zlacker

>>amathe+(OP)
The issue of quiting cars is nowadays far from just a matter of values as the article seems to be implying.

Cars are by now a hard to reverse environmental and urban planning disaster across the world. We are stuck with them. As a mode of transport it has grown uncontrollably at the expense of all others (except the airplane) and practically everything has been shaped to accomodate it.

Reversing that development, limiting car traffic to where its really needed is like trying to perform a complete heart and arteries transplant on a living person. Even if there was a will (which there is not) it is not clear if there is a way.

In the best scenario it will be an excruciatingly long transformation (~50 yr) as car oriented cities (or city sections) get slowly deprecated and the car-free or car-lite segments become more desirable, more livable.

>>nologi+Mz1
What you say isn't possible is being done with the greatest amount of success in Amsterdam, great success in Copenhagen, and it's picking up steam now in Paris. Just to mention a few.

It's a gradual process, and part of the problem is actually embedded on your analogy, it's not like perform a heart and artery transplant, because there's no single action that can solve the problem, but years, and years of multiple, small and large initiatives, to make car dependency goes down.

>>rfmc+fX1
Did you really just compare a midsized US citing to freaking Amsterdam? That’s… hopelessly out of touch is about the kindest thing I could say.

>>TylerE+Qc2
Oh yeah. I forgot that the USA operate by another set of rules than the rest of humanity.

What is your point even? Population? Sprawl?

>>rfmc+2f2
In that town in question, I imagine the average household lives on at least quarter acre lots if not more, and that's how they want to live. Does that sound similar to Copenhagen? Is it realistic then to expect a Copenhagen transit style to be functional in that town?