Hacker News Reader

Comment by djthorpe | Hacker News Reader

I fear we are part of a small self-selecting group that has chosen the convenience to living in densely populated, well connected cities and are relatively well-off. I doubt you'll hear a lot about "peak car" outside these small groups or areas.

For many, I suspect the car represents a great deal of freedom in exactly the same way that not owning a car means to this self-selecting group: making a decent living, access and comfort, etc.

The real aim to force the decline of car use is sustainability, efficiency and equality. It's not going to happen without huge investments and will affect the whole economy negatively for decades, which is why Governments shy away from doing anything very serious about it.

In the meantime, I'm also happy to not own a car, cycle to work, etc. But if I lived outside central London I would get one immediately.

View on HN

> I doubt you'll hear a lot about "peak car" outside these small groups or areas.

On the contrary, I think the prosperity evident in rural areas that can afford high ratios of car ownership is itself a small, self-selecting group of very well-off countries. If you broaden your view to the rest of the world, peak car doesn't look so silly after all.

A car is a much bigger investment in the developing world than it is in developed nations. Technology will enable more and more people in these nations to get more and more of their life done without the need to own an automobile.

We may see a saturation profile in the small part of the world where cars are both small investments and big conveniences, and a peak profile everywhere else. Which is, on the whole, a peak profile.

Reminds me of desktop computers vs. smartphones. Laptops may soon be a luxury/tool for techies that most people just don't need.

Yet in nations that have recently moved into the income levels needed for automobiles their usage has exploded. China, India, and a few others, all seem to be burgeoning car markets.

I think one area over looked in their study of people streaming into and out of cities is the less need for the city itself to provide for the needs of the people. Combine that with all the congestion style pricing and it drives development outside of the city where those who cannot afford the entry costs.

I fear we are part of a small self-selecting group that has chosen the convenience to living in densely populated, well connected cities

I think there's also the issue of differing definitions of "convenience." I used to live in a city where I walked or used public transit to get everywhere. Now I live in a suburb and drive everywhere, and I find most of the things I like to do MORE convenient. Yeah, in the city it was easy to walk to bars and restaurants, but I don't eat out that much, and I'm beyond the age where I want to hang out in bars.

As just one example, I like to cook at home, and grocery shopping when I have to carry everything in my arms is a pain in the butt. I know people like to talk about how much fresher your food is when you buy just what you need every day, and that sounds great, but I have a lot of other things going on in my life. Having to plan time to go to the grocery store every day after work is a hassle. Being able to drive five minutes to the store, park easily, and carry my stuff home in my trunk, is vastly more convenient than what I did when I lived in the city.

Having lived both ways for several years, I will never willingly go back to living in a densely populated city.

Would a same-day delivery service change that for you? (I'm thinking of Amazon's offering but there are others.)

On the other hand, if you can walk five minutes to the store, it's insanely easy to keep a tiny pantry full of fresh stuff. Especially if, like me, you're lucky enough to have a weekly farmer's market two blocks from your place.

But like you said, different people have different definitions of "convenience".

It certainly is no easier than someone who can drive less than five minutes to a store: that person can both keep a tiny pantry full of fresh stuff or buy massive loads of bulk items without issue. Essentially, you have made an argument for why "it isn't so bad, as you can mitigate some of the downsides", but haven't shown a situation where it is actually more "convenient" (which I emphasize, as it is all sorts of other things, such as more "sustainable").

Five minutes is too little time too warrant a car drive, usually it's actually 10 minute door-to-door when you are talking about a car transportation. But sure if you live in a wasteland of parking spaces and highways I guess it might be faster.

I agree with this. I can drive to a store, buy what I want, and then drive home faster than friends of mine who live in San Francisco can even get on a bus to get to their destination. Walking around through crowded urban streets carrying valuable items you just purchased is also sub-ideal. I can buy things that are large or small, or that require refrigeration: no difference. I can make multiple stops without having to carry a ton of stuff through all my subsequent stops, as I can leave the stuff in my car.

My car is essentially a portable home I get to take with me wherever I am: it has first aid equipment, it has water and snacks, and secure storage. If you are optimizing for convenience, the correct choice is to separate things by networks of roads and use cars: that's why they exploded in popularity. You do want to live near where you work, but most of the people commuting long enough distances to make that matter are doing that due to economic issues (cost of living), not due to fundamental requirements for car deployment.

The issue is just that it isn't sustainable: it uses too much energy at too high an externality cost for us all to have this amazing level of convenience. It requires too much land to be paved and too much oil to be burned. But people should not confuse sustainability with convenience: dense urban areas that are not conducive to cars are not "convenient". To the extent to which people who live in them think they are convenient, it is because they don't understand most of the downsides they know about to cars are caused by dense urban environments.

>> '...dense urban areas that are not conducive to cars are not "convenient'."

I'm carless here in the city, and my very heavy groceries from two different stores are about to be delivered by Instacart. I'm lounging around in my PJ's. If this isn't convenient I don't know what is.

There are also those that live in developed world selected groups. I live in Beijing and would love a car, but a parking spot goes for a few hundred thousand dollars, the car itself would be $50-60k, and I would still need to get lucky in the license plate lottery. Well, at least taxis are cheap and ubiquitous.

I wonder why you would love to own a car, given the other problems you've pointed out.

Freedom and convenience compared to other transit options.

You're absolutely right. I understand "peak car" as trying to get away from unreasonable car use. Like in the US where one has to use a car for trips that one could easily walk, if only there were sidewalks.

I think one of the major causes of "peak car" is that, as cars become saturated, alternatives begin to come online as cities try to relieve pressure -- and once those alternatives (sidewalks, public transportation, bike lanes, etc.) have a critical mass of users, they enter the public consciousness as acceptable alternatives, and they begin to have more resources poured into them. When your area gets adequate sidewalks, you can get away from unreasonable car use, and your use of the new sidewalks encourages more sidewalk construction, etc.

I think you're right that this is a factor. What it doesn't quite explain is the decline of car usage in European cities that have always had sidewalks and good public transportation and where cycling isn't much easier now than it was 30 years ago. There seems to be a cultural change in attitude too. Cars are not as cool anymore as they used to be.

I think many European cities have seen changes in the past twenty years. Better cycling lanes, easy bicycle rental, increased public transit density and availability (eg late at night).

Not to mention lots of financial discouragement (i.e. tolls and taxes) for driving inside the city.

Yes, I forgot about petrol prices, which have increased substantially.

I'm not so sure about infrastructure improvements, at least here in Germany. I have been cycling for more than 20 years, and the infrastructure has not changed that much. Some places have improved a bit (especially in the last 5 years), but some are worse too. I feel that the experience is largely the same here. It may be different in places like Paris or London, though.

I lived and cycled in London the last 3 years, and there is a steady drumbeat of cycling improvements at all levels. Whether it's the congestion charge, cycle hire scheme, bike lanes, or even physically reconfiguring junctions with an explicitly stated goal of improving bicycle safety, there are major changes happening there.

I'm not sure how much change is happing on the continent, but based on some stories I've seen, there are many cities pushing the envelope, I think even within Germany (probably depends on the city?).

Even with the improvements you mention, London is still not exactly the most bicycle-friendly city in Europe, which is a little surprising since it's flat as a pancake. You should try cycling in Amsterdam or Copenhagen for a comparison.

> small self-selecting group that has chosen the convenience to living in densely populated, well connected cities

Urbanization is steadily increasing worldwide.

> and are relatively well-off.

If you live in a city, owning a car is more expensive than not.

Living close enough to the places you want to get to, however, often means buying/renting more expensive housing. This can more than offset what you save by not having a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com