Comment by cobrausn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobrausn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Maybe this is my inner American Biker showing through here, but to me access to the roadway and the freedom to go where I want to, when I want to, without being dependent on the competency of others to get me there is a huge feeling of freedom. I can't stand not having my vehicle nearby.

When I was younger we lived about an hour away from the city. There was a gas station and a small grocery store near the out-of-the-way suburb where I lived. That was it. Getting my first car was a life-changing event for me that basically allowed me to become as independent as I am today, and 'going out for a drive' was just something I did as a young teen trying to keep himself entertained and trying to find new things to do. I ended up finding a Navy recruiter, but that's a different story.

I'm aware that the costs associated with this 'One Person - One Car' idea might not be scalable over the long term, and we should probably start offloading some of the costs associated with maintaining this paradigm onto the city driver while providing good alternatives. But I will always have a vehicle, no matter what it costs me.

I grew up in an exurb and know the feeling of freedom that finally having a car can give you. There wasn't much in my town and without a car, I couldn't even see most of my friends from school.

The greatest freedom of all is the ability to use your own legs to take you to where you want to go. Your idea of freedom changes when you live in a walkable area and realize that you don't have to rely on anything other than yourself to get you to most things in life.

See, I lived in upstate NY for a while in Saratoga Springs. You can walk all the way across that town very easily (I did a few times). But with my car I was able to drive up to the Adirondacks and go hiking on a whim, or drive myself and a bunch of other bored Navy guys across the border into Montreal as soon as we got off a 36-hour shift and had to be back in exactly 24 hours. Some of my local friends without vehicles ended up relying on me to get them anywhere outside of the city when they needed to.

There are definite advantages to living in an area where you rarely need a vehicle, but I will always want to own one anyway. :-)

I suppose you are an exception then, because the traffic problems, at least here in Toronto, arise from a large majority of people who positively do not need a personal vehicle for their day-to-day activities.

Well, I would argue that the traffic problems arise because of a failure on the part of city planners to design their roadways to accommodate the amount of traffic that they receive (not a problem unique to Toronto), but yes, the traffic problems would certainly be reduced if less people used vehicles.

Car traffic fundamentally isn't scalable in urban areas. The only failure on the part of city planners is attempting to accomodate that kind of selfish, wasteful behavior.

Please clarify on your "selfish" remark. Thanks!

Cars ruin the amenity of your city. Space taken up with roads and parking can't be used for anything else, and cars are dangerous to be in or around. If you know that, and still choose to drive, then you are, to some extent, selfish.

I think it's actually a bit more selfish to want people to give up their earned conveniences to satisfy your own particular desires, in this case, making the city 'how it should be', when it clearly works fairly well the way it is. Saying cities are 'ruined' by cars is hyperbole and guilt-based rhetoric, plain and simple.

> earned conveniences

Subsidized conveniences when you add it all up, really.

> when it clearly works fairly well the way it is

Aside from the traffic, smog, and high number of accidental deaths directly attributable to automobile traffic, you mean?

Agreed, no accidental deaths/smog if everyone walked/biked, but that doesn't mean city+cars aren't accomplishing their job of A to B. It isn't the cleanest or safest way, but I don't think he argued "greater good" so much as "good enough". If these were deal-breaker issues for everyone, then people would walk/bike instead of use cars (or just leave the city), but clearly cars are a definite "want" item.

Which is to say, yeah, I suppose we're selfish, but then again, owning property is selfish, comrade.

It's questionable to base public policy on individual choices when the costs of those choices are socialized and the benefits of those choices are privatized.

Idealistically sound, but not realistic. Roads and cars exist to meet a need (individual mobility and mass transit, primarily). At this time, that need also serves the public, and it is disingenuous to say that roads only benefit those with cars. Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath.

Also, as an aside, try riding a bike about 5 ~ 10 miles when it's 105 degrees out (pretty common where I live), or even hovering around zero (fairly common where I used to live). It's not fun, nor is it practical. It's a big part of why nobody does it.

> Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath.

They exist in most of the developed world; North America is the major exception. All that's required to create them here is good public policy, which was the topic to begin with.

Also, owning house and yard is a selfish waste of space compared to living apartments, but I don't hear too many people complaining. If a city were to say "NO CARS, TOO MUCH SPACE WASTED", then they might as well say "NO HOUSES OR YARDS, TOO MUCH SPACE SELFISHLY WASTED ON PERSON", but if I have the means and it is for sale, what is the issue? Not serving my fellow man with my purchase? Eh, count me in the selfish category permanently.

As a matter of public policy, owning a house with a yard isn't really subsidized. Buying is subsidized over renting, but that's an indirect thing at best. But cars are massively subsidized.

Fair, but a lot of the city planners weren't planning for cars at all, because cars didn't exist.

...and often were a lot nicer for it. Venice? Did you read the other posts by the author?

http://progressivetransit.wordpress.com/2011/12/

Somewhat of a cherry-picked example. Why aren't we also discussing Rio or Cairo? Not exactly car friendly. Not exactly paradise either.

First, understand that I am not suggesting you or others like you are wrong, if you are happy then cool.

But... I simply cannot understand the desire to live in such close proximity to large numbers of other people. Never ever again will I subject myself to high density living. I live in a suburb and simply hate having to go downtown especially when there are big events going on. The bars are crowded, eating establishments are packed, noisy has hell. Won't do it, you can't make me!

I like the quiet, I like being able to walk into a suburban bar and not have to shoulder my way through a crowd to try to find a seat if one is even available. It's nice to simply walk in, sit down on a bar stool and actually hear the game on the TV. I like not having the noise of a city outside my window when I sleep.

The greatest freedom of all is that either of us can make the choice of what lifestyle suits us.

  The bars are crowded, eating establishments are packed, noisy has hell.

But how many of those people drove to the downtown area because there were no equivalent establishments within walking distance of their suburban homes? Not trying being a dick, of course, just pointing out the chicken and egg nature of the problem.

I think it's an accurate assessment. I live in NYC, and most neighborhood bars are not crowded and noisy as hell.

However, if I go to a "destination" for out-of-towners[1], then yes: it's packed, noisy, and insufferable.

Same thing with traffic -- most of the personal automobile traffic in the cities comes from commuters that don't live here.

[1] I was trying really hard not to say "bridge and tunnel" ...

As for the deep revulsion of being surrounded by tons of people, you're right, you have that right to feel that way. Personally, a crowd of 50,000 people is still easy to walk through, but even 1,000 people trying to leave a big sports event in their cars at the same time is a total nightmare taking an hour+ and during that whole time you are completely stuck in your car. I left a soccer game in Tokyo that was at a completely absolutely full stadium, and when it ended the huge mass of people slowly and orderly filed to the nearby train stations and we were on a train (packed) heading home within 20 minutes, at full speed.

It would be lovely if we could choose which lifestyle suits us, but most of the cities in the US do not provide ANY option for someone who wants proper high-density, so to exercise my "freedom" to live in a pedestrian friendly high-density city involved leaving the US entirely.

> the freedom to go where I want to, when I want to, without being dependent on the competency of others to get me there is a huge feeling of freedom.

I get the same feeling of freedom from walking, except I'm not really dependent on the presence of roads.

The businesses and other establishments around you that make you 'independent from roads'? Yeah, those are likely completely dependent on roads. So you aren't, really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com