Article: "Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It"

[elysianfields]

This Atlantic article outlines how the automobile benefits from multiple legal regimes in the U. S.: parking lot size requirements, subsidies that reward driving and punish using public transportation or walking, high speed limits, low liability insurance requirements ($0 in some states), and many more.  The writer offers multiple ways citizens can encourage less automobile-friendly laws.

Given other discussions around here about parking lot zoning and driving vs. other modes of transportation, I thought the article made several relevant points & suggestions.

[Kazyan]

The most interesting part of that article, to me, was the observation about how single-family home zoning incentivizes automobiles. That suggests that clown houses and clown cars are directly related, rather than being two separate phenomena. Those are the two biggest "virtual necessities" that drain money--or, at least, enforced spending that ends up difficult-but-not-impossible to avoid. America's economy would be almost unrecognizable if this were fixed.

[HenryDavid]

Absolutely: "clown houses and clown cars are directly related, rather than being two separate phenomena. Those are the two biggest "virtual necessities" that drain money--or, at least, enforced spending that ends up difficult-but-not-impossible to avoid. America's economy would be almost unrecognizable if this were fixed."

Once you start to disengage from the default way of life by driving less, living closer to everything you need, downsizing your too-big house . . . it seems so obvious that it's an interlocking, or mutually reinforcing, set of "needs" the keeps people mortgage-poor, car-poor, stuck in traffic jams on the way to Costco and IKEA to fill up the big house . . . . and on and on. (Because I NEED the car to get to work from the big house which I NEED to relax because of my hard work and commute, which I NEED to do because big houses cost too much close to work, where I NEED to work to earn enough to pay for the car and the house, oh and the suits, which I NEED to keep the job to pay for the car . . . and the PARKING . . .)

Step away from the default way of life. Put down the car keys. Sell the lawnmower. Get a bike and a library card. Your soul will thank you.

[FIREstache]

I disagree with the above generalizations.  They might apply to some people that drive.

[TheContinentalOp]

This Atlantic article outlines how the automobile benefits from multiple legal regimes in the U. S.: parking lot size requirements, subsidies that reward driving and punish using public transportation or walking, high speed limits, low liability insurance requirements ($0 in some states), and many more.  The writer offers multiple ways citizens can encourage less automobile-friendly laws.

Given other discussions around here about parking lot zoning and driving vs. other modes of transportation, I thought the article made several relevant points & suggestions.

OK, the author makes a few fair points. But there are also some obvious errors. Like the claim that drivers get tax-deductible parking while commuters get no similar benefit. First of all it's not tax-deductible, it's excluded from taxation, and there's a similar benefit available to mass transit commuters. (The bicycle benefit was eliminated by Trump's tax changes.)

Also when he makes claims about bus-riders being taxed to subsidize autos and McMansions, that's  nonsense. In no transit system in the country do fares cover operational expenses (not to mention capital costs). Every mass-transit commuter is subsidized.

And even the claims about cars vs. mass transit on CO2 emissions are dubious. See https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=219

Finally, the issues of zoning for single-family housing and long commutes are tied up with the sticky issues of "race" and "good schools". You can't address the former without tacking the latter and from what I've seen the country isn't read for that yet.


And I'm not some car fanatic. I live in a walkable neighborhood. I ride by bike to work and for most errands. I only drove 4000 miles last year and 1500 of those were three trips to visit my parents in Virginia.

[OtherJen]

This article is a few years old but other than the M-1 rail line (aka QLine for Quicken Loans) and a few express bus lines, not much has changed.

How Detroit ended up with the worst public transit

From the article:

How’d it get this bad? Why is it that someone who wants to get from downtown Detroit via DDOT to a job at, for example, the Costco in Livonia, needs to budget two hours for the trip? When driving that route would take a mere 15 to 20 minutes? Consider the two transfers needed to make that bus ride happen, tack on the inevitable waiting period, and it begins to make sense why this region is beholden to the automobile not just by name, but in practice too.

There’s no single reason why public transportation was so much better when my dad was a kid in Detroit 60-odd years ago, but the factors include racial politics and poor regional planning. Neither has changed appreciably. I live in the same county that houses Detroit. Amtrak and Greyhound are the only non-car routes to the next county west, home to a major world-class university.

