Europe discourages driving. The USA encourages it. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

By hip hop bunny hop
#13765879
Qatz, how do suburbs qualify as rural?

So, the entire state has 1.05 drivers per car. The city has 1.71 drivers per car. In other words, the number of drivers per car is higher in the city than in the state average.


Right, in NYC, a city that has developed mass transit. However, NYC is the exception - not the rule - when looking at how people commute in large American cities.

People are confusing two separate discussions.

One is about regulating car traffic within cities. This is what the OP is discussing.

The other is about regulating car traffic between cities. This is what you seem to be discussing.

The laws that cities make to curb car use have no effect on rural people. Because rural people do not live in cities.


The laws cities make, no - but when people start tossing around the notion that Federal law needs to get involved, that changes the debate. Were you not hinting to such when you said, "perhaps one day, the taxes will be high enough that they actually pay for oil and transportation infrastructure."
'
By Pants-of-dog
#13766399
hip hop bunny hop wrote:Right, in NYC, a city that has developed mass transit. However, NYC is the exception - not the rule - when looking at how people commute in large American cities.


California has a state population of 38,826,898, and 31,431,867 registered vehicles, or 1.24 people per car. link to stats

LA county has a population of 9,818,605 (link to stats) , and 7,499,722 registered vehicles. (vehicle number link) or 1.31 people per car.

So, even when we use a city known for its automobile use, we still see that there are more cars per capita in the surrounding rural areas than in urban areas.

If you have any evidence of a city that has more cars per capita than its surrounding countryside, I would love to see it.

hip hop bunny hop wrote:The laws cities make, no - but when people start tossing around the notion that Federal law needs to get involved, that changes the debate.


No one has brought that up except you.

hip hop bunny hop wrote:Were you not hinting to such when you said, "perhaps one day, the taxes will be high enough that they actually pay for oil and transportation infrastructure."


No. Since I have been discussing municipal politics all along, I had hoped that you would infer that I was discussing municipal taxes and municipal road work.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13780555
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, even when we use a city known for its automobile use, we still see that there are more cars per capita in the surrounding rural areas than in urban areas.

Yes, but be careful about putting too much significance in small differences like LA vs California in general.

Cities like L.A. have a disproportionate number of senior's residences, hospitals, homeless people, social housing, and other marginalized groups who tend to own less cars.

This means that "city versus state" is not an isolated variable that relates only to density.
#13931605
Europe vs. the US isnt all that black and white as that article seems to imply. Definitly Europe is not the energy saving haeven it is depecited as. There are some things that differ greatly when it comes to general structure, though definitly there are some things that can be atributed to different mindsets and policymaking.

Firstly Europes cities are quite different from their US counterparts. European city centers are based on old medieval towncenters for the most part (except for German cities who were bombed to rubble in WW2 and rebuilt in the 40-50ties with cars in mind). Needless to say they aint designed to be carfriendly neighbourhoods. So you have a medieval/reneisance city center a 19th century urban sprawl around that (which was designed for carts or trams at best) and then a 20th century sprawl around that (which is most likely to have had cars in mind thoug early 20th century city planning mostly did not think in the dimensions of today car traffic). And then you have your suburbs which in contrast to US suburbs are not newly created neighbourhoods but those other small towns and villages around cities who hadnt been gobbled up during the late 19th and early 20th century but have only recently become part of the greater metro areas. Needless to say that those suburbian towns also have their own towncenters, onion shape sprawl that developed around them before they became part of a larger metro area. So as long as that traditional structure wasnt destroyed the only car friendly parts are the late 20th century neighbourhoods that developed between the 50ties and early 90ties between in the areas between. The other part are the highway networks that connect the larger towns and cities. So from a start European cities are much less car friendly than US cities, though that does not keep a large number of suburban Europeans to use their cars to drive to work and congest those city centers who never were meant to take that kind of traffic (which brought up the idea of pedestrian areas - which dominate medieval city centers in Europe [its a chore to drive through there anyway]).
#13932269
Zel, what you've basically written is that American cities were destroyed and rebuilt around energy-intensive automobile infrastructure.

This means that when oil crashes and we can't afford cars anymore, Europeans will go back to their medieval city ways, and the USA will go back to.... England?
#13932329
There is still the possibility to rent out some Amish carts and suffer the longer comuting times ;)

This is just more slanderous bullshit. You're fo[…]

Jacinda vs ScoMo

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/fe[…]

Yes @BeesKnee5 and they are getting ripped apart[…]

Cousin to chaos

We're working on this unfortunate oversight, Comr[…]