The Economist on how America's car dependence makes the country fairer and more efficient
The Economist magazine has a fantastic article (no-paywall link) on the upside of America's focus on cars for mobility - and I would argue Houston is at the pinnacle in America for major metros. The whole thing is great, but here are the best excerpts (highlights mine):
In praise of America’s car addiction
How vehicle-dependence makes the country fairer and more efficient
...It seems a classic case of elite opinions (cars and suburbs are awful) diverging from mass preferences (people quite enjoy them). For many, the main attractions of suburbia are lower housing costs and greater safety. Yet recent research sheds light on how cars are a crucial part of the equation, making America’s suburbs both impressively efficient and equitable.
...
Start with convenience. It is well-known that American cities are configured for vehicles, a process that began in the 1920s with the Model T. Car-centric urban designs became dominant throughout the country, involving wide roads, ample access to expressways and parking galore. To varying degrees, other countries have copied that model. Yet America has come closest to perfecting it. In a paper released in August, supported by the World Bank, a group of economists examined road speeds in 152 countries. Unsurprisingly, wealthy countries outpace poor ones. And within the rich world, America is streets ahead: its traffic is about 27% faster than that of other members of the OECD club of mostly rich countries. Of the 20 fastest cities in the world, 19 are in America.
...
Driving speed shrinks distance. One fashionable concept among urban planners these days is the “15-minute city”, the goal of building neighbourhoods that let people get to work, school and recreation within 15 minutes by foot or bike. Many Americans may simply fail to see the need for this innovation, for they already live in 15-minute cities, so long, that is, as they get around by car. Most of the essentials—groceries, school, restaurants, parks, doctors and more—are a quick drive away for suburbanites.
The car’s ubiquity has another rarely appreciated benefit. A recent study by Lucas Conwell of Yale University and colleagues examined urban regions in America and Europe. They calculated “accessibility zones”, defined as the area from which city centres can be readily reached. Although European cities have better public transport, American cities are on the whole more accessible. Consider the size of accessibility zones 15-30 minutes from city centres. If using public transport, the average is 34 square kilometres in America versus 63 square kilometres in Europe. If using private cars, the difference is much starker: 1,160 square kilometres in America versus 430 square kilometres in Europe.
...it is precisely such accessibility that has put larger homes and quieter streets within reach for a remarkably wide cross-section of the country. In his analysis of the census from 2020, William Frey of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, showed that suburbia has become far more diverse over the years. In 1990 roughly 20% of suburbanites were non-white. That rose to 30% in 2000 and 45% in 2020.
Not that cars are a panacea. Owning or renting one costs plenty of money, and is an especially big burden for the working poor. It is therefore common to hear laments in American cities about the sorry state of mass transit. Yet this general perception, though widespread, is not entirely accurate. Even if primarily built for private cars, roads are a shared resource and can be viewed as the “tracks” for buses. In their study Mr Conwell and his colleagues conclude that bus-based transportation in America is surprisingly effective: public-transit options between distant suburbia and city centres are roughly comparable in America and Europe. Although America could do more to improve its bus services within its urban cores, the crucial point is that cities designed for cars can also support mass transit.
Labels: affordable proximity, mobility strategies, opportunity urbanism, perspectives, sprawl, transit
posted by Tory Gattis @ 5:46 PM
15 Comments:
Great article. It restores my faith in the Economist a tiny bit. But these writers are taking a huge risk. They've come out against the Progressive equivalent of the Flag, Mom and apple pie. I assume you posted this on the Market Urbanism FB page? Can't wait for the "Bicycleist's" comments.
Agreed. Bold of them. Good suggestion - I will post it to the MU FB page now. Hope it gets approved...
Ha, I just got back from Germany this week. Bicyclists..... Have some how achieved the impossible in Europe. Making both walking and driving worse! When the bike lanes are integrated into side walks, we have to constantly stop walking at sidewalk restrictions when bikes come whizzing by, making walking slower and somewhat more dangerous. We know where the extra sidewalk width came from, turning a 4 lane road into a 2 lane road. I can't tell you how many right turn lanes I saw now barricaded off to accommodate bike lanes. How many yells people receive from militant bicyclists for accidentally stepping into their bike lane from the sidewalk... I do ride bikes and in many circumstances, but carving out of road space for a lightly (even in Europe) used transportation route seems like a poor use of road/sidewalk space. I have been to the biking holy grail the netherlands, and they do things better there by having separate bike lanes in subrbia. But still have the same problems in Amsterdam, but at least there are more people using the bike lanes.
I don't mind bike lanes, but definitely not when they take away car lanes that move 100x or 1000x more people.
Speaking of the economist: did you see this travesty?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/12/01/these-are-the-most-expensive-cities-in-north-america
Another piece: a bit wonky but it makes Houston look good.
https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=21718
I saw the antiplanner piece and have a mixed opinion: high-density does tend to reduce space and family sizes, but I still believe in letting the free market build what it wants and let people live where they want.
I have huge respect for The Economist *except* when it comes to their city rankings, which are just bizarrely bonkers. They sort of ignore housing costs and amplify other costs, when housing costs totally dominate the cost of living. That they have Houston as expensive as Seattle and almost as expensive as San Francisco tells you all you need to know about their warped methodology. And given the cost of housing in Canada, it's crazy how low they have them on the cost of living rankings! Just does not pass the smell test.
I've largely given up on these "League Table" comparisons . The measure of any state, city or nation's performance are its population and capital gradients. How fast money and people are moving towards or away from you. Those are real votes by real people with real stakes in the game. League tables are ultra faux.
Absolutely 100%!
Car dependence is bad. Designing cities for cars unfairly excludes people who can't drive (we exist!) from participating in society. No one should have to drive to live a fulfilling life. Walkable areas with good public transit access are superior because you can live without a car, unlike in most of the USA.
Taking away lanes from cars is a good thing. People make choices for how to get around based on available infrastructure. Reduce space dedicated to cars= reduce traffic.
I've gotten angrily yelled at by drivers who hate cyclists, but never by a cyclist. If you think forcing cyclists to bike on a stroad shared with cars is a good thing, you are out of your mind. You're just begging to get cyclists killed, threatened and harassed by angry impatient entitled drivers if you refuse to allow building bike lanes.
Even if you can't drive, you can use a taxi or uber, even more so once they're autonomous.
Cities with reduced space for cars have as bad or usually worse traffic all over the world.
I support bike lanes when they don't eliminate needed traffic lanes. I prefer bike lanes on smaller side streets and along bayous and power-line rights-of-way, where it is far safer for the cyclists.
Post a Comment
<< Home