[dcheesi]

[...]

Step away from the default way of life. Put down the car keys. Sell the lawnmower. Get a bike and a library card. Your soul will thank you.

Blow up your t.v. throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an find jesus on your own

:-)

[bacchi]

Also when he makes claims about bus-riders being taxed to subsidize autos and McMansions, that's  nonsense. In no transit system in the country do fares cover operational expenses (not to mention capital costs). Every mass-transit commuter is subsidized.

That's not quite the point.

Of course mass transit is subsidized just as roads are subsidized. However, roads are subsidized MUCH more than mass transit. There's no road system in the country where gas taxes cover the building and maintenance. It's a massive transfer from general taxes to the DOT.

So, yes, it is true that bus riders are subsidizing car drivers just as bicyclists are subsidizing car drivers.

And even the claims about cars vs. mass transit on CO2 emissions are dubious. See https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=219

That link is mainly looking at the vampiric effect of rail on buses. There are also a number of things wrong with the analysis.

Finally, the issues of zoning for single-family housing and long commutes are tied up with the sticky issues of "race" and "good schools". You can't address the former without tacking the latter and from what I've seen the country isn't read for that yet.

Agreed. Levittown was built as a whites-only community.

[undercover]

I like having a car and certain types of driving, but I agree that cars should be banned in basically every downtown.

Seeing crew cab trucks trying to parallel park in tiny spots while holding up traffic for a few minutes before giving up just makes me shake my head with how poorly designed our roads/vehicles are.

[seattlecyclone]

OK, the author makes a few fair points. But there are also some obvious errors. Like the claim that drivers get tax-deductible parking while commuters get no similar benefit. First of all it's not tax-deductible, it's excluded from taxation, and there's a similar benefit available to mass transit commuters. (The bicycle benefit was eliminated by Trump's tax changes.)

Yes, similar tax breaks are available for transit subsidies that are available for parking subsidies, but as the article points out there is no similar subsidy available for people who walk or bike to work instead of taking a car/bus/train.

At my office, employees are currently given free parking if they drive, or a free transit pass if they take the bus. Based on the price of parking in paid lots near my office, the parking benefit is worth about $10/day. The transit benefit is worth $5.50/day based on round-trip bus fares within the city. The company gets to deduct the price of both of these benefits as a cost of doing business, and the employee doesn't have to include the value of these benefits in their income.

What about folks who walk or bike into the office? They often have to pay a bit more for housing living in a denser neighborhood. Shouldn't they get something too? By providing free parking to any employee who drives, the company has already shown it's willing to pay $10/day above and beyond base salaries. To be equitable they could start giving transit users an extra $4.50/day cash, and $10 to folks who walk or bike to work. That way they spend $10 on each employee per day they come into the office. The problem is that these cash payments would count as taxable income, so the walkers wouldn't get to keep the full $10 after all. This means the drivers are still getting something of greater value than everyone else even if the company spent the same amount on everybody. That seems like a misguided tax policy in the middle of a climate crisis.

Also when he makes claims about bus-riders being taxed to subsidize autos and McMansions, that's  nonsense. In no transit system in the country do fares cover operational expenses (not to mention capital costs). Every mass-transit commuter is subsidized.

It's not just the cost of the actual transportation. Other infrastructure costs more in low-density neighborhoods too. Suburban-style single-family neighborhoods require much more water pipe, sewer pipe, electrical wire, etc. than in denser neighborhoods. Much of the cost of running utilities is in maintaining this infrastructure. Until you start charging people different utility rates based on how dense their block is, the people who live in places where automobile use is optional are subsidizing the people who chose to live in sprawl.

[TheContinentalOp]

Also when he makes claims about bus-riders being taxed to subsidize autos and McMansions, that's  nonsense. In no transit system in the country do fares cover operational expenses (not to mention capital costs). Every mass-transit commuter is subsidized.

That's not quite the point.

Of course mass transit is subsidized just as roads are subsidized. However, roads are subsidized MUCH more than mass transit. There's no road system in the country where gas taxes cover the building and maintenance. It's a massive transfer from general taxes to the DOT.

So, yes, it is true that bus riders are subsidizing car drivers just as bicyclists are subsidizing car drivers.

Well there are some road systems that do cover building and maintenance, but they are tolled..

Meanwhile 20% of the fed gas tax doesn't go to highways; it goes to mass-transit and other non-road projects.

But there's no place where 20% of your bus or train fare goes to subsidize the roads.

And the subsides for highways are not even close to the subsidies that mass transit get. Highways are subsidized at rate of about $.01 per passenger mile while mass transit is in the neighborhood of $.66 per passenger mile.

But fair is fair. I am more than willing to raise the gas tax (and freight fees for tractor trailers) to cover the full cost of highways, but in return, mass transit has to rely on full farebox recovery.

[bacchi]

Well there are some road systems that do cover building and maintenance, but they are tolled..

Good point.

And the subsides for highways are not even close to the subsidies that mass transit get. Highways are subsidized at rate of about $.01 per passenger mile while mass transit is in the neighborhood of $.66 per passenger mile.

There's some confusion about "subsidized." When I wrote "subsidized," I meant that bus riders and bicyclists pay taxes the same as car drivers but don't use the roads as much.

For example, my property tax is $10k and $600 of that goes to building and maintaining city roads. If I only ride/drive 100 miles/month, and my neighbor drives 1000 miles/month, my neighbor likely gets far more benefit than me from the road system. Similarly, a daily commuter gets far more usage of the interstate (paid for by income taxes) than I do and those 10 lanes also cut into general tax revenue for the city.

There's also pollution and the hidden subsidies for building far flung sub/exurbs in a leap frog fashion, as seattlecyclone mentioned.

[six-car-habit]

 +++ for both the continental op's responses.

 I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

[bacchi]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

[Much Fishing to Do]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

This has been less surprising to me when I live in more rural areas and small towns (including towns of 50k people).  But when I lived in a big city area I was surprised at how bad it was there too.  I could not afford to live in town, so would have to commute.  To commute via public transit would basically increase the time it took me to get to work from 1 hour to 1.5 hrs, and it cost about the same or more to pay for all the public transit needed as it did to just drive in and park.  The only good situation I found was when I was close enough to a bike trail I felt safe using, and that hour trip wasnt very pleasant in bad weather.

[seattlecyclone]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

Exactly. We could have built our cities so that there were lots of homes right across the street from your place of employment, so that walking to work was a real alternative to a 15-mile car commute. We could have built our cities with homes and businesses close enough together that you could get from one side of a 50,000 person town to the other in less than 15 minutes on a bicycle. In most of America we did not do this. We instead designed most of our inhabited areas in a way that is convenient to traverse if and only if you're behind the wheel of a car: businesses on one side of town, homes on the other, and never allow the two to mix. Lots of empty space required between everything.

We offer transit in such an area mainly as a crutch for the disabled, who are assumed to have nothing better to do with their time than to wait around all day for a slow bus. And if they want to go somewhere at night? Forget about it. Why would someone who can't drive ever want to go someplace outside of business hours? That's silly!

It doesn't have to be this way.

[Khaetra]

Neighborhoods change too though.  When my family first moved here (a little over 40 years ago) everything you needed was within walking distance, just about a mile and the bus stop was two houses down.  Now, the only thing we have close (2 miles) would be Walmart but even trying to cross that major road could be deadly (there is no turn lane but people take the bike lane and use it to turn.  Idiots.).  Everything else closed or moved out further and there is no more bus stop two houses down.

[six-car-habit]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

  To be more specific, the town was built around a military base, the base had been there since the late 1800's, way before cars were available. The base was not next to any major city when built.

  there are lots of homes around the employer. i did used to live in the "town". and could bicycle to work past the unsavory types out late at night.

 I chose to move farther away, to have more land / privacy / less crime / "nicer" house.  Having a car and road infrastucutre made it possible to still get to work in 20 minutes-- so yes this fits with SeattleCyclone's narrative.
  If we were back in the days pre-automobile, I would have bought a horse to commute, and still moved farther from the town, and the horse would have crapped on the path into town.  Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...
 

