undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstetrain10mo ago0 comments

But those cities do exist. Just mostly not in the US.

They also don’t need to make non-car options more convenient for all people, or even most people. The larger the share of non-car trips the better things get even for those who still drive, even if that share is going from 10% to 20%. Less congestion and pollution. Fewer traffic accidents. More density of housing in places that have high demand, reducing housing costs.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

taeric10mo ago· 5 in thread

My point is that, even in the cities that you are referencing, the more affluent people almost always have a car. Because they can afford it, and because it is more convenient.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this. Essentially, my assertion is that you get more people out of cars by making them expensive than you do with city design. (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

bryanlarsen10mo ago

Yes, affluent people will pretty much always own cars. But with a pedestrian/cycle/transit friendly design, they'll use them much less.

I know affluent people in Copenhagen. They own cars. They are basically only used on the weekend, for travel outside of Copenhagen.

Amsterdam has 0.45 cars per household. So lots of households own cars, even in Amsterdam. But the miles driven per household per day is less than a quarter of what it is in the States.

taeric10mo ago

I mean, cars per household is 2+ in large portions of the US.

Again, I'm largely inline with what you are speaking towards. The only change I'm making to the discourse is that, if you want fewer people owning cars, you pretty much have to make it more expensive. You can't just make the city more walkable. You have to make it expensive to own cars.

As I say downthread, this is inline with cheaper dense housing. If you want cheaper dense housing, you wind up with smaller living units. Often without dedicated parking allotments for all residents.

bryanlarsen10mo ago

The goal isn't, or shouldn't be, fewer people owning cars. The goal should be fewer miles driven in urban areas. My cousin in Copenhagen basically only uses it for driving out to a rural area to visit her parents.

Owning a car in Denmark is incredibly expensive. That does significantly impact the ownership rate. And of course if fewer people own cars the miles driven by cars does go down. But lowering the ownership rate is a means to the end, not the end itself.

1 more reply

queenkjuul10mo ago

Amsterdam has fewer cars because it is designed to be convenient without one, not because cars are that much more expensive there.

1 more reply

stetrainOP10mo ago

> (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning.

And you can still significantly reduce the number of cars and car-trips without eliminating car ownership. A household with one car used occasionally when it’s convenient needs less parking and driving space than one with two cars driven daily.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

taeric10mo ago· 5 in thread

My point is that, even in the cities that you are referencing, the more affluent people almost always have a car. Because they can afford it, and because it is more convenient.

bryanlarsen10mo ago

Yes, affluent people will pretty much always own cars. But with a pedestrian/cycle/transit friendly design, they'll use them much less.

I know affluent people in Copenhagen. They own cars. They are basically only used on the weekend, for travel outside of Copenhagen.

Amsterdam has 0.45 cars per household. So lots of households own cars, even in Amsterdam. But the miles driven per household per day is less than a quarter of what it is in the States.

taeric10mo ago

I mean, cars per household is 2+ in large portions of the US.

As I say downthread, this is inline with cheaper dense housing. If you want cheaper dense housing, you wind up with smaller living units. Often without dedicated parking allotments for all residents.

bryanlarsen10mo ago

1 more reply

queenkjuul10mo ago

Amsterdam has fewer cars because it is designed to be convenient without one, not because cars are that much more expensive there.

1 more reply

stetrainOP10mo ago

> (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse