Cars were here yesterday, people loved them for their freedom.
Cars are here today, people love them and build communities around them.
Cars will be here tomorrow, and people will still love them.
freedom is not "everyone has a car". freedom is no one has to have a car to get where they need to go and do what needs done. for example, my favorite bar in my city is like .75 miles away. I would love to walk there, but functionally you can't because the two roads you need to take to get there are dangerous with limited or no sidewalks and extremely dangerous intersections (one is a blind corner where the cars are regularly doing 60 off of an expressway). if I could walk there (or even better, if I could bike there!) then I would be much much much freer to move about my home.
I don't hate cars! I just don't want to have to jump in a car to go somewhere I could easily walk
In a dense city car ownership is a financial trap. It’s a depreciating liability whose use is extremely limited by available real estate (normal people use the terms traffic and parking). (Also the number one killer of kids.) Lack of ownership is the point.
OP is not arguing against cars completely, they just have very limited use within high density city centers. Most people can travel by foot, bike, scooter, bus, train, trolley, etc... to get their daily errands done.
When you need to go further or out of the city, by all means, jump in your environment-destroying metal cage but you don't need it daily, I guarantee it. Please don't cite extreme exceptions like disabled people or families with 10 kids.
> Most people can travel by foot, bike, scooter, bus, train, trolley, etc... to get their daily errands done.
In the Top 10 US cities that have the density to support this, sure. Head out to the Top 100s and this reality falls apart very quickly. There's no economic incentive for businesses to be so well distributed through a dense urban core. There's differential zoning and mixed use that form the backbone of those cities economies.
The idea that we can just total re-engineer our cities and our social lives all across the country to solve a traffic problem that is not at all distributed the same way is insane to me.
Most deaths happen at night. Most deaths involve alcohol or drugs. Other common factors are speed, youth, and bad roadway configuration. A tree in the wrong place is lethal. Bad guardrail installations are lethal.
There is so much more to do than to put everyone on a bus and pretend that 15 minute cities are going to work.
Well we spend the last 60 years reengineering all our cities to be car-centric, so who's to say we can't undo that? Most of the top 100 US cities existed before cars, we just hollowed out all the urban cores in service of having ample street parking.
I currently live in Ann Arbor, MI (the 244th largest city in the US) without a car. If they built a Trader Joes downtown I would have 0 issues being car free. The city has built a number of fully protected bike lanes downtown that I hope get expanded further into the greater community, and seems to be doing a good job of making the downtown denser as well. It certainly can be done.
> Well we spend the last 60 years reengineering all our cities to be car-centric,
We engineered them to be human centric. It's just that the humans had easy and reliable access to affordable cars and fuel. So, naturally, the market did what it does. When you say it's car centric you intentionally ignore any benefits or efficiencies that were created in that decision and equally imply that it was a top down decision.
> I currently live in Ann Arbor, MI (the 244th largest city in the US) without a car.
Do you own or rent? Are you a college student or a resident?
> If they built a Trader Joes downtown
Why do you suppose they haven't? Should the government compel them? Why them and not some other chain? What if two chains want to compete for that footprint?
> number of fully protected bike lanes downtown
Do you bike in the winter?
> and seems to be doing a good job of making the downtown denser as well.
The population of Ann Arbor has been steadily increasing for the past 80 years. The last 20 years have shown no change in that steady rate. Any recent changes are very unlikely to account for the very slight continual trend.
You're just adding another layer of abstraction. Where does policy come from? It doesn't fall from the sky like some sort of cargo cult delivery. Further, your own link highlights what I'm saying here very clearly:
"Higher funding has been made possible by burgeoning state tax receipts as aggregate incomes, spending, populations and tax rates have trended upwards. However, this close link with tax receipts has made highway funding growth responsive to economic conditions and unemployment."
So.. higher incomes, more populations, more tax receipts. Specifically, highways are a function of _human demand_. There isn't some grand conspiracy to build roads just to make a handful of companies in Michigan happy.
> I currently live in Ann Arbor, MI (the 244th largest city in the US) without a car. If they built a Trader Joes downtown I would have 0 issues being car free.
I live in a very very very similarly sized city in OH and I feel exactly the same way (down to the trader joes even). I do have a car and I often wish I didn't need it. My city is small enough that not only is a 15 minute city a feasible option, it could be a reality today with a couple small infrastructure changes.
Most cities in the US have plenty of density to support transit. However without good transit people won't ride and in turn this makes a death spiral where most less dense areas don't get transit at all, much less good. In very dense areas traffic is bad enough that people will put up with bad service, but in a less dense area they won't.
Cars were here yesterday, people loved them for their freedom. Cars are here today, people love them and build communities around them. Cars will be here tomorrow, and people will still love them.