• morganth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Proud to live in the absolute lowest car-owning city. And I’m honestly surprised that it’s almost half! So few people who I know own cars. But there are big outer areas that are basically suburbs and I assume the ownership is higher there.

  • jayemar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t seem to discriminate between people who choose not to own a car and people who can’t afford to own a car.

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where the hell do you think Detroit is

    Also this is partially a map of “who can’t afford a car”

  • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    luv how high car ownership is in green while low car ownership is in red, implying that car ownership is an inherently good thing

    • digitalgadget@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It looks teal and purple to me, which is probably for color blindness accessibility, but I understand what you mean.

  • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The city I’m in is listed (more car ownership) and I’m fairly confident the same reason for all of those higher ownership cities is the same.

    Northeastern cities grew before the advent of the car and needed mass transit to function.

    No one wanted to sweat their butts off in southern cities, so those only grew after residential air conditioning became more available. This was around the 50’s and tracks with when these cities expanded.

    Because the predominant mode of transportation at the time was cars, you have cities that were developed that way with the interstate highway program helping.

    Lastly, General Motors also put their hand in there to ensure more sales (in multiple cities). There’s a good documentary on what they did in Los Angeles. The folks of that city can thank GM every time they waste away on the 405.

    • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The film Chinatown was originally supposed to be part of a trilogy of corruption in early Los Angeles. Chinatown was about water, The Two Jakes was about oil, and a third film about transportation that was never produced.

      While the third film was never fully realized, Robert Zemeckis used the idea as inspiration for Who Framed Rodger Rabbit. Rodger Rabbit is a neo-noir set in early LA, at one point Bob Hodkins says something along the lines of “Don’t you know LA has the best public transit in the world!”

  • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The title could be cities with good vs bad city planning. All the green cities are designed to force people to use cars, because they made everything so spread out with little to no public transportation. The red cities are built properly with public transportation to help people get around.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or bad vs worse city planning. I was surprised to see so many upstate NY cities on the low car ownership list. They do have some public transport but can still be pretty tough without a car. Though they’ve all had some efforts to rein in some failed urban renewal projects like bulldozing unnecessary freeways, and some attempts at improving walking and biking experiences.

      • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I imagine that it has to do with the age of those cities. They were established before cars, so the older parts were designed to get around easier. At least that’s what I assume, because virtually all the cities with low car ownership are in New England.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Have you been to Los Angeles? It’s not so much that it was poorly designed as it is that it just never stopped growing. Los Angeles county is 4753 square miles.

      • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I went on a road trip a long time ago. I remember it was almost all highway with tons of cars without a good public transport system. They knew they were growing and could have held off the heavy traffic with commuter trains and a substantial public transport system.

        Sure there’s a system already in place in LA, though I’m sure there’s room for improvement.

  • Enigma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Makes sense for AZ. It takes about 3hrs to drive from Queen Creek to Buckeye (that’s going east to west in Phoenix). And neither of those suburbs/towns have bus routes. Farthest east you can take the bus is Chandler/Mesa and the farthest west is Avondale, you’re still 30-45min away from Queen Creek and about 15 from Buckeye. The farthest north is Peoria which is still the inner city, not sure about south because no one goes to south Phoenix lmao (iykyk).

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And it’s hotter than hell in Phx. Even if you can take the bus, waiting for a bus when it’s 110 is less than ideal, as is walking to or from the bus stop with groceries. I’m surprised Phoenix and all its suburbs weren’t on this list, especially given how spread out everything is in Phx.

  • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I live in a relatively small city in Europe and have not even wished I had a car the past 5 years. Trams, buses and trains take me to where I need to be. For everyday grocery shopping I can just walk 15 min.

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The city with the third highest percent of car ownership taking home less household income than the city with the lowest percent of car ownership is a surprise.

  • DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The biggest reson for this is probably area density…the areas with fewest cars per capita are the places where things are geographically condensed,which makes public transport a viable alternative. Most southern cities are simply too spread out for public trans to be economically viable, and so having more vehicles is more pertinent.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While density is helpful ,US suburbs can support great transit for less than the cost of their cars. However they can’t support bad transit, or even okay transit.

  • cobra89@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Always plenty of talk about accessibility for people with disabilities and how we should be accommodating.

    Yet people still default to red and green for fucking everything? Fuck the colorblind amiright?

  • JJhonson@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    IE cities being in the top 25 is unsurprising but Murietta being #1 is wild. Totally makes sense tho if anyone has been in that area