There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don’t think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it’s not something they’d use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
They really don’t require a lot of money. In an emergency, you can create a bike lane with nothing but a few traffic cones. Then later you can spend the money and put in a permanent install.
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can’t fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
plus, certain places - like the city where I live, for example - opt for infrastructure and traffic rules that favour cyclists and pedestrians. that also helps
Building a city wrong doesn’t mean “alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable;” it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.
And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they’d fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive – at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.
because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind.
This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities – including “newer” sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta – were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.
My suburb was built in the 50s, and it’s one of the oldest in my area. Almost half of the homes in the township are from the last 20 years. It was all 100% built for cars, there are zero other options. And moving isn’t really an option at this point.
There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don’t think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it’s not something they’d use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that’s virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.
Which is why the pain has to come first and therefore high oil prices are good.
They really don’t require a lot of money. In an emergency, you can create a bike lane with nothing but a few traffic cones. Then later you can spend the money and put in a permanent install.
sometimes I’m really glad that I’m European
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can’t fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
First of all, American cities also existed before cars.
Second, many European cities were rebuilt from rubble after WWII to accommodate cars.
That factor is not nearly the excuse you think it is.
plus, certain places - like the city where I live, for example - opt for infrastructure and traffic rules that favour cyclists and pedestrians. that also helps
Europe was demolished during the world wars. Both the US and Europe mostly consist of post-WW2 buildings. Europe just chose to build more sensibly.
Building a city wrong doesn’t mean “alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable;” it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.
And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they’d fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive – at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.
This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities – including “newer” sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta – were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.
My suburb was built in the 50s, and it’s one of the oldest in my area. Almost half of the homes in the township are from the last 20 years. It was all 100% built for cars, there are zero other options. And moving isn’t really an option at this point.
Yes, it was built wrong. Europe was also mostly built post-WW2. They chose to build better.