Dude, higher urban density does not automatically equate to Manhattan. Where’s the tiny apartments/piss-stained subway car in Portland, Davis, Ithica, or Austin? You can have your open space/backyard and still walk to the grocery store/bike to work.

I’m sorry your experience sucked, but there are plenty of walkable/bikeable/transitable communities in America that aren’t massive concrete jungles (Ithica NY, Portland OR, Davis CA). It’s just that they’re uncommon and we’re frequently building the complete opposite, which is why we need to deincentivize the driving…

Self-quote from previous post: “The real effect would be within occupied areas (including Marietta/Waterloo/Midland): higher population density (even in smaller towns) and less sprawl.”

Our car-dependent society may have built this country, but other societies have built even better ones. Don’t even have to leave the US to see this one, try any big city on the NE corridor.

Uhh, how about Canada (a.k.a. America-lite)? Their population density is *one tenth* of ours. You also forgot about New Zealand. How do you explain these?

A lot of our transit, a public resource frequently used by poor/middle class Americans, is funded by the gas tax. Cheap gas encourages further expansion of our unsustainable car-dependent society. How else are we going to change?

But not a debate any politician would dare begin. Which is why I feel it’s important to bring up as much as possible.

Most Jalopnik readers are secretly 25% slack-jawed hillbilly, at least in political views/desire to hoon (woooo!!).

I think even most Jalopnik readers will agree it’s better for the environment, but the real gain here is in quality of life. I know it’s a very vague statement and a wishy-washy metric, but it’s been shown that quality of life is much higher in less car dependent societies.

Wat. You think we have high gas taxes in the US? Far from it buddy.

The car-centric urban planning is what failed you there. Americans like driving, so we design cities that can only be traversed by cars, and now that we can’t easily reach destinations by walking/mass transit, we are forced to use cars and build more car infrastructure and car-based destinations. So the cycle…

Easy. Just ask anybody living in any other first world country. They have great mass transit systems and a great quality of life, and in small cities too. But most importantly, they’ve learned that for most people (read: not Jalops), living without a car is just plain better.

Just for comparison’s sake, us vs every other civilized country in the world.

Does this get-over-it attitude apply to all decade-old traumatic events? Now-adult child abuse victims? Cosby victims? He obviously would benefit from some therapy, but I guess my question is, is this something that he should be blamed/shamed for? Therapy isn’t always easy; sometimes it can be really hard to talk…

The fact that this comment doesn’t have more likes is one of my biggest issues with Jalopnik/Jalopnik readers. Like I’m just like you (cis/het male), but holy sexism batman, can we stop with the booth babes already? It’s less about letting the bikes speak for themselves and more about stopping the objectification of…

“Get in loser, we’re going shopping.”

Couldn’t find my favorite version of those “Like a Rock” commercials, the one with a shot of a shirtless dude dumping water on himself from a huge bucket. All the redneck commentators on youtube were so uncomfortable with the homoeroticism of that shot. If somebody could find it and post it here, that would be cool...

Isn’t building a few high rises also going to raise the population density? It’d certainly be more expensive to build a few high rises rather than lots of 3-story buildings.

If you’re legitimately curious, you should check the Wikipedia on freeway removal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_r…). It’s really counterintuitive, thinking that removing a freeway will improve traffic, but it works. It’s not saying that we should undo the entire interstate highway system, but rather that…

Well if they can do it, why can’t we? Even within America, there are differences in fire equipment sizes. SF has the smallest fire trucks in the country, because they’ve adapted to the need for small vehicles in a dense/hilly environment.