Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexeisadeski3 | Hacker News Reader

You don't think that Vienna is drivable?

It doesn't strike me an any more or less drivable than anywhere else in Europe. It's certainly not Amsterdam.

The entire SWPL fascination with non-driving cities, or for that matter opposed to sprawl, is just weird. So some people like to drive: That doesn't oppress you.

I personally love suburban cities. Everything is so easy: You can hop in your car and be anywhere you want in 5-25 mins. Meander about, get lost, have fun: Driving itself is relaxing and enjoyable (I never go during traffic times).

I now live in a walkable city and just do not enjoy the 5-25min walks to get where I want. I'd rather drive. Public transport, even in cities with great infrastructure, is soul crushingly slow and inefficient. I've lived in places with some of the best subway systems on earth, so they say, and I choose: Never again.

Call me lazy, that's exactly what it is, but some people do prefer driving.

View on HN

> So some people like to drive: That doesn't oppress you.

I love driving too. But relative to walking or public transit, driving is hugely resource-intensive, it has high environmental costs, you get traffic problems if too many people do it, and it requires costly investments in public and private infrastructure -- road construction and maintenance, along with huge amounts of real estate devoted to parking -- that end up being paid for by drivers and non-drivers alike.

In an (economically) ideal world, we would properly tax all the negative environmental externalities, ban free parking, and charge a small fee for the use of public roads. Then everyone could make an informed individual decision about whether their enjoyment of driving is worth the costs. With the huge subsidies drivers currently enjoy, that's pretty much impossible.

>In an (economically) ideal world, we would properly tax all the negative environmental externalities, ban free parking, and charge a small fee for the use of public roads.

Totally on board with you!

Of course, there are supposedly large subsidies to public transport as well - and just think of the Muni busses, which would get the double whammy of having to internalize all of the costs you list PLUS the government subsidies!

Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade. Maybe suburbia would become more popular with all of the externalities fixed: Private busses could take much toil out of long distance car commutes.

The two major subsidies for cars are gas (which should cost several times its current US price) and parking (which is often provided free by businesses using otherwise-valuable real estate). Neither of those subsidies really apply to public transit, even buses, though transit does receive relatively minor subsidies of its own.

> Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade.

Precisely the opposite: once the externalities are internalized, how anyone spends their money is no one else's business. But until that point, cars still have huge negative externalities, i.e. they are actively hurting society, so it's perfectly reasonable to crusade against them!

1. Parking provided by businesses is not free. It's already internalized. Only free city parking is not internalized.

2. You show only that the governments are failing to internalize these costs. Don't punish the users: punish the governments. They're the ones in the wrong.

Governments are controlled by people (at least with democracies), people want cheap subsidized private transportation, so the people get what they want until its not tenable anymore.

1. Free parking at businesses, housing developments, even single-family homes is quite often mandated by regulation. In many cities, if you build a new apartment building, shopping mall, etc., you're required by law to also construct a proportional quantity of parking, even if that goes against your judgement as to the best use of space and resources. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.ht... and http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/18848299....

2. No one's calling for the guillotine for all car owners (that would include me!). But democratic governments are a function of their citizens. If externalities are not being internalized, it's because there is some powerful faction -- drivers, in this case -- that benefits from the status quo. Yes, the US govt is dysfunctional, but go ahead and try surveying the US public about a carbon tax that would raise gas to $10/gallon. It's not just some abstract 'government' that favors subsidies here -- it's pretty much the entire citizenry.

> Public transport, even in cities with great infrastructure, is soul crushingly slow and inefficient.

Wow. Then how would you describe:

1. A daily 45 minute commune through barely moving traffic

2. Driving around a walmart/tj maxx/home goods/target... parking lot for 5 minutes just to find a space

3. Almost never having to interact with (or even look at) anyone in your community since when you are not inside your house, in a cube at work, sitting in a chain restaurant booth, or shuffling between a maze of aisles trying to find laundry detergent; your sat in a steel box, isolated from everyone else.

No only would I call you lazy, it also seems that you're quite antisocial.

Behold:

1. Sprawl cities have shorter commutes [1 - compare sprawl king LA to NYC].

Even within dense places like Manhattan & EU cities, commutes take a long time. Whilst studying abroad in EU Subway Wonderland, my ~3mi subway+walk commute took 20-40mins. In Sprawl City USA, my 15mi commute took 15-20mins, with easy parking both sides.

