New research shows a holistic approach, combining infrastructure, educational programs, and financial incentives, can transform Australian cities into sustainable and thriving communities.
But many, many people live within a metro area that has at least some pockets where being car-free is feasible. For cities like New York, Chicago, DC, or San Francisco, those pockets are pretty large and cover a large population.
Growing those neighborhoods by population and size is part of the overall strategy for reducing car dependence. Even in heavily car dependent Houston or LA, there are mixed use developments where people can live and grocery shop and dine and maybe even work without needing a car. Obviously that’s not going to work for meeting up with other people from the same city, but living in a neighborhood like that can reduce the typical number of weekly car trips for a typical household: whether the young kids need to be driven to a playground/park or to school, whether a visit to the grocery store or gym or bar or library need a car, etc.
I do agree that most rich white neighborhoods have better roads, better bike infrastructure (not just lanes, but bike racks and Divvy stations). But Chicago is still a city with two great rail systems (the local L and then the commuter Metra) and a great bus network that makes it a lot easier to get around without a car.
And geographically, Chicago is flat enough that biking is less physically demanding, and allows for more direct routes. On the other hand, Chicago weather probably has significant stretches where biking isn’t feasible.
And I don’t have a breakdown of neighborhood, but nearly 30% of the households in Chicago don’t own a car. And anecdotally, from my admittedly limited experience of living in Chicago for a summer without a car, it did seem that Pilsen and some of the near West Side and near South Side have options for getting around without cars, and had some decent grocery options.
Most places by land area, sure.
But many, many people live within a metro area that has at least some pockets where being car-free is feasible. For cities like New York, Chicago, DC, or San Francisco, those pockets are pretty large and cover a large population.
Growing those neighborhoods by population and size is part of the overall strategy for reducing car dependence. Even in heavily car dependent Houston or LA, there are mixed use developments where people can live and grocery shop and dine and maybe even work without needing a car. Obviously that’s not going to work for meeting up with other people from the same city, but living in a neighborhood like that can reduce the typical number of weekly car trips for a typical household: whether the young kids need to be driven to a playground/park or to school, whether a visit to the grocery store or gym or bar or library need a car, etc.
deleted by creator
I do agree that most rich white neighborhoods have better roads, better bike infrastructure (not just lanes, but bike racks and Divvy stations). But Chicago is still a city with two great rail systems (the local L and then the commuter Metra) and a great bus network that makes it a lot easier to get around without a car.
And geographically, Chicago is flat enough that biking is less physically demanding, and allows for more direct routes. On the other hand, Chicago weather probably has significant stretches where biking isn’t feasible.
And I don’t have a breakdown of neighborhood, but nearly 30% of the households in Chicago don’t own a car. And anecdotally, from my admittedly limited experience of living in Chicago for a summer without a car, it did seem that Pilsen and some of the near West Side and near South Side have options for getting around without cars, and had some decent grocery options.