Pretty sure OP's comment assumed city life. In most rural and suburban USA towns, cars are the only thing that enables connection to others. If cars suddenly disappeared, half of America would effectively become hermits (not to mention starve due to lack of access to basic necessities like groceries).
Ending Car Dependence basically means move to a denser city, which you're never going to convince everyone to do.
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.
Great point that it's unlikely for the US to become significantly more urban such that public transportation takes over car reliance (although that would be great).
More walkable small cities/towns would be extremely welcome! I don't enjoy living where I can't walk for coffee and groceries. But I'd love a cheaper cost of living.
>I can appreciate having a car can be useful, but I'd not call it a necessity. Perhaps things are different in the US of A.
American urban planning is heavily car-centric. They talk about "walkable communities", because the opposite is the norm. A large proportion of American towns and suburbs are sprawling, low-density and strictly segregated between residential and commercial developments. Public transport is often meagre or nonexistent. Parts of America are practically uninhabitable without a car. It's probably true to say that Americans are unreasonably attached to driving and averse to walking, but at this stage it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
Higher population density in urban areas severely reduces the need for cars. It's possible to live in cities developed pre-car (London, Berlin, Boston, New York) without owning a car. Americans have put ourselves in a pickle by building sprawling suburbs, which then require cars to increase the "number of highly specialized people" they can interact with.
I can see replacing cars in major urban cities with high population density. And I'd love to see more options for long distance travel in the US (like fast trains).
However, arguments for getting rid of cars seem to ignore the fact that public transit just isn't economical in areas with low population density. And even in urban areas, there are situations where having a car is very beneficial, such as grocery shopping. If you're a single individual it's probably manageable without a car, but for a family of four, you probably can't carry enough food for more than two or three days. If there were no cars in the city, I have no idea how you would purchase larger items like furniture.
Every anti-car argument I've seen has assumed a particular lifestyle. If you really want to get rid of cars, you'll need replacements that can solve the problems of almost everyone.
US is extremely car-dependent due commuting and
infrastructure spread out in the suburbs, which in turn
are caused by abandonment of cities for suburbs:
i.e. the conditions of life in suburbs outcompeted cities.
Fixing the root cause is fixing the cities Quality of Life
to compete with suburbs - going after symptoms(car-centric
culture) won't work.
Small villages have become more spread out with the automobile in the US. Cities are dense enough most kinds of destination are within walking distance. 50% of Manhattanites don't own cars. The question is what modes of transport should have priority and in suburbs the answer is cars.
In today's age, cars are a necessity in the US largely in part because our cities have been designed with limited amounts of mixed zoning in downtown areas. Many cities in the US were restructured around major highways and have yet to recover from this (Atlanta being the one I can testify for). Car manufacturers have had a very tight grip on USA urban planning throughout the 20th century[1], and the rise of suburbs and accessible (at the time) single-family housing outside of metro areas has helped solidify the presence of cars in the lives of many Americans. Furthermore, our federal and state governments have done little to move people away from cars, despite the fact that the US economy doesn't rely on car manufacturing like it used to.
I am pretty anti-car myself, but the last point of the post makes me think that the author hasn't seen how personal transportation plays in ENORMOUS role in the everyday lives of families who live outside of major cities in the US. I'm a young 20-something pursuing a career in tech, so I'm part of the demographic who is most able to avoid car ownership.
I went to school in the south, and got to see firsthand how many of the thousands of people who worked for my university were only able to get to their jobs because they owned a car. My school, like many others in the US (Virginia Tech, UIUC, UPenn, etc.) was out in the middle of nowhere, and was by far the largest employer in the county (and surrounding counties). My school subsidized a fleet of several buses to make public transportation feasible, but those bus routes often were 5-10X slower than personal transportation and were undersupplied and undermaintained, making it difficult to use them as true replacements to car.
The car dependence in America is so strong, that I think 99% of the population doesn't realize what is possible even with slightly reduced (not eliminated) car dependence.
I grew up in the suburbs and felt *trapped* until I was able to drive. Legitimately didn't feel like I could be independent.
This is most people's experience, whether they realize it or not. I only became aware of what car-less life could be like when I lived in Chicago (the city, not the burbs). Even then it took me a year to realize how convenient everything was because I could mostly walk or bike to what I wanted.
