> but the car-centrism that has wrecked the urban environment cannot be undone simply by enacting hostile legislation.
This is exactly what happened in the Netherlands, but the US is a wildly corrupt country with very little in the way of actual representative democracy, which is the primary reason why this (locally) correct. In many other places, it is in fact possible to achieve these outcomes through state power.
It also took 40+ years. After WW2, NL was on a course to model American cities. There are some places that still harken back to that time. Dutch people also really like to drive, which nobody seems to talk about!
But now the trains have been privatized, the ticket prices jacked up, and gas taxes are absolutely bonkers right now. If we’re lucky, maybe the trains can be brought back into more direct government control in the next decade but I doubt it.
Good public transportation and city design is only enforceable through laws on the books. Dutch city planning in some ways is non-negotiable, but very fungible in others. We must stay vigilant if we want to see our small corner of the world continue to flourish and be a beacon of hope to North American and other western societies.
Ask every Dutchman to look at British rail and ask themselves “do we want that?”. If the answer is no, they’d better fight to reverse rail privatization
>the US is a wildly corrupt country with very little in the way of actual representative democracy, which is the primary reason why this (locally) correct
While your assertion about a lack of actual representative democracy may have truth to it, in my view, most Americans hate public transit and really like cars, despite all the clear negatives that come with them (and which those people deny). There are great cities in the world that are walkable and have excellent public transit: I live in one of them myself. But in my observation, most Americans simply don't want this kind of lifestyle, and in fact don't believe it exists. So as far as car-centric planning goes, I think that Americans really are getting what they vote for.
I know you prefaced your argument with saying it's your view and all but that's just not based in reality. Americans want alternatives. It's just too bad they can't afford lobbyists to agitate for those policy preferences. https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/gnd-for-transit-polli...
I suspect maybe part of it is a generational thing. In my circles at least a lot of my peers get actual anxiety while driving. It's certainly the most dangerous thing Americans regularly do.
My view is based in reality, yours isn't. Just because a small minority of 20-something hipsters want bikeable cities doesn't mean most Americans do. They don't. This has nothing to do with "lobbyists" and everything to do with the voting public, just like Trump was not elected by lobbyists, but instead by half the voting public who supported his repulsive views.
Well no, Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. Which is sort of the point, that the US is not actually democratic in some important ways which influence policy decisions.
>The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate.
No, it didn't. Hillary didn't get a majority, she got about 48%. Trump got about 46%. There was not a significant difference between the two, and roughly half the American public voted for Trump.
It's so weird how every single time I write about how roughly half the American public voted for that turd, people like you come out of the woodwork to try to insinuate that Trump was elected by some vanishingly small minority. Why is that?
Because you're lying about the claim being made. It is correct to say that Trump was elected by a minority of the total votes cast. It would be incorrect to say that he was elected by "some vanishingly small minority", but you're the only one saying that. Being elected by a minority is sufficient to sustain the claim that an institution is antidemocratic, particularly in an otherwise simple-plurality voting system. I'm sorry if there's some reality there you don't like.
If Hillary had won, it would have also been "antidemocratic" according to your definition. So would you have protested that too? No one was going to get greater than 50% of the popular vote in that election.
Apparently there's some reality there you don't like either.
You Americans are seriously lunatic reality-deniers. Close to 50% of the voters vote for Trump, but because it's not mathematically 50%, you dismiss it as a not-significant part of the electorate. You liberals are no better than the people who stormed the Capitol; you're just as unbelieving of reality as they are.
You seem confused. It's pretty common in English, particularly when discussing simple plurality voting, to use "majority" to indicate "plurality" instead of absolute majority. It would also be possible to claim that a vote is antidemocratic absent an arbitrarily chosen supermajority, but that's not being advanced here. I decline further semantic arguments as being non-substantive, as well as puerile. Your inventions about my character are nakedly intended to be offensive; probably you shouldn't post like that here.
indeed, how bizarre that saying "half" (not "roughly half", as you are now saying), a literally factually untrue statement, garners responses pointing out that it is.
are you sure you're on the right forum for you? This community generally values accuracy over flamebait.
This is exactly what happened in the Netherlands, but the US is a wildly corrupt country with very little in the way of actual representative democracy, which is the primary reason why this (locally) correct. In many other places, it is in fact possible to achieve these outcomes through state power.