Hacker News Reader

Comment by j-pb | Hacker News Reader

I don't want every ICE car replaced with an electric one. I want liveable, walkable cities, with good bike infrastructure, proper public transport, trees, parks, and public spaces. And fast long distance maglev.

And whatever remains should be electric.

View on HN

Unfortunately there's already a backlash brewing against "15 minute cities"[1][2]. I wonder how much of this stuff is "organic" and how much is astroturf.

[1] https://rairfoundation.com/british-protest-15-minute-cities-...

[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-edmonton-15-m...

I think that backlash is mostly from the “5g is globalist plot to control us” folks. Although given one of those people is running for the Democratic nomination maybe it’s not as safe to ignore them as I think…

It's sadly a mainstream right-wing talking point these days.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-02/how-did-t...

I think that backlash is mostly from the “5g is globalist plot to control us” folks.

I've definitely seen it framed as a "left-wing" plot that the right/Republicans need to fight against. Same thing as the fight against LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, etc.

Here’s a milquetoast take that might be more palatable

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/the-downs...

The backlash is real and is, at least partially, from how they're being implemented: Forceful restrictions instead of increased/local amenities.

In many cases restrictions and amenities are two sides of the same coin. You often can't add bike infrastructure in cities without taking away something from drivers (travel lanes, parking, etc) because drivers are already given nearly all the space on our streets. Drivers will complain that they're being restricted whenever you take anything away from them.

But people often can't get around safely on bikes without doing so; that bike infrastructure for those who would like to bike is a valuable amenity.

I live in one of the few 15 minute cities and I hate it. You might as well live in a jail or a zoo. Are you envious of the lions that live in their cages? They have everything they need close by! Water, companionship, food, etc....

Can you elaborate on what's so bad about it? I lived in Toronto for a while and rarely had to drive because most things I needed were ~15 minutes away by subway/walking. It was awesome! It's not like someone is going to put an ankle monitor on you to prevent you from going further for stuff if you want to.

Can you elaborate on what you want me to elaborate on? I've been to Toronto, its another "sick town" and nothing I say is going to change your mind if you think living like an ant is "awesome!"

This is all very vague. "Sick town", "living like an ant". Can you actually explain what you mean by any of this?

I'll give you a specific example of why I think Toronto is good. Almost any night of the week I can catch a subway to a music venue - listen to some live music, drink a few beers, socialize a bit. Then I can get home without paying for a taxi or breaking the law by driving intoxicated. What's the equivalent weeknight activity in the suburbs? Sitting on my ass and watching TV all night? How is that less "sick" than what I described? This contrast is especially stark in Canadian winters when the weather and early sunsets make outdoor activities less desirable.

In every conversation I've had on this subject, urbanites discuss the "lack of nightlife" as a problem. My opinions are twofold on this:

A) If you need beer and nightlife to distract you from living in an urban dystopia, there is not much I can do. B) Most folks that want to leave the cities want space to do things with their families.

1) At night in my semi-suburban setting that I live in now, I work with my kids on things in my garage. Before we had kids, I did the same. My property allows me to spread out and have a woodshop, metalshop, lab, garden etc. 2) In the springtime/summertime tend to my garden (yes at night) so that I can eat natural foods without needing to share an "urban farm". Again, kids are included in this now. 3) Teach/play instruments without the restrictions of an apartment. 4) In the winter sure, if you want nightlife, there isnt much of that.

I don't drink and only listen to gaussian white noise so perhaps I'm not the right person to ask if you're looking for a "nightlife" centered activity/answer.

I truly don't get this perspective. The value of living in a city is proximity to people and amenities. If you value something different, that's totally understandable, but why wouldn't you just move to the country?

Heh, they always say "You're free to leave any time you want".

When all we have is Maglev trains that go from one walkable city (e.g. jail) to another, how will you move to the country?

Well, looking around I see nothing but freeways and cars, so I don't think we're in any danger of the utopia you describe

Yea yea, but you'd change it if you could and then say the same thing that every despot has always said since the beginning of time:

"You're free to leave if you want".

I think you slightly overestimate my power as a hn commenter

Its not like you have to be confined within the 15 min city if you dont want to. You an always take the train or the bus to the 7-11 1 hour away to get your beer. Its just convenient to be in a place where you dont have to drive far away to get your basic amenities. Any East asian city should be a pretty good example.

+1, but minus the long distance maglev.

The strength of cities lies in their density. A well planned city has short commutes. Long distance transport ought to be mostly for goods, not people. If people travel far, travel slow and enjoy the journey. Relying on fast long distance (business) travel is a sign of organizational immaturity at some level.

> Relying on fast long distance (business) travel is a sign of organizational immaturity at some level.

What you say is true, but also a condition that is spectacularly unlikely to change.

Separately, for personal travel, I will sometimes travel low-and-slow, but there are many personal trips where I want to go somewhere for a long-weekend and getting half-way there and turning around doesn't accomplish the goal of the weekend. Even for a week-long vacation, I don't want to spend 4 days getting there and back.

> What you say is true, but also a condition that is spectacularly unlikely to change.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Still I don't believe high-speed maglev will solve anything. Less planes, for sure but more people traveling further, more frequently, more efficiently consuming more power in absolutes.

> Even for a week-long vacation, I don't want to spend 4 days getting there and back.

I understand, and feel the same. But I do my best to find a closer destination that's "also" nice, and make sure that when I travel far only when I have proportional amount of time to spend there.

> I do my best to find a closer destination that's "also" nice

When you're trying to escape New England winter weather and get to someplace warm with 11+ hour days (or escape the heat and humidity of Florida in August or visit family), that can be inherently difficult.

Sure, different people in different situations have different standards. Not everyone has the luxury of living in a great city with access to food, energy, jobs and family and friends close by.

