[dghlsakjg]

The cognitive dissonance is wild.

The busiest and most economically vibrant areas in the US are the ones that deprioritize cars (main streets, downtowns, outdoor malls, bar districts).

But if you try to change an existing area into a less car friendly area people absolutely lose their heads

[asdff]

There's no cognitive dissonance here really. People are just self interested. They don't want a bunch of bars because that means people will drive drunk and piss and puke all over their property stumbling back after last call. They don't want fewer lanes because its just going to turn their commute from work into even more of a bottleneck. They don't want a mall built near them because of the traffic bottlenecks it would create, but they want a fast road to get to a mall at just enough distance away to not be affected by these issues themselves.

[noobermin]

The "less lanes means bottle neck" bit is not even true due to induced demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

[asdff]

It's definitely true in certain cases, induced demand is not some law of physics. Take a one lane road and a two lane road. It's pretty common for one lane roads to end up clogged up due to left turning traffic that's unable to clear intersections fast enough. On a two lane road, traffic that goes straight or right will have room two maneuver around the left turning traffic. And on top of that, planners for highways are really planning for throughput rather than commuting times. When you widen a freeway, speeds don't change or might even go down, but total throughput goes up accordingly and that's whats important when you have a mile of trucks backed up at your port.

[mcv]

If they're afraid that a mall will create traffic bottlenecks, maybe build those malls so they're easy to reach on foot, by bike, or with public transport. That way you don't get that traffic bottleneck.

[asdff]

People buy shopping carts worth of stuff at malls. That's not exactly easy to schlep on a bike or a bus for most people especially if you are in poor shape. A lot of people in the U.S. today live in walkable areas, but opt to just take a climate controlled car with a spacious trunk 5 mins to the grocery store vs walk 15 minutes one way and back with 25 pounds of groceries in poor weather.

[mcv]

If shops are nearby, you go more often for a quick trip to the shop and buy much less. Lots of Dutch people go shopping on their bike, and that works perfectly fine. And people who really buy a lot, walk home with two big shopping bags. That works too. It has never been a big problem here.

[SantalBlush]

I truly believe the reason has more to do with being antisocial than anyone cares to admit. It's not always the car's mobility that people enjoy so much as the barrier it creates from the outside world.

[closeparen]

Socialization needs norms. It’s no accident that relatively urbanized civilizations have relatively strict codes of behavior. America’s wild and free frontier spirit, God bless it, is less fun in a crowded subway.

[noobermin]

And soul crushing traffic is wild and free? Or suburban strip malls are wild and free? Or endless cul de sacs? There is a lot of imposed structure to suburbia too, specifically because it is planned.

[mcv]

In fact, it has more imposed structure, exactly because of the unreasonably restrictive zoning laws in the US. Allow more variety and you get more choice.

[JohnWhigham]

Right, but like everything else in the US right now, the split is obvious along political lines. People who like cities are left, people who like suburbs/rural living/driving everywhere are right.

[greenn]

Huh, guess I'm "right" then. Weird that my voting history would indicate otherwise, but I don't like city living so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