[sershe]

I mean, this thread argues that the environment in Amsterdam/Tokyo/New York/... is "objectively better" than in LA to live in.

"sedentary lifestyles" is not a real externality and anyway is also easy to achieve with transit; "time wasted in traffic" is simply false (far more time is wasted on transit given how fast it is to drive for an average trip, and sometimes even in rush hour), "dominance of cityscape by infrastructure dedicated to automobile traffic" by itself is a subjective aesthetic preference.

Now as for the actual real externalities, I said elsewhere, it's one thing to say "most people reveal the preference to drive (and I disagree with them OR because driving is just better), however they cannot all have what they want because of pollution / global warming /...". That could be correct, although it would also imply this is a technological problem - they mostly solved pollution from cars, and if we e.g. had cheap fusion or solar energy and electric cars we could all go back to driving.

It's quite another to pretend that people need to switch to the inferior (by their own revealed preference around the world) lifestyle because it is "objectively better".

[wizofaus]

I basically waste no time at all travelling - I do it mostly by bike which is obviously beneficial health wise, and if I do take a train or bus I use the time to read etc. (plus walking to/fro stations/stops is, again, a positive use of time). The objective downsides in the amount of infrastructure dedicated to allowing everyone to drive everywhere is surely seen in the cost of maintaining it, and the impacts it has on housing affordability etc. Not to mention the environmental damage caused.

I certainly don't want people feeling like they're being forced into making inferior choices - just that we make an effort to design our towns and cities so that the choice to walk/bike/use transit is a realistic one that compares favourably with driving.

[sershe]

Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people. Walking is barely exercise at all.. in the same time one could drive and also do some real exercise. Reading does make transit less bad, but usually only works on a familiar (no need to check for stops), transfer-free commute that's not very crowded. Otherwise if you time overhead vs reading (I've actually done it once in a place with bad traffic and relatively good buses, sadly I had a transfer) you can maybe get 30-40% of your commute as focused reading time and driving will still be faster in most places. Interestingly I think for that, transit is actually better on long inter-city trips, like someone I know commutes from Tacoma to Seattle during rush hour, it's I think 1:10 by train with no interruptions, or a 50min drive from hell. In that case I'd prefer transit :)

I think people just don't realize on gut level how fast driving is... someone mentioned Edinburgh as a place where it would never occur to them to drive. As it happens it was 5:30pm there when I plotted a random trip out of the city center to some residential area, it was 25min in "red" traffic vs 43min by transit, not counting overheads of waiting of course - so realistically x2 faster and that's from a city center. That was also my experience almot everywhere I lived or visited... you'd look at "terrible traffic" and wince, then you look at transit directions and drive/call a cab cause it's way faster anyway :)

[iggldiggl]

> Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people.

Which I'd wager includes a sizeable fraction of the population. I also remember seeing a study in Germany some years ago where they found that exclusive car commuters had the highest average BMI and bike commuters the lowest. Granted, it was not a massive (ahem) difference, but definitively a few kilos…