[bacchi]

  To be more specific, the town was built around a military base, the base had been there since the late 1800's, way before cars were available. The base was not next to any major city when built.

This sounds interesting. Are there still remnants of the old buildings (stables? barracks? brick HQ?) around?

Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...

Of course.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on better solutions for our commuting problems. It's a colossal waste of money as it is.

[TheContinentalOp]

  To be more specific, the town was built around a military base, the base had been there since the late 1800's, way before cars were available. The base was not next to any major city when built.

This sounds interesting. Are there still remnants of the old buildings (stables? barracks? brick HQ?) around?

Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...

Of course.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on better solutions for our commuting problems. It's a colossal waste of money as it is.

If reducing the median commute time is the priority, I would think that subsidizing and incentivizing working from home would get the biggest bang for the buck.

[John Galt incarnate!]

If reducing the median commute time is the priority, I would think that subsidizing and incentivizing working from home would get the biggest bang for the buck.

I've thought the same.

[bacchi]

If reducing the median commute time is the priority, I would think that subsidizing and incentivizing working from home would get the biggest bang for the buck.

Yep. A lot of managers want "butts-in-the-seat" even when there's no reason to be there but a subsidy might work.

[Elle 8]

I work in a brand new building on a train line. The corner of the building is about 10 yards from the station entrance/exit. But is there an entrance to the building there? No. The train commuters have to walk halfway around the building to get to the entrance, probably 100 yards away. I know, that's a short walk, but the car commuters have a covered walkway directly from the garage to the entrance, about 20 yards away.  As a train commuter, I can't help but feel like a second class citizen for the way they designed that building.

(After reading this in preview, it sounds very whiney, but I'll post it anyway.  I mean, even an egress only door at that corner would be nice.)

[undercover]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

  To be more specific, the town was built around a military base, the base had been there since the late 1800's, way before cars were available. The base was not next to any major city when built.

  there are lots of homes around the employer. i did used to live in the "town". and could bicycle to work past the unsavory types out late at night.

 I chose to move farther away, to have more land / privacy / less crime / "nicer" house.  Having a car and road infrastucutre made it possible to still get to work in 20 minutes-- so yes this fits with SeattleCyclone's narrative.
  If we were back in the days pre-automobile, I would have bought a horse to commute, and still moved farther from the town, and the horse would have crapped on the path into town.  Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...
 

I have a house in the city but I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with you. Of course not everyone wants to live like that. In fact, I'd say no one really wants to live like that, but the allure of convenience/money is what attracts people to live like that since 99% of human history involved living in groups less than 100 people.

With online delivery and the ability to work from home though, there's becoming less and less reason to live in a densely populated place. It's still efficient for humanity as a whole, but I think it's a bit depressing mentally.

I actually much prefer a very small town with sparse neighbors but I decided to buy in the city for financial reasons for now. I plan to retreat in the future.

So I don't think this as much an anti-car argument as a pro-public-transportation one. Our infrastructure just sucks. Maybe we don't need to go as far as banning cars in downtowns, but we certainly need more and better options in the form of more/safer bike lanes, cleaner buses, and more trains/subways. In places where congestion is a big problem, there needs to be economic incentive to ditch the car and go for faster/cheaper options not to punish drivers, but to make everything better for everyone.

[FIREstache]

I chose to move farther away, to have more land / privacy / less crime / "nicer" house.  Having a car and road infrastucutre made it possible to still get to work in 20 minutes-- so yes this fits with SeattleCyclone's narrative.
  If we were back in the days pre-automobile, I would have bought a horse to commute, and still moved farther from the town, and the horse would have crapped on the path into town.  Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...
 

Same here.  I'm not interested in being cooped up or crammed in with everyone else I work with around the corner from the workplace.  I wouldn't want to drive a long ways, either, but my suburban neighborhood takes me about 5 to 10 minutes to get to work.

[dcheesi]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

  To be more specific, the town was built around a military base, the base had been there since the late 1800's, way before cars were available. The base was not next to any major city when built.

  there are lots of homes around the employer. i did used to live in the "town". and could bicycle to work past the unsavory types out late at night.

