Come to the Netherlands and see how it’s done. It was a car dominated culture till the 60s when they did the “stop murdering our children” campaign. Then, cities reorganized to minimize car use. I love not owning a car. So freeing.
The solution to the US' car problem is not as simple as "less cars is good! Just fix your cities!". Cities have been designed around the automobile for decades to the point where, in a lot of places, you literally can't do anything without a car or walking over a mile. NYC and DC manage fine because there's subway systems, but the vast majority of cities are not like that.
Like the parent said, there was a big push all across europe for cars to be the norm[0]; the US just had more space to continue this deleterious activity.
I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really solutions there.
But they are. We have several a millenia of history on how to construct cities in a way that is scale appropriate to us as humans. We choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that applying the same principles, we cannot achieve the same thing in the US.
The formula is simple. Build out the core of each city that compromises a metropolitan area so that it is pedestrian first. You do that by building out multi family mixed used housing in the core. Then you ensure there are a lot of buses/bike lanes/trains that get you in and out of there, rinse, repeat. It tends towards happier, healthier people that spends more. Look up the statistics on that.
> If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already.
Unsure, people have really ingrained ideas about cars in the US, any attempt at discussing alternatives is met with emotional backlash and it's very difficult to talk passed this. It's actually very similar in the UK, though you can see a difference in cities with good public transport and those without, it's like we optimise for extremes in either direction.
Objectively if it was a good option (not arguing that it is right now) to have a solid public transport system; people are ideologically opposed because of the belief that public transport is inconvenient, unsafe, a loss of personal freedom etc; and it's hard to argue those points because they're coming from an emotional place, thus people cycle between those issues in an attempt to deflect direct refutation over each one of the points individually.
I think it's a little bit of a myth that it's impossible to serve low density neighbourhoods with public transport; there's a fair bit of research on the subject actually. (https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/) it's also somewhat self-fulfilling that the "cost of sprawl" is inverted in car-based communities, as you need to fan-out your infrastructure to avoid congestions of traffic and car storage, at least at the leaf nodes (IE suburbs).
Cycling infrastructure (as per Amsterdam), a healthy rail network (also NL) and a semi-competent bus and tram system are all parts of a larger picture when referencing public transport.
The solutions are similar, even if they're not the same, there is a lot of research on public transportation and what makes sense where, if one only looks.
Solutions are also complicated because "Atlanta" isn't a single city with a unified government. The greater Atlanta metropolitan region is composed of multiple separate cities plus some unincorporated county land. Residents of the suburbs and exurbs often have different priorities than residents of the urban core. So any major changes in housing and transportation policy would have to be driven at the state and federal levels.
The same issue applies to most other large US cities.
That's true in most metro areas. You don't need state and federal mandates you need local cooperation. Los Angeles is expanding light rail at a breakneck pace. Why? Because they have one dominant transit authority and a unified plan.
Compare that to the nine county Bay Area. There's nearly one transit agency for each county and a few regional agencies (BART, Caltrain) to contend with. The constant bickering and infighting is exactly why nothing gets done.
Another way to say this is a stubborn refusal to do things that do not "make sense" under the current model of economics (personal profit above all) because you revalue what is valuable in a society (eg social/corporate well being)
The model for American walkability and density is not DC or NYC, it's places like Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, Ashville, the feel of older streetcar suburbs and small college towns, ... None of those have subway systems, all of them are aspirational urban environments. None of them ban cars, but in all of them car traffic is slower and and more gentle. Certainly, _any_ neighborhood built before the 30s can emulate those. Later suburban developments can dial in such densification as well.
The main issue working against this is that the public realm is completely degraded because it only accommodates car traffic. Other ways of getting around are bullied out by high speed, dangerous cars. It's a textbook example of a vicious circle. The fact that there are a few urban areas in the US where owning a car is a drag due to parking issues, should not hold back meaningful improvements and efforts to break out of it anywhere else.
It's why I believe L4 self-driving is the tech that will actually reverse car dependency. If robotaxi fleets become preferred to car ownership(which would occur through the resulting economies of scale in a centralized fleet driving people to save money), the aggressive drivers stop ruling the road, replaced with polite "Three Laws" drivers; then the traffic starts downscaling because most urban trip making will work in smaller scooter or smart-car style vehicles which will benefit from continuing improvements to EV tech, and the services will optimize to cost; you'll still have the larger options available, but they appear on-demand, which makes all the difference when you're thinking about how to service a family of four. Cargo trips are already shifting in favor of autonomous delivery; two weeks ago, Wal-Mart went from testing drone delivery services to expanding them to multiple US states, and they project making 1 million deliveries this year.
So some critical threshold will occur where it becomes obvious that you have a vast unused road infrastructure, because the total urban fleet has consolidated into something that is physically smaller and literally less road-dependent, and nobody is there to prop up car ownership politically except a few enthusiasts and people living out of their cars. At that point downsizing is imminent everywhere.
It only took 20 years for cars to overtake horses in the industrialized world, and the bulk of it happened in 10. It'll happen faster this time.
These cities removed transit systems and housing to build roads and parking. It will take time, but doing the reverse is totally possible. Most cities were filled with streetcars and dense housing at one point.
Without viable mass transit in most American cities the "less cars" mentality falls flat. As a society ruled by "NIMBY" we just don't have the social will, nor seem to care enough about one another to move anything productive forward. As another comment said, the nations that reduced dependence on autos did no decades ago. These towns/cities/suburbs were literally built around a society where everyone has a car. Very difficult/impossible to change at this point without a major catastrophe or other externally influencing event.