IMO - the resistance to developing density in the US is because people associate independence with the automobile; and it's a very, very deep association. I don't think people understand that density can actually make you more independent because they haven't really experienced it.
And to be clear I don't want to ban cars. More so, just want to see our country have more options for actual cities other than NYC and Chicago.
I see it less about eliminating cars (though that would be awesome if possible) and more about giving people alternatives (public transit, walking), which you don't have in American suburbia.
Much of the rest of the world has already figured it out. I'm in a "suburb" of Seoul right now. I can get to Gangnam in 30 minutes door to door via the subway (subway ticket is ~$2 each way). I'm a short walk (< 5 mins) to grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. It's all apartments here, which is why everything is so walkable. Of course this means less space than a house, but it's quiet and there are plenty of parks/green and a big lake nearby (5-10 minute walk).
Meanwhile back at my parents' house in the suburbs of Washington DC, the closest commercial business I can walk to is a gas station 20 minutes away, next to an ugly car-ridden highway. The nearest grocery store would require crossing that wide road and walking an additional 10-15 minutes through a massive parking lot. There is no viable public transport - if I want to take the subway into DC I need to drive 15 minutes to the nearest subway station (subway ticket is ~$5-8 I believe). Although my immediate neighborhood is very nice in the sense that there are a lot of trees, there actually aren't any parks (unless you count the local elementary school) or businesses of any form, including simple convenience stores (something I noticed is commonplace in most of the rest of the world).
Everytime I'm at my parents' house I'm completely dependent on having a vehicle to do anything, and bored out of my mind within about a week because it's extraordinarily isolating. I get very little exercise because I end up just staying in my house all day because there's little to do. On the other hand I can be in "city"-like suburbs like the one I'm in now and not feel lonely even if I don't talk to anyone because I can just step outside and there are people everywhere, or go walk to one of the million coffee shops nearby that are always packed with people hanging out.
I despise American suburbs. Who decided that the "American Dream" is owning a single-family home in the suburbs? I guess I'm just not enough of a hermit to enjoy that lifestyle.
I think the emphasis on US cities is key here. I've yet to live in a european city where a car is a requirment. Agree with you on the short term however.
I am advocating against car dependency, a particular style of development in the US that few Europeans understand until they live in it.
I am not advocating for getting rid of all cars, or even saying that car-dependent areas should be banned! I'm advocating for allowing those who want to choose something other than a car to have that choice. However, the way that US law is constructed, and 99% of land use is planned, a car is needed to fetch a loaf of bread, get to daycare, visit friends, or to perform any of the basics of life. Imagine your house is an island, and every other destination is an island, and your car is the only way to get between them. That's the assumption of the entire US planning professions.
The average American likely doesn't want a life without cars. That seems to be an HN obsession seemingly (my perception) fueled by people who have lived and stayed in very dense urban areas.
Creating larger spaces that aren't made for cars is great, but people will still need long-range individual transportation.
What are you basing that on? In dense cities with good transportation infrastructure people don't own cars nearly as much and the people that do own cars use them less.
According to the census, 80.7% of americans live in urban areas. We really should be creating spaces where people don't have to have a car to do the basic necessities. When talking about car dependence, it's about creating viable options that are more sustainable and more equitable for getting where you need to go. Kids, elderly, disabled people all have issues driving and if we create a way for them to get around without a car, it makes the city a better place.
The issue isn't cars specifically. The issue is our built environment requires cars. Maybe more things should just be down the block.
I'm not sure why "less auto dependence [would mean] less suburbs."
Here's one alternative: If we get rid of cars in cities, have commuter rail from the city to each surrounding suburb, and allow cars in the suburb? Then... there you go. This is called a "hub and spoke" pattern iirc
There are plenty of suburbs in the US that operate like this— where most people who work in the city commute via rail, but most families also have cars, and there is a spread-out spacious feel (some towns in NJ come to mind).
I agree with everything above minus the last part. Bikes, walking, and mass transit can (and should) absolutely replace car usage if the infrastructure is there to support it. This has been proven in many European cities, Americans are just stubborn and carpilled.
I think micromobilty and improvements in transportation on demand would really reduce the need for car ownership.
Already in big cities with good public transport cars don't make much sense anymore, but I believe suburbs will follow.
reply