Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by munk-a 1484 days ago
If cars had been kept as an additive to public transit then I might buy your position but a lot of public transit systems were specifically destroyed at the direction (and with subsidies from) car manufacturers.

Trains and trolleys did allow for some suburban growth - but the sprawl didn't come into being until cars became the norm for transport... specifically, commuting by train and using cars for leisure could have been the world we live in, rather than this hellish landscape where cars are the norm for getting to the work or picking up groceries.

This may differ from your world view but please just compare the west to east coast where most of the eastern cities were built first without cars in mind and only later expanded - vs. a lot of west coast cities that have always been car first.

The difference is extremely stark.

2 comments

I'm looking outside right now and the landscape is far from hellish. Public transit is a great option for many trips and cars certainly have some downsides, but it sure is nice to be able to drive my car to pick up bulk groceries at Costco.
Oh, taking a car to get to Costco is awesome. When I lived on my own and shopped via walking I'd still occasionally borrow a friends time to do a big run with them to pick up canned goods, flour, etc... the stuff that's heavy and that you buy in bulk.

But in America, if you want half a pound of pastrami you're probably going to have to get in a car to get it unless you live in one of the few areas that still follows that sort of dense city planning.

> hellish landscape where cars are the norm for getting to the work or picking up groceries

To each their own.

I've never quite understood why the anti-car crowd is so prone to hyperbole with their criticism of the status quo. "Hellish Landscape", really?
I might not use that hyperbole myself but if you've ever had to sit through LA traffic day in and day out it's really not that hard to imagine why people get upset about it. Yeah if you live in the middle of nowhere it's a different story.
Different strokes for different folks.

To me, the "hellish landscape" is the NYC subway system (arguably the best in the US).

While I live in NYC and not LA, I'm a frequent visitor to LA. I'd gladly sit through LA traffic over riding the NYC subway. Sitting in my own personal, clean, climate controlled space, listening to music I enjoy.

I've never been to NYC but I never realized how much I would prefer a good public transit system until I visited Seoul. I probably wouldn't use a car much if at all if I lived there. I suspect NYC is still a pretty low bar for what public transit could be, best in the US isn't saying much when most cities have practically nothing to begin with.
Completely agree. I lived in Seoul for a bit (I'm Korean American) and it is still by far the best subway system I've experienced.

I would gladly use Seoul's subway. I only grudgingly use NYC's (and nowadays, I bicycle as much as I can to avoid using it).

I'm looking at it from the perspective of what I consider truly hellish. Is suburban sprawl bad, sure. But let's be honest, how does any of what was shown in that video compare to a warzone, a slum in an underdeveloped country, or some polluted Superfund site?

When I think "hellscape", I think of this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie

Hyperbole is a literary tool - please don't pedantically pick at my word choice. It doesn't lead to interesting discussion.
If you're going to use provocative words you should be prepared for some pushback when people challenge the appropriateness of the terms you've chosen.
The real Hell is a place of infinite and everlasting torment, so all Earthly comparisons are by necessity hyperbole.
Thanks for linking that - it's quite a well put together run down of how big the contrast really is.
A city made up of car parks.