Living in Southern California, I like to go on walks with my family in the evenings or mornings, but I couldn't imagine having to take public transportation or having to walk everywhere. It seems picturesque, but it also sounds terrible in the sense that you can't just get in your car, go some place, park in a parking lot, go shopping, and then head back home, all on your own terms.
I visited London a long time ago and the public transportation is amazing and it I did want to walk to see the city, which I did. But I imagine even living there, I would want my own car to be in control of my life.
So, visiting a place is good for walking. But living in a place is not. At least that's my experience.
The best public transport in us is usually worse that bad public transport in most of eu so no wonder you felt that way. Let me tell you a counter point: in Switzerland public transport and trains are so frequent and fast due to own lanes that you don't even need to check the schedule, you just go to the station which is usually nearby and wait at max 5 mins to get into something, usually a tram, for intercity between biggest cities trains are usually coming about each 15 mins. In this regard you are more independent than with a car- you don't care about fuel, about parking, about being focused all the time on the road, you just get in and get out. Even for buying tickets they have an app where you just check-uncheck it and it calculates the fare based on gps.
also in many dense eu cities you'd probably have enough shops in sub 5 mins nearby so you can either walk there or go with a bike or take a taxi that would cost pennies for such a small distance - again, no worrying about traffic, fuel, parking and so on
I haven't owned a car for more than 15 years now. I have city year bus pass but I also frequently just walk to wherever I'm going, there's lots of paths and shortcuts for pedestrians, but if the weather is a bit rubbish, there's bus stop outside my flat that runs every 5-10 mins.
I'm a member of the mobility car share for the rare times hen I do need a car, usually to pick up or move something heavy, or take a bunch of stuff to the decheterie.
Maybe sometimes after a night on the town, I might grab a taxi home, but I do not miss having a car.
In the US the issue is the car is just too damn convenient. There are parts of LA where the busses or trains are every 10 mins or so and they interline, so you get a train or a bus every 5 mins or less. People still prefer the car because it can go everywhere on your schedule faster than a bus making stops along the way. Plus cars are much cheaper for Americans than they are for europeans.
It's made to be convenient (as long as it gets, because you get traffic and you get low density areas which are bad for walkability/pedestrians which all ppl are the moment they leave the car) while pub transport is made to be bad.
Idk about the situation in LA but if you want good ridership, 5-10 min isn't an enough condition. You need these times at all the routes in the city and those should be extensive, you need reserved lanes, priority semaphores, single ticket policy, same lvl boarding, easy connections between multiple routes and at last- you also need a mid dense walkable city, because if it's not, the moment you'll get off the transport you'll have a sh** life needing to walk a lot in unpleasant environment to reach the destination.
The cheap thing usually isn't a factor, cars are mostly more expensive than pub transport using unless pub transport is nuked by authorities. Ppl don't use cars because these are cheap(these aren't even for many americans considering insurance, leasing, repairing and so on), they use cars because pub transport doesn't exist or because it's inconvenient to use it. Ppl always use the most convenient path. In lots of eu cities, unless you come from suburbs, pub transport will be more convenient- it'll have own lanes so no traffic, priority semaphores so almost always green, shorter paths towards destination compared to car lanes, again- saves time, easy transfers(multiple routes have stations close to each other), single ticket policy, in some cases like NL you also got bike parking nearby to cover las mile distance. This makes them easier and faster to use than cars especially considering parking space is limited and it'll take time to find a spot+traffic
If LA had Tokyo's train system (they used too), I could get from LAX to Glendale in ~45 minutes. Like an express train to DTLA and then another to Glendale. Instead, at 5pm, that same commute in a car can be 2.5hrs. Sure, it's nicer at 3am (30mins) but that's not the norm for most waking hours. Further, I could drink at my destination, like say
FWIW I found the critically acclaimed berlin ubahn to have significantly worse headways compared to most NYC subway lines, as well as not having air conditioning and becoming uncomfortably hot and humid
I used lime scooters considerably more than ubahn when I was in berlin
U-bahn is old, but new trains are slowly arriving on some lines. Anyway it is not the best part of its public transport system - I personally enjoy trams.
Well that's pretty easy, Dutch trains are unreliable.
