Ever since ditching car culture and joining the urbanist cause (on the internet at least but that has to change), I’ve noticed that some countries always top the list when it comes to good urbanism. The first and most oblivious one tends to be The Netherlands but Germany and Japan also come pretty close. But that’s strange considering that both countries have huge car industries. Germany is (arguably) the birthplace of the car (Benz Patent-Motorwagen) and is home to Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW. Japan is home to Toyota, Honda, Nissan and among others. How is it that these countries have been able to keep the auto lobby at bay and continue investing in their infrastructure?

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s due to different reasons, but very little to do with car manufacturing.

    Cities in Europe are blessed and cursed with being established long before cars. This makes it expensive to expand the roads, and it is also difficult to increase the size of cities outwards, because there’s not a lot of available land anywhere. So when populations increases, it makes sense to make public transport better, because it’s the cheaper and only option.

    It’s not all good though. Only the largest cities have good public transport. Smaller towns are increasing outwards because rural land is cheaper. Parking is limited or costly in the centres, so people drive out of the town for shopping where parking is free and easy. This kills the businesses in small town centres despite their population growth. A large group of the population living outside the capitals is currently getting more and more car dependent, not by choice, but by necessity.

    Japan is different. They simply planned ahead and invested heavily in public transport in the years after the war, 1947-1987 before their population grew. They literally built railroads and the Tokyo metro before it was needed. With huge success. The cities grew with the public transport.

    Another historical difference is that while both European and Japanese public transport started as government projects and both have since been privatized, the fragmentation in European states and municipalities have made it difficult to do in a profitable way. It’s usually government subsidized, and therefore still depending on local political will to budget for it, while the larger Japanese railway companies are (somewhat) less dependent on local political budgets. In short: JR rail can more easily add another departure if they think it makes sense, whereas a European railroad company would need to know how much the government is willing to pay for having more departures etc.

    I do have hopes that Europe will catch up again, because the long term environmental pledges are pushing politicians in the right direction. It’s no longer enough to only consider the cost and corporate interests. The people want less pollution and traffic and vote accordingly.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Many cities is europe expanded beyond their medieval borders. Their cities are built better because they are designed better and more thoughtfully. The American methods is more like a cookie cutter, just place the same things anywhere they can fit.

      Europe is better designed because people actually took the time to plan their cities, not just because they are old.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Europe is generally planned according to 1000 year old desire paths.