It's a catch-22. If you don't get cars out of the way public transit will fail. As was pointed out we've ripped up plenty of cities to make them more car friendly and we can absolutely do the same for people.
I don't think a major catastrophe is required at all. We're already at the point where a huge chunk of our infrastructure is already in dire need of repair and/or replacement. This is a perfect opportunity for improvement.
I'd guess the vast majority of cities Netherlands predate cars by centuries. They were already "designed" without cars in mind. That is not true in the US, and doubly so for the post war, suburban construction boon.
The US absolutely tore up cities to make them more car friendly. Redlining and slum clearing were used as justifications to knock down entire neighborhoods to put more roads in. Most old American cities started as port towns with streetcar suburbs, and then they tore the trains out.
We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false.
Yes, the fifties and sixties caused huge redesigns, but we can undo those.
> We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false.
It's not. Cities have literally been created from nothing in the last few decades. Just because NYC, Atlanta, DC, etc. are old are have a history of redlining does not mean that every city does. Case in point: the cities around where I grew up were built in the last 3 decades. Those cities didn't have a choice but to have zoning laws and miles of road.
I mean, sure. Some places have become urban centers recently and that's fair. But coast to coast, our biggest population centers were all established and built up before car centric planning.
I live in Seattle, for instance, which used to have a network of rails. They've all been torn out and we're just now putting them back.
Seattle is geographically constrained. Most/all of the old cities (and metros) have sprawled to ungodly degrees like atlanta or la. How do you undo 70 years of development (ie, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) spent on sprawling?
I expect average household size to have decreased significantly, so it wouldn’t surprise me if at least 75% of inhabitants lived in post-war houses.
Because of that, I don’t see suburban construction as a major difference between the USA and the Netherlands.
A major difference likely is that the USA has room for sprawl, while the Netherlands doesn’t. Dutch suburbs likely are more dense than ones in the USA.
Don't get me wrong; I wish we were less car-dependent too, but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Cars are too deeply ingrained in American culture, and Europeans bragging about their cities isn't going to change that. Not to mention how massive the US is! We have states (California and Texas) that are larger than over half of the European countries.
Based on the track record of most of the demographics I see pushing for improvement I fear we'll wind up with some hellscape that combines the worst of both.
Even if that was true (which it does not seem to be, given that the real estate values in neighborhoods most closely resembling the netherlands in the US are among the most expensive in the country) it seems like a moot point. The cities that are built this way aren't financially sustainable and that much car usage is basically incompatible with future life on earth.
> which it does not seem to be, given that the real estate values in neighborhoods most closely resembling the netherlands in the US are among the most expensive in the country
That statement assume "people like it that way" applies to all people. Even if 80% of the people preferred the suburbs/rural experience, the fact that city layouts are only available on a small portion of the land means that it will cost more.
Have they been exposed to anything else? Be honest. I was raised in the rural midwest where there wasn't even the concept of public transportation; now I live in NYC with no car, and I've never been happier or healthier.
Yes, I grew up in Moscow, USSR: while growing up not only I (or my family) did not have a car but none of people I knew had one. At the age of 20 I had about dozen car rides in my lifetime. It sucked: even when I lived in my parents flat close to the city center and a subway station, going anywhere was at least an hour in one direction. I've spent 2 hours every day going to and from school. Could go to movies/clubs on weekends with friends though. I moved to my own flat that was a 15 min by car from the center but it was 45 min just to get to the subway via transit (either by train or bus) so my life was essentially 3 hour commute to work and shopping for food every couple of days in the nearby grocery store. Going anywhere else was too exhausting and you cannot stay late because the transit stopped at 1 am (subway, buses and trains even earlier), the only friends I could hang out were the ones with cars, others living in similar situation (far from subway) were just too far to visit.
I now vastly enjoy living in my own house where closets are bigger than my flat's living room and driving anywhere I want. Everyone I know in the city is less than an hour away. I shop for groceries every two weeks and sometimes on the way from work. My commute is 20 minutes a day. I visit more different places in a month than in a year of living in the "walkable paradise".
I've lived in decently spaced suburban neighborhoods, tiny towns, rural areas, and big cities like SF, SJ, and NY. Given the option, I'll take anything other than the big cities every time, even though I enjoyed the ability to utilize public transportation.
Don't assume that, because you prefer living in a city, that anyone who doesn't is ignorant. There are lots of people that know exactly what living in a city is like and far prefer to not do so (and vice versa).
The majority of people I've personally met who didn't like cities didn't like them because they didn't feel like they were safe. They're literally scared of people
Not a single person I've spoken to (that doesn't want to live in a city) has cited safety as a concern. That's probably because we've all worked in a city and know there are good areas and bad.
They often leave bc they can't afford to be further in, or the schools aren't good, white flight, or the love of a green grass yard (also btw not long for this world) Not because they dont like the density.
It's nearly impossible to have an objective opinion on something that one has no example or experience of. Medieval peasants would want supermarkets and modern living if they were given the change to experience it.
You appear to be claiming that Netherlands can achieve car free living because it’s tiny and flat, and yet you point to a U.S. city that has made car free living possible despite being nearly half the size of the entire country of Netherlands, and therefore massively bigger than any Dutch city.
So which is it? Is being tiny an advantage or is it a disadvantage?
Most US urban areas can easily achieve car free living the way the Dutch did. Obviously the suburbs cannot, but that does not prevent American cities from trying.
