I worry that you think it would be better if parent wasted 3x as much of his life commuting on public transit instead.
Distance between homes and offices is the problem; cars are the worst solution except for all the others.
Distance between homes and offices is the problem; cars are the worst solution except for all the others.
Public transit "sucks" for a number of reasons, many of them car-related: (-) buses have to share roads with cars, so they have to put up with the congestion they are trying to solve, (-) money that would have been spent on public transit is being spent on road expansions to "solve traffic", and others.
> cars are the worst solution except for all the others.
This doesn't explain cities that have successful public transit systems...
We wouldn't have built our offices and homes so far from each other if the expectation was to walk/bike/bus everywhere.
Unfortunately this is a chicken-and-egg problem, where things may need to get worse temporarily for things to get better.
Do these cities simply have terrible private transit options?
I don’t know anyone who would prefer to take public transport except in cities with poor car infrastructure.
I do know lots of people who would rather walk or bike to work.
Even in those cities very few enjoy taking public transport - and would drive if they had free parking, didn’t have to pay tolls, didn’t think it was terrible for the environment, etc
So basically your argument is that people would drive if it weren't terrible in every way? By that logic, people would eat plutonium... if only it were more available, tasted good, and didn't kill you.
Why would that be the goal?
Where I live, my commute to work by bus is only 7 minutes slower than doing the same commute driving myself alone. And for those 7 minutes, I do not have to pay any attention except once to remember to get off at the appropriate stop for a transfer. (I could avoid the transfer by walking but I'm not that motivated.) And I am not concerned with not being able to rush out for an emergency because my employer, or my county if my employer did not offer this benefit, will call me a taxi if I need to leave in a hurry and arrived to work without driving myself.
Because the bulk of my transport needs are now handled, I can also see what the transport network can do for me in other areas. As of two years ago, my family moved to a place in our city where we need not own a car, so we sold our last one. If we desire one for a few hours or a day, there are services (far cheaper than the few hundred dollars per month required to maintain one for our exclusive use) that will provide one upon request. They even take care of fuel.
We can make these choices to wean from cars; we choose not to. And at what cost to ourselves, our neighbors, and our planet?
Cars and their associated infrastructure (roads, parking) cause and/or enable the distance.
https://ggwash.org/view/36573/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny...
Which is a valid reason, as the data clearly shows the benefits of growing up in neighborhoods with high income earners, and the disadvantages of growing up in neighborhoods with low income earners:
Of course being in a wealthy area is better than being in a poor area. But does the existence of such areas benefit society? What would it look like if more neighborhoods were mixed income and public resources were shared equitably?
An imbalance will cause discord and disorder. Hopefully you catch yourself on the right side of it. Prioritizing cars is very much a “me and my immediate family” above all else move, and that can be an easy choice when you don’t see others as belonging to your tribe, or vice versa.
Roads are still necessary for delivery, garbage disposal, emergency services (fire engine, ambulances, police cars) and construction equipment. The picture is extreme to the point that it fails to deliver it's message.
Fewer cars means fewer lanes are needed. I’ve seen intersections 9 or 10 lanes wide in US cities. How can any senior citizen walk across 9 lanes of traffic, especially at night. One or two lanes is sufficient for all infrastructure like waste removal or emergency services.
But the root of the problem is insufficiently dense living. People have to make a choice to sacrifice their expansive living quarters (such as in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Manhattan, London, etc), otherwise the whole public transit and de-prioritizing motor vehicles doesn’t work.
As I explained in other comments, obviously people do want their space. But is that a luxury they can afford? They’re future generations can afford in terms of infrastructure debt repayments and environmental damage? Health damage from over reliance on cars? I guess we’ll see...but I’m betting not.
It would involve me driving my car something like 15 minutes to the nearest train station and paying for parking (an amenity that is free at my employer's office). Then I'd have to take something like two different trains, followed by two bus rides which would drop me off at a location that is about 3/4th of a mile away from the office. The walk is then along a route that is not pedestrian friendly in any way because it partially along the major access ramps on/off a tollway.
So yeah. :(
Driving you need to pay attention and navigating traffic and worst of all stand in a smog filled traffic jam on a highway, which is absolutely awful.