 I chose to move farther away, to have more land / privacy / less crime / "nicer" house.  Having a car and road infrastucutre made it possible to still get to work in 20 minutes-- so yes this fits with SeattleCyclone's narrative.
  If we were back in the days pre-automobile, I would have bought a horse to commute, and still moved farther from the town, and the horse would have crapped on the path into town.  Not everyone wants to live cheek-to-cheek with neighbors and strangers.... It's just how some folks are.  The much vaunted "American freedom" and all that jazz...
 

I have a house in the city but I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with you. Of course not everyone wants to live like that. In fact, I'd say no one really wants to live like that, but the allure of convenience/money is what attracts people to live like that since 99% of human history involved living in groups less than 100 people.

With online delivery and the ability to work from home though, there's becoming less and less reason to live in a densely populated place. It's still efficient for humanity as a whole, but I think it's a bit depressing mentally.

I actually much prefer a very small town with sparse neighbors but I decided to buy in the city for financial reasons for now. I plan to retreat in the future.

So I don't think this as much an anti-car argument as a pro-public-transportation one. Our infrastructure just sucks. Maybe we don't need to go as far as banning cars in downtowns, but we certainly need more and better options in the form of more/safer bike lanes, cleaner buses, and more trains/subways. In places where congestion is a big problem, there needs to be economic incentive to ditch the car and go for faster/cheaper options not to punish drivers, but to make everything better for everyone.

Never say never no one! My brother loved living in Manhattan for several years; he probably never would have left, if his financial situation hadn't changed to make it prohibitively expensive. He's the kind of person who always wants to be in the middle of everything, wherever the biggest crowd is, etc. He tried country living in his youth, and it was definitely not for him!

[seattlecyclone]

Indeed. I also honestly prefer living in a walkable neighborhood in a city where transit works pretty well. Doubling or tripling the distance between me and my neighbors wouldn't make up for that, not by a longshot.

[six-car-habit]

*** This sounds interesting. Are there still remnants of the old buildings (stables? barracks? brick HQ?) around? ***

 There are a couple of buildings on the national historic register, so the exteriors cannot be changed. Although the insides have been remodeled. I think the oldest is from ~ 1905.  We have some huge machinery , where the metal has a casting date stamp of 1895.  And a couple of electrical stations that look like they belong in a frankenstein movie [ old uninsulated electrical buss bars, etc] - they would never pass current building standards , but are out of the sight of the general public and are sort of "grandfathered in ".

 ***If reducing the median commute time is the priority, I would think that subsidizing and incentivizing working from home would get the biggest bang for the buck.*** 
 I need to be on site to work on the machinery / utilities, but work from home sounds great !

 I get the idea of close city living, especially if it is an area of old ornate Victorian style homes/ beautiful architecture, cannot find that in our semi-rural area....

[undercover]

I have a house in the city but I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with you. Of course not everyone wants to live like that. In fact, I'd say no one really wants to live like that, but the allure of convenience/money is what attracts people to live like that since 99% of human history involved living in groups less than 100 people.

With online delivery and the ability to work from home though, there's becoming less and less reason to live in a densely populated place. It's still efficient for humanity as a whole, but I think it's a bit depressing mentally.

I actually much prefer a very small town with sparse neighbors but I decided to buy in the city for financial reasons for now. I plan to retreat in the future.

So I don't think this as much an anti-car argument as a pro-public-transportation one. Our infrastructure just sucks. Maybe we don't need to go as far as banning cars in downtowns, but we certainly need more and better options in the form of more/safer bike lanes, cleaner buses, and more trains/subways. In places where congestion is a big problem, there needs to be economic incentive to ditch the car and go for faster/cheaper options not to punish drivers, but to make everything better for everyone.

Never say never no one! My brother loved living in Manhattan for several years; he probably never would have left, if his financial situation hadn't changed to make it prohibitively expensive. He's the kind of person who always wants to be in the middle of everything, wherever the biggest crowd is, etc. He tried country living in his youth, and it was definitely not for him!

