Whenever people where I now live ask what America is like I explain that you can't even purchase food without first owning a car (with a few exceptions).
It's a factor of whether the city was built before the industrial revolution. Humans will always default to the easy path.
I think it's the exact same paradigm for software bloat. By having higher powered computers, we build websites without needing to optimize, so now you need a high powered computer to run them.
Building a city without cars is like developing a video game 30 years ago, much more deliberate use of limited resources.
I think part of it was just a cultural preference, perhaps due to the communal nature of Japanese society. Another part of it was to avoid having to import oil, and to not waste wealth on cars. Gas, and vehicles, were taxed heavily, and still are.
- the US allows overnight street parking in many places. In Japan overnight street parking is banned.
- the US mandates a minimum level of parking in pretty much all construction that in practice is very excessive; most developers build the minimum and nothing more, because they don't feel they need the parking (and often the lots are rarely full). Japan has some parking minimums but they are small. And there is no pressure to increase parking minimums to lessen demand for street parking, because overnight street parking is banned.
- when buying a vehicle, Japan requires "proof-of-parking" in a space that is either owned or leased by the buyer. No such mandate exists in the US, so you can buy a car without having provided a place to park it.
The above and other policies basically combine so that Japan has free-market parking with specific properties and buildings provided by the market as demand warrants. Whereas the US builds seas of parking without evidence of demand, so every property is surrounded with a sea of parking that pushes properties further from each other and causes driving to increase in a vicious cycle.
https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan....
good point. seems a little different in the US since lots of towns were settled after the industrial rev. Japan being an island I would imagine most land was already accounted for.
It might be that instead of constrained by travel, they are constrained by real estate value.
Especially now with everyone using post pandemic delivery, it will get even easier to not have to own a vehicle.
As an example: the neighborhood I've lived in for a decade used to be a relatively low-income neighborhood. Rents were low in the old buildings, most folks walked to their jobs in the medical area, and there was a cheap Shaws grocery store for food, as well as several fast food places and family-run storefronts. Public transit (light rail, buses, and commuter rail) was accessible close by.
Then a development company bought nearly all of the parcels along the main road and built a wall of mid-to-high-rises. Accordingly, all rent in the area went way up, forcing most of the lower-income folks out of even the older, shittier tenement buildings. A Target went in, and the Shaws rebranded as the more expensive Star Market (and will soon close so they can build a new Whole-Foods-type expensive megastore). All of the small storefronts closed, and now the area is nearly entirely high-end shopping outlets and expensive gastro-restaurants. They shut down the bus lines running through the neighborhood because all the rich people who moved in have cars (Porsches and Lambos now rev through the neighborhood at all hours) and bus ridership was down.
Where did all of the folks -- and their families -- previously able to afford the area go? To areas of Boston where the rent is still cheap. Many of these places are nowhere near good public transit (e.g. if someone moved from this area of Boston to Dorchester, then took transit to their same job, it would require 3-4 transfers on packed buses and trains). So now these people are forced to get a car as well.
The worst part of all of this is: who wins here? Not the people forced to leave their neighborhood, not the people who suddenly need to buy a car, not the people who can no longer afford to run a restaurant in the area... not even the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas). The developers win. They pumped as much money as they could out of the neighborhood, and then moved on to their next target, leaving a less livable city in their wake.
So even if you're a middle-class/upper-middle-class tech worker who wants to live in the city:
1.) Many of the tech jobs are in the suburbs and you mostly need a car to get to them. (There are today more jobs in the city again but many aren't.)
2.) Many of your friends probably live in transit unfriendly suburbs so you'll probably find it hard to get together with them unless they come in to meet you.
Of course, people adapt to what is easier for them and just behave accordingly.
Why don't these people win?