2. This is common in dense urban cities: Parking in urban cities is a nightmare. Parking in suburban sprawl cities is a breeze.

3. Never seen the movie Pi?

[1] http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/where-it-ta...

>2. This is common in dense urban cities: Parking in urban cities is a nightmare. Parking in suburban sprawl cities is a breeze.

It seems like you missed the point entirely of samtp's comment on this one. He wasn't comparing "taking a long time parking" to "taking a short time parking", but was comparing "taking any time parking" versus "not having to park at all".

>3. Never seen the movie Pi?

No. Would you care to elaborate or educate us on its relevance to the topic? I'm not trying to be HN-passive-aggressive in a "tell me so I don't have to Google it" way. I looked it up, don't quite get what you're saying, and don't have the time to watch an entire movie this very moment.

EDIT: Removed my final question because you answered it elsewhere.

2. Not sure there is a point to be had, then. Suburban places virtually always have ample parking (many claim there is too much parking!). It's not an inconvenience...

3. It's a great movie, you should see it! My point is simply that even living within NYC, you're not ensured to have social interaction. And likewise living in suburbia doesn't doom one to have little social interaction.

My brother lives in Vienna. He usually parks his car, which he needs for family visits and the odd trip to IKEA, and then leaves it untouched for weeks, since it is easier to move around the city without it than with it.

They say in the article that the public transport system costs 1 Euro a day for a annual pass.

I think the real issue is the distinction between HAVING to drive vs BEING ABLE to drive.

Certainly there are roads if you want to drive, but this is unlike suburbs where you NEED to drive.

I'm the exact opposite - the idea of spending 5-25min in a car, when I could be walking, sounds dreadful. I probably walk 500 miles a year or more, simply because I don't drive. I can't imagine moving back to a suburb.

Drivable is different from requiring a car.

(See the looks you get walking round some of San Diego to see what I mean: pavement ended.)

Much of Washington, DC, and the close-in suburbs, was built for a certain level of automobile traffic. Dad carpooled to work, Mom did the shopping on the days that Dad wasn't driving, the kids took a school bus or walked to school. On the average, you had a car per household. The streets worked well for that level of traffic.

Now two automobiles per household is standard. Mom works, and the kids may well be in a private school that they must be driven to. Narrow streets have cars parked on both sides. Main streets don't efficiently handle the volume of cars on them. The configuration of the Beltway works miserably at rush hour volume, when many cars entering on the right from River Road have a mile or less to fight across three lanes to get to I-270.

I am not oppressed. I neither envy nor resent those who drive. I just think that after a certain level of traffic it is inefficient.

I didn't say that. What I implied was that Vienna is much more walkable than a place like LA. Los Angeles will never appear high on a list of most livable cities -- despite having lots of services, nice climate and loads of culture.

But you could probably pick any major European city at random, claim it was "most livable" or "best quality of life" or whatever and it would be reasonable.

Actually, what's very interesting is how high Australian and New Zealand's cities frequently rank in these kinds of surveys. At least with Australia, there's enough of a shared development model with the U.S (big space, resource extraction, etc.). that when I've been there, cars were a necessity in general, but the urban cores were really nice and walkable.

sprawl doesn't scale and isn't healthy.

it's bad for everyone: takes the wealth out of the cities - which means bad schools in the cities.

it leads to segregation.

It wastes massive amounts of time/energy commuting.

It makes you fat if the only exercise you get is the walk from a parking lot to your destination. why do you think the US is the fattest country in the world? sprawl.

which cities have you lived in and tried the public transport thing if you don't mind me asking?

I don't like to disclose such information on the internet, even if all of our posts are easily indexable and identifiable.

I've lived in several cities both EU and US.

But my personal experience shouldn't be the driving factor here: I have different preferences from others. Some people love NYC, others hate it. Some love LA, others hate it. (I love both, but couldn't live in either long term)

My point is only that the motion to villainize driving and sprawl is bad. You don't have to like sprawl, but you should allow others to live it should they so choose.

I'm interested because they vary hugely. 'Sprawl' (I don't like the term because it implies it is bad) can be very nice to live in and some of the biggest public transport cities (like London) getting to work can be awful. But the devil is in the detail as they say. There are wider economic questions to be asked too - use of arable land? are restrictive planning laws directing worse economic outcomes? are 'local communities' of social and economic benefit? should we be building housing which isn't the most high-profit kind? IMO careful consideration of these should drive development but it's never done.

You're lazy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com