Definitely. I just meant that no one would not want people to have the option to live outside the city by way of banning cars completely or something. Oh and I"m sure someone would want that but they'd have to be pretty unreasonable. I didn't articulate that well enough though so my bad.

As far as preferring Manhattan to anywhere else...man he can have it lol.

[TheContinentalOp]

Green Acres is the place to be.
Farm livin' is the life for me.
Land spreadin' out so far and wide
Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside.

New York is where I'd rather stay.
I get allergic smelling hay.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Dah-ling I love you but give me Park Avenue.

...The chores.
...The stores.
...Fresh air.
...Times Square

You are my wife.
Good bye, city life.
Green Acres we are there.

[Just Joe]

Indeed. I also honestly prefer living in a walkable neighborhood in a city where transit works pretty well. Doubling or tripling the distance between me and my neighbors wouldn't make up for that, not by a longshot.

Give me a safe bike path away from traffic (not just painted lines on the edge of the road) and I can make most any living situation work. I prefer my "country home with acreage" about a ten minute drive from work though. I still bike b/c there is a series of quiet country roads that I can string together to build a route to and from. Thank goodness for ebikes b/c some of the hills are STEEP and would require a fair bit of walking which can be unsafe IMHO b/c the minutes it takes to climb the hill. Some are blind curves, etc.

I imagine some of the cities are laid out the way they are because people didn't want to live next to dirty polluting factories in an age with coal power, pollution being poured directly into creeks, and the noise. The people that did could not afford to do otherwise and moved as soon as they could. The first homes torn down due to neglect and old fashioned services (electrical, plumbing, heating) would be the housing next to the factory that only the desperately poor people would choose. Its not unlike 2019 where the oil refinery's neighbors are the perpetually poor. When the poor people don't want those houses, nobody wants them and they'll get torn down. Also, the poor people who live in them often can't afford to maintain or renovate those homes. 

What we need is a national commitment to a way forward. Bike paths, low speed streetcars feeding a hub station, commuter trains, perhaps buses, and fewer massive feeder streets making it difficult to be a pedestrian or bicyclist. It can be done if the funding is there but the federal government would rather buy military equipment and pick fights with Iran, Russia and China. The local government is lucky to keep the existing roads patched here.

[ncornilsen]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

Exactly. We could have built our cities so that there were lots of homes right across the street from your place of employment, so that walking to work was a real alternative to a 15-mile car commute. We could have built our cities with homes and businesses close enough together that you could get from one side of a 50,000 person town to the other in less than 15 minutes on a bicycle. In most of America we did not do this. We instead designed most of our inhabited areas in a way that is convenient to traverse if and only if you're behind the wheel of a car: businesses on one side of town, homes on the other, and never allow the two to mix. Lots of empty space required between everything.

Um, no, we CANT build our cities so there are homes right across the street from meaningful employment.

Where I live, a large metal casting factory was built. Then a nieghborhood grew up around it. (presumably to house said employees.) 50 years later, most of the residents aren't employees and have nothing to do with said casting factory, and are organizing to shut down the factory. (It smells bad... noisy... eyesore). Protests, fake OSHA complaints from non-employees... fake complaints to the DEQ, etc.

Not everybody or every business is some cutesy starbucks or bicycle shop. heavy industry is incompatible with residential living.  so no, you can't do that.

And I like my single family residence. I love having some space, a shop to build things, and a high degree of autonomy with what I do. I'll fight efforts to take that away tooth and nail.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Green Acres is the place to be.
Farm livin' is the life for me.
Land spreadin' out so far and wide
Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside.

New York is where I'd rather stay.
I get allergic smelling hay.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Dah-ling I love you but give me Park Avenue.

...The chores.
...The stores.
...Fresh air.
...Times Square

You are my wife.
Good bye, city life.
Green Acres we are there.

"Don't Fence Me In"  by Cole Porter



Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

[seattlecyclone]

I live 15 miles from work at a very large local employer .   Some Shifts start and end at midnight. There is no viable / or even available "mass transit" option at mignight.  Even if i lived 2 miles from work there is no mass transit option at that time of day. And this is a town w/ 50,000 people. I might feel ok bicycling past various drunks and meth addicts at midnight, but most folks wouldn't.   . For those who would say, "switch jobs" , it is Not so easy to swap your job when you have many years invested into their retirement system.

