cities, is only a small portion of its larger metro area. Washington, D.C. has under 700,000 people, but is just one part of a metro area of 5 million people. Amsterdam has over 850,000 people, and dominates its urban area of 1.6 million people.
That urban/suburban mix drives people to car use. Jobs in the D.C. metro area are scattered all over. For example, most of the technology jobs "in D.C." are actually in Virginia, e.g. Google is mainly in Reston, which is 25 miles outside the city. If you draw a 25-mile ring around Amsterdam, you'll mostly hit farmland. Around D.C., you're actually hitting many of the major population and economic centers in Virginia and Maryland.
The dispersed nature of the jobs makes building transit very hard. Reston has a train station. Many people opposed it, however, not because of "social disorder," but because it was a $6-billion project that wasn't useful to them. You see, the train really only goes to D.C. But not that many people go between Reston and D.C. Aside from a handful of yuppies who might want to live in D.C. and commute to Reston, people who work in Reston drive in from Ashburn or Great Falls, or one of the other nearby suburbs. There is no rail network that connects these places, nor would it be practical to build one.
Building cities around cars didn't just result in people who are conditioned to drive rather than take transit. It created patterns of housing and employment that make it really hard to build transit after the fact. Fairfax County, a suburban county to the west of D.C., has more residents and almost as many jobs as D.C. itself. But the rail system is designed to get people from Fairfax County into D.C.--it does nothing to get people to all the jobs located in Fairfax County.
Loudon County, still further west from D.C., has almost half of D.C.'s population. There is no rail in Loudon. Nor would extending rail from D.C. be all that useful. Only 10,000 people from Loudon commute to D.C. (and almost nobody does the reverse commute). Meanwhile,65,000 commute to Fairfax County. Another 31,000 commute to another county within 20-40 miles. Try convincing people in Loudon to spend the money to build rail into D.C. when it would only benefit 10% of the commuters.
I think the solution is a combination of: 1) further uber-ification, 2) further bike/walking lane improvement, 3) further investment into trains, despite the problems you speak of now
1) I think more people should become Uber drivers (if not Uber, gov't should make an Uber-like app). Not necessarily for the money (although it is nice), but because of the ecological reasons. One of the great Uber-driver features is: you can set direction to go home, and have Uber-riders that are only going along this direction. I live in Boston suburbs, my roundtrip commute to work is about 3 hours. Picking up strangers along the way without losing a lot of time, I save the environment a little bit (less cars on the road) and make the roads less clogged. This is the technological benefit... an app that can intelligently connect riders going the same path (the olden days of finding car-sharing buddies in Craigslist et al was too difficult.. and going around posting flyers at workplace asking who here has somewhat the same commute is too much of a hassle both logistically and socially).
2) I used to park my car at a parking garage and then use a bike for last 10% of the commute (because the last 10% of the commute was actually the part that cost the most time... in Brookline where traffic was hell). I stopped doing that, even though I would save a lot of time because it's really terrifying, I swear I genuinely believe I would have been dead if I had kept doing it for 2 years more. My colleague got in an accident only last week (when he was walking home from work in Winthrop)... he broke BOTH of his legs. Too many people I know are dying or getting seriously injured when biking/walking.
3) You bring up good points about investment in train/bus infrastructure not being worth it in various part of US. But most of Boston and its suburbs are getting more and more crowded... it is starting to build UP (lots of highrises everywhere being recently built) and built across. What I'm getting at is, the US is growing (or rather, at least the big cities are starting to have more concentrated and more dense population hot spots), it does make sense to start investing NOW for infrastructure that will last us decades to come.
The DC area has already has a system for doing just this and there is no app involved. It's called "slugging". Because there are HOV restrictions on some major highways requiring you to have 2 or 3 people in the car to use them, an informal market developed between drivers and riders meeting at suburban parking lots. There's no cash changing hands because the payoff for the driver is the ability to use the HOV lanes (or the HOV-only highway in the case of I-66) for a much faster commute.
Although, one of the interesting things about the US is that a lot of the population of cities lives outside the city jurisdiction, for a variety of reasons including tax avoidance. The people who actually need to be persuaded aren't the people who drive into the city from the suburbs every day, they are the people who live inside the actual city, and those people need to make a judgment whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of this kind of approach (the risk being that the suburbs will simply develop new centres and bypass the city).
Of course. Amsterdam and other cycling friendly cities didn't start out that way. They had to be redesigned as such.
You can find plenty of historical photos of a car dominant Amsterdam.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-...
Americans seem unwilling to do that for some reason ..
Its a pity because there are so many wonderful aspects of transportation process in the American world - I'm looking at the "Jet/Air Parks" that have managed to survive, for example. The Dutch may have their bicycle advantage, but nobody does flight like America does.
So its really somehow quaint that Americans appear to be enslaved to their cars. Personally I blame designers of car interiors - these gilded thrones appear to have inflicted a mass neurosis on the customer.
In my suburban American town, there is one total bike lane on one single road in town and it's super, super annoying because it's rarely used and therefore an annoying distraction with very little positive impact. It doesn't really connect to anything or go anywhere useful.
I moved here from Munich where I rode my bike to work daily for 4 years and didn't own a car for much of the time.
I've also vacationed in Amsterdam a few times and loved renting the city bikes there. The volume of vehicle traffic there surprised me, however, and the stats in the article I think kind of downplay the feeling of the number of cars on the road there.
Point is, people's annoyance with how these things are implemented in the US is totally legitimate. They are usually half-assed bridges to nowhere kind of projects. And, yes, done that way they probably hold back real progress in implementing full-fledged viable bike/bus/rail projects. But that doesn't mean people criticizing their current form are not right.
What you really see is that because so many people were using bicycles everywhere people just got fed up having cyclists criss-crossing between cars and pedestrians and finally gave them their own lanes - out of pure annoyance.
So every US citizen that wants to have those nice lanes simply needs to make sure enough people on bicycles annoy the shit out of everybody else in the streets and you will get your lanes. Be sure to ride like a real asshole and practice flashing vulgar gestures while riding. Pretend you're invulnerable. Learn sequences of insults with lots of hard sounds in them. Nothing beats swearing in Dutch though. Every tourist almost hit by a cyclist in Amsterdam knows exactly what I mean! ;)
50 years ago traffic in the Netherlands was not unlike the US now. Until in the 70s an action group called Stop de Kindermoord (“stop the child murder”) succeeded in getting the government to pay attention and make a turnaround. I remember this from my own childhood. Many kids died in traffic accidents.
The attention to the safety of children is still present today, more bike lanes are being bult, kids need to do a traffic exam (on bikes) in 7th grade, existing roads are being remodeled for safety.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
Here in So. Cal, Metrolink trains are expensive and run very rarely. I have yet to go a week without a major delay or cancelled train. Bus and train schedules are essentially one way and leave early. Meaning I usually have to leave work around 3:30 to get home.
Not to mention that despite driving through some of the worst traffic in the state, trains and buses take two or three times as long to get me to my destination than my car. This is despite massive funding increases and bonds for public transit in our state.