Hacker News Reader

I agree.

But I'm also pointing to the fact that this is easier to change in some places than others. It doesn't just take will to change. It takes more will in some places than others. Because you have to fight against the layout and built up infrastructure of the area.

Conversely, the other person is pointing to how friendly Amsterdam is to not having a car. The fact that lots of people there have cars doesn't take away from the fact that it is easy to live there and not have a car. Just like the number of TVs in America don't take away from the fact that it is easy to live in America and not own a TV. (Case in point. I live in America, and haven't owned a TV in 20 years.)

> You guys are talking past each other.

Agreed.

> but it isn't reality right now, so I own a car.

This means that you at least consider a possibility of living without a car. You at least understand that there is nothing about the US making it impossible to work towards car independence. I have no reason to argue with you or people who share this sentiment.

I do get upset at the people who think that this situation is static and that it can not be changed, ever. But I get more upset at the people who complain at the North American reality only when they are directly suffering from it, and act like when the systemic problem doesn't exist anymore just because they manage to "solve the issue" for themselves.

> As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting.

They have high rates of car ownership, but they are not car dependent. Even the people who have to drive for work use cars only for longer distance trips, and walk/bike/use public transport for shorter ones. In Greece, much like in the US, people assume that you have to have a car to do anything.

> As an aside, the Dutch aren't nearly as car free as you are presenting. They are in the top 25% for per capita car ownership worldwide, and have higher rates of car ownership rates than Denmark, Sweden, Greece and Croatia which isn't even all of the countries in Europe with lower rates of car ownership. Hell, they have more than double the rate of car ownership of Saudi Arabia, a country that subsidizes fuel prices to encourage car use.

Wrong usage of statistics. The rate of car ownership is not the metric to look at, but rather the % of trips taken by car vs bike.

The Dutch have a lot of cars because they are rich.

The ugly truth (for public transit zealots like the parent poster) is that there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit, unless they live and work in a place with extremely high population density.

They keep ranting about how cars are a luxury, and they are right, but basically want to change human nature to suit their preferences IMO.

That's a bit too far in the other direction.

I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car.

My in-laws live in Rotterdam, and cycle and transit for most day to day stuff. But they also own and use a car, when appropriate (they do have big box stores and suburbs in - gasp - bike crazy Rotterdam).

People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours.

But as you stated, most people who can afford a car do end up with one, even if it isn't their primary mode of transit.

> That's a bit too far in the other direction.

I don't think so, but partially because the person I responded to is off the charts in the anti-car direction.

> I know plenty of people who choose transit even though they own a car.

Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense.

> People will use transit if it is pleasant, fast, and affordable. When I lived in Vancouver, you would be nuts to commute by car if there was a train line near you. It was cheaper and faster to take transit, especially during the working hours.

The issue is that there are very few places where it's cheaper and faster to take public transit.

The solutions most transit advocates come up with involve kneecapping car usage so public transit can compete or insisting people live at density levels most find unacceptable, neither of which are practically feasible.

> there is no amount of investment that can make a person with the ability to afford a car willingly choose public transit

But also:

> Most people choose what makes sense for them, myself included. I drive most of the time, but have no problem taking public transit when it makes sense.

I apologize for taking your word as literal. The first quote is what I was really responding to.

There is a middle ground, it just sounded like you didn't know it existed.

I’m wealthy and live in the Netherlands. I find cars kind of annoying. I bike and take the train for 99% of trips, and use occasional hourly car rental otherwise.

Running costs of a car sure buy a lot of rentals or even taxi rides if you do the math. I noticed that a long ago.

Good for you. You're in the minority, both in your own country and globally.

Indeed, I would love for more people to be able to enjoy this flexibility!

Dutch person with a car here: Like many people, I own one because they can be very useful to transport heavy stuff, and there are several low density areas where it's a pain to get by train, like visiting family in nearby Belgium. But for most of my trips biking or public transport is just quicker. I drive maybe twice a month.