In fact all public transport there is pretty bad. Here in Barcelona the metros come every 3 minutes during the day on each line. In Amsterdam it's more like 15.
I’m 40+ years old now and have never needed or wanted to have a driving license. I simply hated America when I had to visit and use taxi or someone else’s help to get anywhere.
In Berlin even with a child the need of a car is so rare — sometimes it’s even more pleasant to walk an hour to a museum or a club than use public transportation.
That’s strange coming from someone whose country has the famous autobahn. What if you want to get out into the countryside, where busses and trains don’t go? Don’t you need a license to rent a vehicle?
> What if you want to get out into the countryside, where busses and trains don’t go?
I don’t have any business in such countryside. What would I find there? A good beach on Baltic sea is 15 min walk door-to-water plus 2 hours on express train. The list of tourist attractions and vacation destinations accessible by train, plane and/or taxi within half a day or so is so big here that I cannot imagine going to such inaccessible place. Worst case I will pay a few hundred euro for taxi if such improbable situation occurs.
And what's going to happen long term with exploding Berlin rents? The only affordable rents will be out in the suburbs of Berlin, where you'll either have to drive in or spend 2-3x the time on a probably crowded train possibly standing room only. As in the example of Switzerland above, mass transit is a luxury for those able to pay high rents. Previously in Berlin this was subsidized by the rest of Germany and by price controls but the right-wing courts have pretty much gutted Berlin's price protections in favor of billion-euro property developers.
I lived in Germany for years without driving as well, because I could afford to live by the city center. But over half my colleagues drove because that's all they could afford to do, and you should try stepping out of your bubble and understand the pressures that force Germans to drive. They're not all just wanting to spend more time in their Audis.
First, I’m not representing all Germans here, just sharing my own experience which is a good counter-example to “life without a car is impossible”. I’m of course not arguing that car is unnecessary for everyone.
Second, don’t tell me about my “bubble”: you have no idea who I am and what I have experienced in my life. I’m very well aware of many sides of it, maybe more than you are.
Third, do you seriously want to lecture a person who is both a landlord and a tenant in Berlin about local rent controls and price development? We do have some issues here, but it is nowhere close to neither London or NYC where prices are crazy nor Moscow where commuting can be truly exhausting.
>I’m of course not arguing that car is unnecessary for everyone.
Sadly, many are. This topic often does turn into one of lifestyle judgement and it isn't very productive when arguments go from practical to personal. As if any one car-goer or bus-goer determines the fate of a city's urban planning.
Agree. Especially when you add bike-goers to the conversation it can get ugly very quickly. A parent with a stroller is the most neglected person in such talks.
I myself believe that personal cars are mobility edge cases and the world will settle on vendor-managed rental fleets eventually, where most people will occasionally use rental cars with autopilot.
Nevertheless this is not going to happen for the next 50-80 years, so we just need at least to stop promoting car-centric lifestyle and find a real compromise between cars, bikers and pedestrians.
In Switzerland, people in villages use trains to get to and from work. Quite literally, they bike to train, park bike, use train to go to work. Some ride car to train, ride train and then go to work.
It is just not true that mass transit is only for those who pay high rents. It is other way round pretty much all round world and historically - rich people were buying cars more and poor used public transport.
> So, visiting a place is good for walking. But living in a place is not. At least that's my experience.
This is a common Internet meme -- the American tourist that goes to Europe and loves their experience of walking around nice, dense cities designed at a human scale and functioning public transit. Then they return to their life of highways and parking lots and strip malls, which, to me, is dystopia.
> but I couldn't imagine having to take public transportation or having to walk everywhere
Well yes, the US transportation system is utter trash, even in California
> but it also sounds terrible in the sense that you can't just get in your car, go some place, park in a parking lot, go shopping, and then head back home, all on your own terms.
In Europe I have three supermarkets in a 800m radius around my place, the closest shopping center/mall/whatever you call it is a 30min walk away (10min by public transport, 8min by bicycle). I can walk to the closest supermarket without even leaving the private ground of my block of buildings and its park, no street to cross, no cars in sight
> I would want my own car to be in control of my life.
