Walkable Cities: A Rare Breed

Only a handful of American cities have retained their walkable neighborhoods, including:

• New York
• Chicago
• Philadelphia
• Boston
• Washington D.C.
• Baltimore
• Savannah
• San Francisco

To a lesser extent, cities like Buffalo, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Detroit also retain some walkable areas. Unfortunately, this leaves a staggering 90% of the nation with limited walkability.

So, what’s at stake?

The anti-car advocates push for substantial improvements to public transport. Their primary concern is the prevalence of large, unwieldy vehicles occupying excessive space, particularly in urban and suburban areas where many owners seldom utilize the off-road capabilities or trunk space. They promote the idea of smaller vehicles for city dwellers.

Moreover, there is a clear disdain for figures like Elon Musk and a general aversion to electric vehicles.

However, the crux of the matter remains: urban centers in America contend with rampant crime, complicating the push for better walkability. The cities mentioned are either prohibitively expensive or fraught with stress due to crime and homelessness, with some, like San Francisco, experiencing both issues.

Addressing these challenges will require years of substantial investment in public transit, infrastructure, and innovative solutions for homelessness.

It's crucial to note that America, unlike Europe, has unique challenges; simply put, not every city can be traversed by foot.

The case for transforming public transport and reducing car dependency is compelling. On average, an American household could save nearly $10,000 annually by opting for public transit and reducing the number of cars owned. However, an outright ban? That’s a different story.

Communism vs. Capitalism: The Car Debate

PragerU, a conservative YouTube channel, has criticized the anti-car movement, labeling it as "Communist."

The argument goes: owning a car equates to freedom of movement on one’s terms. If public transport were to dictate one’s schedule, it would feel like an infringement on personal liberties.

Key points include:

• My car is punctual.
• It avoids the chaos of public transport.
• I can control the environment within my vehicle.
• I don't have to deal with unpleasant odors or loud distractions.

Yet, I struggle to understand this perspective. Cars can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. Living in car-centric areas like the U.S. and Canada can feel like torture. I often found myself spending unnecessary time commuting, which was frustrating and unproductive.

The solution lies in incentivizing diverse transport options—biking, walking, or using public transit. Navigating densely populated areas solely by car can drive one to madness.

There’s an urgent need to revamp public transport in America; the current system resembles that of a failed state. How did it deteriorate to this extent?

Final Thoughts

I empathize with the sentiments surrounding the World Economic Forum's push for reducing private car ownership. The clash between freedom and technological advancement is palpable, especially as innovations like self-driving vehicles emerge.

Perhaps the answer is to enhance both private and public transport options. Personally, I rely on CitiBike in New York, which grants me more freedom and flexibility than any car ever could.

The goal should be to achieve a balance—cars are undeniably valuable, but they shouldn't be the sole mode of transportation. Let’s pursue solutions that work for everyone.

Only by doing so can we challenge the legacy of Henry Ford and revive alternative transport methods.

This first video discusses the global trend of cities banning cars, highlighting the various factors driving this shift.

The second video dives into the serious implications of banning cars, presenting arguments from both sides of the debate.