zlacker

I’m surprised by the association that Americans make between suburbs and cars. Sure, it’s common there, but it wasn’t always, and it’s not outside of the USA.

Take something as far back as New York in the 60s depicted in _Mad Men_: Don Draper commutes by train. He lives a little away from the station, but that’s hardly something a well-timed local bus couldn’t easily bridge.

Many people still do today. It’s the same thing in most capitals where I’ve lived, and those big enough to be featured in movies. Suburbanites commute to London, Paris, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Chicago, Tokyo, Moscow, Delhi, Peking, Shanghai, and every large China city by local train. I know places where people don’t, but I can’t think of a single place where that’s not a nightmare.

>>bertil+(OP)
When you live in an average American suburb you cannot walk down the road to a store. You may or may not have a sidewalk. There will not be reliable public transit. You have to get in the car and drive to do anything. There's no other way.

Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your comment as New York (City) is one of the few areas with meaningful public transit.

We worship cars here. Cars are like Freedom Jesus. If you do anything to mess with cars you are a filthy communist who should die according to the general public.

>>deprec+22

  Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your
  comment as New York (City) 

New York != New York City. Don Draper lived in Ossining, which is about forty (40) miles north of Lower Manhattan (New York City). What's being discussed is commuter rail, not dense intracity transit. Commuter rail systems exist across the country and are absolutely a viable way of getting folks out of cars.

>>bertil+(OP)
I don't remember specifics from the show but probably Don Draper's wife drove him to whatever commuter rail station in Westchester Country or southern Connecticut and he took the train to Grand Central Station and walked to his office on Madison Avenue from there.

If I worked in Boston/Cambridge, I could (and sometimes do) take the train in a similar manner though it takes me 90-120 minutes each way depending upon destination.

>>bertil+(OP)
You do the thing that is most convenient. If the train is faster and easier you do that. If a car is easier you use that.

>>deprec+22
People find cars the easiest way to get around and they support things to make that easier. The average person wants to be able to travel somewhere easy and when they get there park. If that means more parking and wider roads they may support that. I hate arguments that latch onto a small extremist view and try to paint everyone with that broad stroke. Supporting cars is not some right wing agenda.

Every suburb I have lived in has been walkable for the main items (grocery, bar, getting to public transit). If you want to live in the suburbs and walk you have to make that your priority but it is very doable.

>>inferi+M3
A commuter rail still requires a person to navigate the suburbs to get to the station which requires... cars.

I'm not against public transit. I just understand the reality of the United States. If it helps the poors or minorities with tax dollars we don't do it here.

>>chung8+J6
Supporting cars is not the right-wing agenda. Blocking public transit funding and buildouts are.

> Every suburb I have lived in has been walkable for the main items (grocery, bar, getting to public transit).

Every suburb I have ever lived in or been to has not been walkable for any items. No bar, no restaurant, no store, no public transit. There were also no bike lanes nor any sidewalks. I live where I can afford to be within reasonable distance to employment. I don't have control beyond that to decide to live elsewhere.

>>chung8+75
Making either efficient requires investment, and I’m not sure that Americans have invested enough in light rail.

Actually, making cars efficient doesn’t work as soon as you reach a certain scale, and I suspect that scale is less than 40k people.

>>bertil+U9
Light rail is a super slow form of transport in LA and Portland.

I think you are right that cars are reaching a certain tipping point of efficiency but they still beat the public transit in most categories.

Mass transit has the issue in that it tries to serve too many masters. Should it be faster (more expensive, serving few people)? Should it be serving the less wealthy (more stops, less money)? By trying to appease too many groups of people it tends to miss both marks.

>>deprec+d9
You pick where you live. If you want to live somewhere that doesn't require a car you need to pick carefully. It does exist in the suburbs from Miami, to Portland, to Seattle, to LA, to Chicago, there are suburbs you don't have to have a car for and almost every major city in the US has that option.

>>bertil+(OP)
> Take something as far back as New York in the 60s depicted in _Mad Men_: Don Draper commutes by train.

There are literally several plot points in mad men where he drives drunk back from the city.

>>chung8+mf
You pick where you live but it's not a matter of having a free choice. You can only live so far from where you work or where employment is. There are constraints on your choice. I live in a place I can afford within reasonable commute to my employer as does nearly anyone else.

>>ghaff+04
He lived in Ossining, NY, which is large enough that many residents would not live within a 30 minute walk from the train station, which also has a small parking lot for geographic reasons, so it made sense that his wife would drive him to the station.