I'm European, spent the first 10 years of my independent adult life without a car, and have always lived in urban areas, within walking distance of supermarkets and other amenities, and with good public transport services. Yet I agree with him
When I finally did get a car, it was a massive QoL upgrade. I can go anywhere, at any time, usually considerably faster than PT, and carry an order of magnitude more than before. I didn't enjoy having to go to the supermarket multiple times a week, but I had to when I could only carry maybe 4 bags (fewer if heavy) in one trip. I still do use buses and trains where it makes sense, e.g. visiting other cities or the centre of mine
Cool, too bad it isn't sustainable. If life was about doing everything you want whenever you want and carry a lot of useless junk around without having to worry about side effects we'd have won the game by now
And the goalposts move again. We were talking about the convenience, not the sustainability. If you want to argue that the inconvenience is a necessary price for environmental sustainability, sure, that's a valid position, but don't pretend that there's no convenience cost
It's interesting that I've been downvoted to -3 for factually detailing how cars are in fact useful. Shooting the messenger won't change the facts
> I didn't enjoy having to go to the supermarket multiple times a week, but I had to when I could only carry maybe 4 bags (fewer if heavy) in one trip.
I mean, if we're talking about convenience, I started ordering my groceries online during the pandemic and I'd argue that's an even bigger QoL upgrade. You can still go for produce (or not) and the occasional thing you need immediately, but getting stuff delivered to you is generally cheaper and more convenient than owning a car. The gratification is a bit less instant, but I value my time more than that.
As for cars being faster than public transit, sure, but making cars fast often have the side effect of making other modes of transit slower, and vice versa. Buses need reserved lanes to be reliable, bikes need reserved lanes to be safe, which means less cars can go. As a pedestrian, I would get to places significantly faster if I could just jaywalk wherever I please, but naturally this would require very low speed limits. Cars also require parking lots, which make walking less efficient. Cars are only convenient for their own drivers, they are inconvenient for everybody else (including other drivers).
Agreed on supermarket delivery. I've started using it now, and probably should have done so sooner
I also actually agree on prioritizing bus and cycle lanes over car lanes. Instead of being angry at them, which unfortunately many drivers are, I choose to appreciate them as intended - i.e. if I'm going into the town centre I usually go by bus. I'd also like to see more properly-separated bike lanes. I don't blame cyclists at all who choose to ignore the painted ones and take the lane as if they're a car
However the main reason why public transport is slower isn't usually due to traffic or physical constraints, but the longer routes you have to take. Usually the planners have done their job well, and the route is near-optimal in aggregate (and therefore often useful for myself if I'm commuting or visiting the centre), but if I want to visit a friend in another part of town, I've very often got to go in to the centre and change out again. Even if there's a direct route, it can be slow due to how many stops occur (off-board ticketing/proper BRT could help with that in major areas). If I'm visiting a business in a business park/industrial estate further out, it's often a taxi or nothing
The following doesn't change much, but just to nitpick:
> As a pedestrian, I would get to places significantly faster if I could just jaywalk wherever I please, but naturally this would require very low speed limits
That's legal where I currently live (UK). Motorways are essentially the only place you're not allowed to just cross, though drivers aren't generally required to break the traffic to give you passage if you're not at a zebra crossing (or a junction, as of recent code changes). Speed limits definitely do vary based on the likelihood of pedestrians in the area, but I don't think changing the law would change much there. I mean, they'd have to fairly compensate by adding more crossings anyway, and IME those are more likely to slow down traffic due to their poorly-timed and long stops (even with sensor-assisted intelligence), whereas pedestrians making ad-hoc crossings are usually sensible enough to wait for a natural gap instead of forcing one (and those who don't would probably "jaywalk" anyway), essentially making their effect on flow near zero. Even if you do have to slow for a pedestrian, it usually is just a slight slow for under two seconds. Much quicker than a red light. Zebra crossings of course don't have lights, but you do have a hard requirement to stop as soon as a pedestrian presents themselves at the side, and remain stopped until they've completely left the road, resulting in similar interruptions rather than turn-taking in existing gaps
That's so funny, because in my mind it's the complete opposite: I feel free because I don't have the burden of keeping a vehicle-object. However, where I leave is car unfriendly. People who always late are the two friends of mine who try to use their car
(Actually I tried both lives. I used to have a car in the past. Still prefer being car free)
this is the real lie, that cars give you agency and freedom. except that you have to find a place to park, and keep the fueled, deal with minor breakdowns like punctured tires that leave you to deal with them for hours. and insurance. and a drivers license. and a place to keep them at night. the threat that they will be broken into. the constant switching back and forth between inattention and attention while driving. getting delayed by traffic. spending quite a bit of time complaining about traffic even though it is you. the inevitable collision. the abysmal process of purchasing. knowing you're are getting screwed at the repair place. having to deal with rentals when you travel. the complete loss of function when you become old or injured and cannot drive for yourself.