Makes you wonder how people in New England winter or Florida summer used to cope a century ago. :-)

I don't want to travel fast and slow from Stockholm to, say, Copenhagen, or to Hamburg when I visit friends or family. I want to get to the destination, fast.

This is what we do, but why? What is it exactly that we hate so much about traveling?

Personally, I hate traffic jams, cancelled trains, flight delays. But I love spending time hiking, cycling, or driving through the empty country at my own pace. More so if I get to spend time with friends and family, for sure.

If the goal of your trip is to hike then fine, hike. But if you’re visiting family that you only see for a few days out of a year you want to maximize that time with them.

If they live far ways, you might consider visiting them only once in two years, spending twice as long. During the pandemic, may people were force to do this and found other ways to stay in touch, like Zoom. (I wouldn't claim that the perfect solution, or good at all. Just something to consider.)

So instead of seeing them 20 more times before they die you see them 10 more times. Better make every second count.

> This is what we do, but why?

Because fast travel is... fast?

> What is it exactly that we hate so much about traveling?

Most of slow travel is extremely boring.

> But I love spending time hiking, cycling, or driving through the empty country at my own pace.

I enjoy those things, too, but I don't want to spend a week traveling somewhere when we have the means to travel there in under a day, for example.

Edit: besides, cheap fast travel allows you to spread people to more places, and not require them to bunch up in a few overpopulated cities.

Exactly. Its almost like decentralized systems are more efficient.

Maglevs are great though when combined with build-in solar. They become energy positive and can replace entire power plants in terms of capacity even on short-ish routes.

Solar roadways are a crappy idea because asphalt and solar panels have completely different engineering requirements, and roads don't even have buildin electrical lines. No contact, no moving part, already electrified and pylonified maglev on the other hand...

People travel for lots of reasons, many of them urgent. You’ll never have everything you need within walking distance, at some point something will be required that is far away whether it’s the birth of a child, a critical piece of equipment, or an expert needed on site. This happens far more frequently than you would think even if it doesn’t happen to you often.

The thing is, if you don’t have the train, people will fly. And the carbon emissions of flying is massively greater than that of taking a train.

I would be in favor of banning flights between city pairs that already have an equivalently high-quality rail link between them, though.

Use train when you can. Trains are getting better and in Europe there is finally talk of prohibiting airlines on short-distance (<500km) flights.

But making trains faster and faster will not improve things as they'll also compete with other forms of transportation (cars, slower trains). If the faster train now gets you 800km in 3 hours, people will travel 800k where previously they spent that time traveling only 500km. It's Parkinson's law.

Maybe. I wonder which effect dominates if there's already a faster form of transportation that you're trying to replace though.

People like different things. Some people like high density urban areas, and some people like low density urban areas.

We should have both so people can enjoy what they like.

The problem is that low density urban areas are subsidsed by high densisty urban areas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0 etc

They are also terrible for the planet.

So does my ant colony analogy apply here? When do we get to move into our hexagonal cell I mean house? You know, bees use hexagons because they are the most efficient use of space.

But please do keep using the "redneck" trope. We're all uneducated hillbillies that obviously aren't as smart and sophisticated as everyone else.

It's true! Some people don't mind or even like climate change—don't they count? What about the flat earthers? We should have a city for them with school districts that cater to their beliefs. Some people abuse animals—where's their city? People should be able to enjoy what they like!

This! Don’t build charger networks—build canals and plant trees.

What have you done to ensure your city is "liveable, walkable cities, with good bike infrastructure, proper public transport, trees, parks, and public spaces. And fast long distance maglev."?

How are you moving public policy and private investment towards this goal?

In my limited experience wanting it isn't enough. These types of changes require action.

You know that the majority still lives outside cities, right? And the city attractiveness is getting worse every damn year, at least in the “west”.

In which "Western" country do most people live outside cities?

80% of the US population lives in urbanized areas according to the Census bureau. And the density of the census tracts most Americans live in is rising.

And it is possible to have walkable and transit oriented rural areas. Much of the rural US initally sprang up around dense market towns and railroads.

The definition of urbanized areas in the census is not what most of us would say "all of that is city living".

> To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g....

If 100+ million Americans lives in cities, making cities not requiring cars to live in them is a pretty good plus, no? Rural people can keep having their vehicles if they need them, GP didn't say anything against that.

> making cities not requiring cars to live in them is a pretty good plus, no?

Some cities are doing this, but they're not the ones attempting 15-minute cities.

The 15-minute cities are doing things like putting up barricades to make driving more of a pain, without actually making them more livable in those confined locations.

Filtered permeability (which is what I think you're referring to re: barricades) does itself help you live without a car nearby. It cuts down on through traffic for cars in those areas which makes it safer and more comfortable to bike there.

Exactly, why should cities optimize for people who have to drive into them, vs people who already live and pay taxes there?

> The 15-minute cities are doing things like putting up barricades to make driving more of a pain, without actually making them more livable in those confined locations.

Examples?

I live in Europe, 15-min cities are quite standard here so I don't really grasp this American issue.

Like this: https://twitter.com/madelynrogers/status/1623469125103153152

Examples of cities, not one tweet from one location :)

Cool. I would love to live in the country.

Have internet and work remote.

Little farm and grow some of my own food.

Use solar and wind to power my EV Ford-150.

85% and 92% of millenials and Gen Z respectively say they will pay more to live in walkable communities. You can quibble about what constitutes a city but its clear there is a ton of unmet demand for higher density living in the US.

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/survey-buy...

> And the city attractiveness is getting worse every damn year, at least in the “west”.

Maybe that would change if US cities were, you know, livable?

Europe is the "west" too, and the cities are a far cry better for people.

Everyone in the USA needs to take a pilgrimage to almost any city in the Netherlands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com