[stetrain]

> (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?)

Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning.

And you can still significantly reduce the number of cars and car-trips without eliminating car ownership. A household with one car used occasionally when it’s convenient needs less parking and driving space than one with two cars driven daily.

[taeric]

So on this we are in complete agreement. My criticism is when people show walkable cities, they need to underline that majority of those people will own a car if they can financially make it happen. Almost bar none.

[stetrain]

I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration.

Yes the financial component is part of it. Building dense walkable urban developments makes car ownership more expensive and non-car options cheaper and more convenient.

Some would argue that in many places car ownership is being subsidized by the way we develop and tax.

Some households will still have cars, but households are not the same as individual people.

And I think there are plenty of places where the majority of households don’t own cars. You can say they would if it was cheap and convenient enough, but that’s the whole point we’re discussing. Not dedicating so much development and infrastructure to cars will make them less convenient and more expensive options than the alternatives for at least some of the population.

[taeric]

I could just be wrong. Nor am I aiming for exaggerated effect, though. I legit have grown to feel that people will get a car if they can afford it. Pretty much everywhere. As I said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.

This is related with the housing discussions. People have somewhat convinced themselves that cheap standalone houses are the goal. Which, I suppose there is no reason that can't be the goal. But compare average home size in pretty much any US city with some of these walkable cities you have in mind.

When I do that, I start asking how related those two things are. And I'm growing rather convinced that people have built up a mental idea that they can live with all of the benefits of both worlds, without contending with the contrast between them.

[bkettle]

I think you're probably right that eventually, most people will own a car. But I think the time in your life where you decide to buy one matters substantially, and is modulated quite a lot by city design.

I'm pretty young now, and I could afford a car. I expect that I will probably buy one at some point in the future. But I can easily live my life without one for now, so I have decided to save that money instead. If I lived in Houston, I don't think that would be the case.

None of my friends that I know in NYC own cars. All of my friends that live in my hometown own cars.

[taeric]

I went for over a decade without a car in Atlanta. More, I think financing the first car I got was among the worst decisions I have ever made in my life. It was shocking how bad that monthly payment screwed up my financial planning.

All of which is to say, it amuses me to find myself defending that people will buy cars. I am not trying to push it as the correct answer. I personally think people should understand the expense of owning a car far better than it seems most people do. I just also can't deny that a car is far more convenient than not, if you can afford one.

[stetrain]

Yes, my point is just that the financial feasibility is related to the policy decisions.

For example you could say that most people who live in Manhattan would choose to live in a 2000sqft+ detached home if it was financially feasible to do so.

But because there is limited space, high demand, and city policy allows high density, such a home is not financially feasible for almost anyone in Manhattan.

And of course that applies in sprawling metro areas like Houston as well. Forcing large swaths of single-family zoning despite the market forces means that housing supply can’t grow with demand, so cost of housing increases.

[queenkjuul]

This really just isn't true. Most people i know here in Chicago take transit or bike in the city. Many people i know who can easily afford a car choose not to because it's so easy to get around without one.

Make a city that doesn't require a car, and people that aren't compelled to use one won't.

[taeric]

I'd love to be proven wrong on this. If you have data, very happy to see numbers showing I'm wrong.

My anecdote is everyone I know from Chicago doesn't take transit. Not many people, and I'm certainly not in a young group of folks from there.

[queenkjuul]

Chicago residents are 3x less likely to own a car compared to the national average, despite the costs being near the national average. Illinois as a whole is one of the least car-reliant states in the country.

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/chicago-il/

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-s...

[taeric]

Car ownership is still in the 80%s there, though? And I live in Seattle, which has even better numbers, from last I looked. Still, it is hard to find someone that makes more and doesn't drive fairly regularly. Even more so if you consider families. We were the odd 6 person family with a single car for a long time.

I am trying to be clear that I am not opposed to transit and such. As stated elsewhere, I went over a decade without a car in Atlanta, GA. And this is not including my time in college. So, I am all for it.

But I also remember a comedian saying "at least he was above the poverty line, I don't ride the bus." And my girlfriend at the time shot me a very nervous look because I did ride the bus. I happened to think the joke was hilarious. And it shaped a lot of what I paid attention to with regards to driving.