Yes! At least a third of the population can’t drive, because too young, too old, handicapped in some way, or too poor. And we have built an environment that requires driving. That’s pretty messed up.
Depends on where you live. In most of the US if you don't have a car you'll be spending hours a day on busses. You have no freedom - you are either sleeping or commuting or working. You can't sleep less, you can't work less. But you can commute fewer hours a day with a car.
Walkable/bikeable places exist in some cities, but are reserved for the rich.
As for the costs of owning a car - these are real, but the cost of not owning a car is much greater. As electric cars filter down to the used market cost of car ownership will also drop a fair amount.
As a gig delivery driver, I'm one of the few people who (on a social level, at least) can justify owning a car. It's immensely frustrating to get into accidents with people who don't need to be on the road, to have to wait for a spot to open up at the gas station, to have to navigate the endless parking lots... But, look, even for us, it's barely worth it. The pay is so low, and cost of ownership so high, that it's less like a job and more like a loan that you pay back in vehicle upkeep, maintenance, and depreciation (and stress, and injury, if you're unlucky). Once you're desperate enough to work one of these gigs (cough) it's almost not worth it to bother with any of that stuff. Just drive the car until it stops, sell it for parts, take the proceeds and start investing in the means to live-car free.
And mass transit you have to deal with line failures, the inability to transport more than you can reasonably carry, and the curfew created by the end-of-line time for the evening.
Which you can wait a lifetime to maybe be built in some diluted state given current pace of things, or resign and take the option the present environment favors. Hate the game, not the player.
not much different from a human in the grand sceme of things. Need to maintain energy, treat minor and major injuries, deal with insurance, keep an ID on me (which costs money to renew), and either avoid or accept the risk of night walks. Fights can break out, routes can get deterred, and Just keeping up with living expenses is hell.
Adding a 2nd mechanical maintenacnce isn't as bad as dealing with the flesh skin version.
If you consider night walks a risk you really don't live in a good area. I walk everywhere here in Barcelona day or night. Same in Amsterdam, Dublin etc.
As it is, people love to complain about buying gas. If someone were to add up the costs associated with driving, I’m sure it would be insane. And I mean all costs. Driving is subsidized to a level that is incomprehensible, and obfuscated away more than just about anything else.
People complain about gas and the weather and the baseball team and everything else and they still don't make any changes about that with their life, because its hardly significant. Gas could double people pay maybe $40 extra a week on their fillup as a result. Meanwhile rent and housing take so much more out of your pocket its hardly relevant what the price of gas is.
Having the option to walk doesn't mean that you can't drive. One can have both. Nice weather to walk in? Maybe I'll walk the 10 minutes to the shopping center. Raining a lot? Take the car.
No one is arguing that you would have to take public transportation or walk everywhere. They are just saying that it is good if where you live is walkable. I also live in Southern California and I would say that a lot of most expensive places to live are expensive because they are more walkable. You could live in downtown La Jolla or by the beach in Santa Monica and walk around. You could also own or rent a car and drive to Lake Tahoe. It's not either or.
East hollywood probably sees the some of the most foot traffic in southern california and rents are relatively affordable by LA county standards. Chances are the working class areas in sd are similar I imagine where you see a lot of people walking, biking, or taking the bus to get to work. Of course this isn’t “urbanism” in the way that upper class people consider it, but it exists.
You may not imagine how it works but plenty of people do ride transit in southern california. LA metro ridership is like 800k people a day. A lot of neighborhoods have a lot of foot traffic in LA county at least.
I visited London a long time ago and the public transportation is amazing and it I did want to walk to see the city, which I did. But I imagine even living there, I would want my own car to be in control of my life.
So, visiting a place is good for walking. But living in a place is not. At least that's my experience.