Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Driving is also something (nearly) everyone does and benefits directly from, so negative externalities are easier to accept.

This reads a little too close to driving being an inherently good thing or some sort of objective requirement, but it's only that way in certain urban places because the built environment makes it as arduous as possible to do those things without.

Something that pisses me off about many urban places that don't even otherwise require people to drive, is that many who do use their cars the most often have their neighborhoods protected from the noise they contribute to everywhere else. This whole thing of putting apartments only where there's already the most disgusting car-infested thoroughfares; "sorry, can't have an apartment one street in off the main drag, that's only for bungalows! Don't like it? Get richer. Excuse me while I drive through your bedroom and park for free in front."



>s that many who do use their cars the most often have their neighborhoods protected from the noise they contribute to everywhere else.

This, so much this. All the noise producing infrastructure in cities is dumped in the highly dense poor areas, and the rich people living in the quiet suburbs in single family home who need to drive in front of your home, are protected by this externality.


Politicians also like to pat themselves on the back for things like zoning density "particularly along transit corridors" as if only the immediately stroad-adjacent parcels are viable for accessing the bus and anyone who makes less than $300k a year should be grateful.

Like thanks, I guess, for doing the absolute minimum that should have already been the default policy for 50 years




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: