Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewhere with a good public transit and walkability?
It has nothing to do whit Americans, nor did I imply it. Simply put, as it wasn't already simply put, my claim is that changing incentives changes peoples (not just Americans) wants. I would really like to hear why you think that that isn't true. I didn't even mention the US in my post, GP did. But he isn't making an ad hominem but somehow, according to you, I am. Is that because you agree with him and not with me so I'm making a fallacy and not him? Either way, neither did I nor GP make an ad hominem. If you thing that somebody made an ad hominem show some good faith and show where and why is it an ad hominem.
> I grew up in Moscow, USSR. With 2 min subway, trams, rail, buses and trolleybuses going everywhere. There was no private car ownership in the USSR until 1950s so nothing was built "for cars". Yet everyone dreamed of owning a car. There were films about people getting cars. The government ran lottery where prizes were appliances and the main prize was a car. The wait list to buy an overpriced (~2 annual average incomes) car was 5+ years. People still bought them at 3x price on the black market. Some people bought motorcycles and drove them with a sidecar as poor replacement for an unaffordable for them car. People went to work in the oil fields in the north for a year to afford a car. So yes, people do want cars even after they experienced the wonders of public transit.
It didn't occur to you that maybe back then people dreamed of owning a car because it was a novelty, a status symbol? Are they still making films about getting a car in Russia? Why not?
I'm not saying that nobody wants or needs a car. All I'm saying is that in places with good public transit and walkablity not everybody needs a car for day to day life, and of those that don't need a car majority don't dream of getting a car as you put it.
> People who have anxiety driving or cannot give up their drinking habit are a small minority.
Wow, everybody that doesn't dream of owning a car suffers anxiety or is an alcoholic... really?
>It didn't occur to you that maybe back then people dreamed of owning a car because it was a novelty, a status symbol?
It could be for whatever reason, I am not a psychic to read people minds, for all I care they wanted cars because they liked the sounds they make with the horn. The empirical fact remains unchanged: people wanted cars despite the developed public transportation network and heavy burden of car ownership. Which is contrary to the "urbanists" claim that people only want cars because of the lacking public transportation and as soon as the latter becomes "good" people will abandon cars. Some might, some people still want cars. If you see footage of Tokyo, London or whatever place is touted as the public transportation paradaise, you will still see cars on the streets.
>Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks.
>I'm not saying that nobody wants or needs a car.
These two statements cannot be true at the same time, can they?
>Wow, everybody that doesn't dream of owning a car suffers anxiety or is an alcoholic... really?
Did you notice people on the Internet do these sound imitations in writing if and only if they cannot make a concise argument? It's rather peculiar. You can see somebody writing pretty well and making logical points until they can't and then, suddenly, it's "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" etc?
Yes, I really do. You can see it in comments here on HN and any other place the transit-vs-cars discussion comes up and Americans are involved. Sure, there's some Americans who'd really like to live someplace with good public transit and walkability, but don't be fooled: most Americans (IMO) just aren't like this and really do want to stick with their car-based lifestyle. If most Americans were like you say, there'd be a huge exodus of Americans moving to Europe.
So you don't think that people respond to incentives? Quite an interesting take.
> most Americans (IMO) just aren't like this and really do want to stick with their car-based lifestyle.
Because nobody, not just Americans, likes change. I'd like to stick with my public transit/walking lifestyle but if overtime that lifestyle becomes hard to maintain I'd want to get a car.
> If most Americans were like you say, there'd be a huge exodus of Americans moving to Europe.
You've missed the point. I made absolutely no claims about Americans. If I made a claim about people it was about all people, Americans, Europeans, Asians... That claim is that people respond to incentives.
When a person moves from a place with bad public transit and walkablity to place with good public transit and walkablity it is likely that they'll go car free or at least use their care much less. Same applies the other way around.
You didn't, but I did. Like any place, Americans have a culture of their own, and car ownership is a big, big part of that culture in most of the country. (Similarly, owning guns is a big part of that culture for a large fraction of the population.)
>When a person moves from a place with bad public transit and walkablity to place with good public transit and walkablity it is likely that they'll go car free or at least use their care much less. Same applies the other way around.
Well, of course: people have to be practical at some point. Someone moving to a car-bound hellscape is going to need to get a car to have an enjoyable life, and someone moving to a dense city where car ownership is extremely expensive and inconvenient is likely to not want a car at all. But people don't just randomly move to these places: they move there because they want to for some reason, and the ubiquity (or not) of cars is probably a big part of that reason for many. People who absolutely love driving everywhere and hate public transit aren't going to move from suburban USA to Manhattan or Berlin or Tokyo, and people who like living carfree in major cities aren't likely to make the reverse move unless there's some huge incentive (high-paying job, family obligation, etc.) and even here they're probably not going to be too happy with the change.
I really feel like a large portion of the pro-dense-city people really think that almost everyone really secretly wants to live this way and only buys into car culture because it's forced on them. While growing up in a particular environment obviously has a huge effect on your personal preferences, and people sometimes change their opinions after seeing or experiencing a different environment, I think they're discounting how many people really do like car culture, even after seeing the alternatives. My view is that car ownership is a luxury, and a car-based society has huge economic and ecological costs and is ultimately unsustainable outside of rural areas, and eventually more-efficient societies are going to outcompete car-based societies (or, they'll both be destroyed in an ecological collapse leading to general societal collapse). I think we're already seeing a lot of this with the US, where labor costs there are absolutely insane compared to the rest of the world.
Now it is true that age 18-45 healthy childless commuters living in small apartments in safe neighborhoods who go to the same few locations all their lives (should we call them the privileged ones, the boring ones?)…they may get by comfortably without a car. But they’d still want one.