That's exactly the point of the OP. The US is built around cars and how to move cars around and where to park them.

Exactly. We could have built our cities so that there were lots of homes right across the street from your place of employment, so that walking to work was a real alternative to a 15-mile car commute. We could have built our cities with homes and businesses close enough together that you could get from one side of a 50,000 person town to the other in less than 15 minutes on a bicycle. In most of America we did not do this. We instead designed most of our inhabited areas in a way that is convenient to traverse if and only if you're behind the wheel of a car: businesses on one side of town, homes on the other, and never allow the two to mix. Lots of empty space required between everything.

Um, no, we CANT build our cities so there are homes right across the street from meaningful employment.

Where I live, a large metal casting factory was built. Then a nieghborhood grew up around it. (presumably to house said employees.) 50 years later, most of the residents aren't employees and have nothing to do with said casting factory, and are organizing to shut down the factory. (It smells bad... noisy... eyesore). Protests, fake OSHA complaints from non-employees... fake complaints to the DEQ, etc.

On the one hand, I think that keeping particularly bothersome industries in a part of town where they won't bother so many folks is one of the only situations where zoning is actually a good idea.

On the other hand, everyone living there was presumably aware of the factory when they moved into the neighborhood. I understand that they may prefer to have the factory disappear, but I don't think that they should have any legal or political recourse available to force that to happen. The factory was there first. Deal with it.

Not everybody or every business is some cutesy starbucks or bicycle shop. heavy industry is incompatible with residential living.  so no, you can't do that.

A business doesn't need to be "cutesy" to be suitable for housing nearby. Big smelly factories aside (which fewer and fewer of us work in with every passing year), housing can work fine pretty much anywhere. Maybe a house next to an auto mechanic or an Amazon warehouse won't be as valuable or desirable as a house next to a coffee shop or a school, but that's okay! People with less money need a place to live too.

And I like my single family residence. I love having some space, a shop to build things, and a high degree of autonomy with what I do. I'll fight efforts to take that away tooth and nail.

You're arguing against a straw man. I don't want to take your house away from you. I live in a single-family home myself, albeit one without much land attached. I do think that your neighbors should be allowed to build attached housing if they so desire. I also think that subsidies to carbon-intensive lifestyles should cease. Beyond that, if a spacious house makes you happy, go for it!

[Just Joe]

I have no interest in living in a multi-family building nor do I want to live next to a multi-family dwelling. I'm voting for all the high density housing to remain in one part of town and not mixing with the single family homes. I know most folks living in high density areas seem to like it but I've lived like that and have no interest in it. Thus I don't live in a city.  I have no problem with mixing stores and apartments. Enjoy! I'll dip in occasionally to shop or eat out and then retreat to the country.

I feel like the recent push for rezoning these urban areas is wrapped in all sorts of feel good intentions when it really just serves to make another generation of developers rich. Not that different from other campaigns for or against green technologies.

[cats]

I have no interest in living in a multi-family building nor do I want to live next to a multi-family dwelling. I'm voting for all the high density housing to remain in one part of town and not mixing with the single family homes. I know most folks living in high density areas seem to like it but I've lived like that and have no interest in it. Thus I don't live in a city.  I have no problem with mixing stores and apartments. Enjoy! I'll dip in occasionally to shop or eat out and then retreat to the country.

I feel like the recent push for rezoning these urban areas is wrapped in all sorts of feel good intentions when it really just serves to make another generation of developers rich. Not that different from other campaigns for or against green technologies.

You're certainly entitled to your preferences, but the fact is that the subsidizing of roads makes single family "country" living artificially cheap and has allowed a lot of developers to profit.  If you were suddenly having to pay an extra $XX/yr for the privilege of living in the country and not in a multi-family dwelling, would it seem so appealing?  I'm guessing many of the developers who build these McMansion subdivisions would have done things a bit differently if they had to pay for and maintain all the roads that connect their developments to amenities like shopping, libraries, theaters, etc.