I want to apologize in advance for focusing on an insignificant piece of this: I really enjoy your newsletter, and though I'm pessimistic about rolling back automobile use, I am in favor of promoting transit and walkability on the margin.
But for all that's holy, please forsake the phrase "people over cars" and derivative variations. It seems to be gaining popularity among walkability/transit advocates, but the phrase is insulting and unnecessarily polarizing. Sure, it's just a rhetorical flourish, but it invites obvious objections (cars carry people), and whenever people use it, I feel like they're treating me like a child. Maybe it's polled well, or plays well with the base, but as someone on the fence it sends me screaming in the other direction.
Feedback noted and appreciated. While the phrase may be too glib (especially out of context), and though I didn't use it in my essay, I don't think it's inherently anti-car; rather it's saying, let's build cities around the many facets of urban life, rather than just this one technology. Perhaps that latter part needed more explicit stating, if you are getting that implication from anything I've written here. Or, this could be an instance of "your mileage may vary"!
I’ve recently started talking about the problem as “car-only transportation” — ie a lot of America is built in such a way that residents truly have no other safe option. Does that terminology resonate more? If not, what does?
The other side of this coin, that Ryan was writing about today, is not that cars are the problem per-se, but that when we *optimize* for vehicular volume we effectively ban all other activity. In older cities we see lots of places that *optimized* for the human experience but still perfectly accessible via car. How would you describe that tradeoff?
Agreed. Transportation is essential for cities, and cars are an essential part of urban transportation. Go to any major metro area and you will see cars everywhere.
I want to apologize in advance for focusing on an insignificant piece of this: I really enjoy your newsletter, and though I'm pessimistic about rolling back automobile use, I am in favor of promoting transit and walkability on the margin.
But for all that's holy, please forsake the phrase "people over cars" and derivative variations. It seems to be gaining popularity among walkability/transit advocates, but the phrase is insulting and unnecessarily polarizing. Sure, it's just a rhetorical flourish, but it invites obvious objections (cars carry people), and whenever people use it, I feel like they're treating me like a child. Maybe it's polled well, or plays well with the base, but as someone on the fence it sends me screaming in the other direction.
Feedback noted and appreciated. While the phrase may be too glib (especially out of context), and though I didn't use it in my essay, I don't think it's inherently anti-car; rather it's saying, let's build cities around the many facets of urban life, rather than just this one technology. Perhaps that latter part needed more explicit stating, if you are getting that implication from anything I've written here. Or, this could be an instance of "your mileage may vary"!
I’ve recently started talking about the problem as “car-only transportation” — ie a lot of America is built in such a way that residents truly have no other safe option. Does that terminology resonate more? If not, what does?
The other side of this coin, that Ryan was writing about today, is not that cars are the problem per-se, but that when we *optimize* for vehicular volume we effectively ban all other activity. In older cities we see lots of places that *optimized* for the human experience but still perfectly accessible via car. How would you describe that tradeoff?
Nice - that terminology resonates more, and I agree about the optimization framing.
Agreed. Transportation is essential for cities, and cars are an essential part of urban transportation. Go to any major metro area and you will see cars everywhere.
That's the point: if you build for cars you will get cars.
💯