Why do you feel better when you go to Europe, or even to Disneyland? Humans crave walkable neighborhoods. American and Canadian infrastructure is the main reason we have so many mental health problems.
I buy the value of walkable neighborhoods, but it's hard to make this epidemiological claim hold up; Canada and the US have broadly similar infrastructure but sharply different rates of mental illness; similarly, mental illness rates don't appear to track walkability in Europe.
Canada also has free healthcare. There are an infinite number of cultural differences that could affect the mental health rates in EU/CA more positively than in the US.
As opposed to the US where even if you pay your premiums you may not get coverage if you go to the "wrong" (out of network) hospital, or the "wrong" (OON) doctor even if in the right hospital. Be sure to inform your ambulance driver of your in-network hospitals so you get taken to the "correct" hospital after a car crash.
When my father had to get new heart valves the most that had to be paid was hospital parking.
In the US, you'll empty your bank account and still get terrible service - you've spent money but received terrible care. Maybe things change if you can afford your own full-time doctor for 500k / year. Canada ranks above the US in every healthcare measure.
How/where? Is this actually a 'solid insurance is hard to get problem'? Neither myself or family (extended included) have experienced problems and we certainly don't have private doctors.
The whole 'american healthcare bad/unaffordable' argument is something that I hear quite a bit on the internet, but pretty much never do in real life.
> The whole 'american healthcare bad/unaffordable' argument is something that I hear quite a bit on the internet, but pretty much never do in real life.
What bubble are you in? For some of us, we make enough money that paying 400/month for insurance while our employer does the same isn't a big deal. For us software engineers, it's no big deal. For the 50% of people making under 60k a year, that's a large chunk of their income.
I hear it constantly from friends nationwide (I have a very large extended circle for a few reasons), media, and my wife, who is a healthcare worker and deals with insurance constantly (as does anyone in healthcare in the US) or my mother (also in healthcare). And of course, we have lots of friends who are in healthcare. And I hear it from my parents, who, as aging people, have more healthcare needs. Your insurance company gets to delay or prevent access to prescriptions, surgeries, or physical therapy as long as they desire.
I'm in Philadelphia, which is one of the biggest cities in the US and where healthcare makes up a much larger than usual portion of our local economy [0]. You can find numerous other sources to support this, Philly is a huge biomedical / healthcare hub. It's almost like being in LA for film or SF for tech.
Where insurance really starts to suck is if you and your healthcare providers think you need care, but the insurance company says no. My wife experiences rejections from her patient's insurance companies daily. Happens with Medicare too.
> How/where? Is this actually a 'solid insurance is hard to get problem'?
Insurance can be contingent on different things:
> Where can I receive care?
> If a provider is not in a plan’s network, the insurance company may not pay for the service(s) provided or may pay a smaller portion than it would for in-network care. This means the enrollee who goes outside of the network for care may be required to pay a much higher share of the cost. This is an important concept to understand, especially if you are not originally from the local Stanford area.
Well thankfully in my case, cancer treatment in Canada has been both free and quite competent. But for lesser things, you might linger for an intolerable amount of time waiting for care.
I recall getting good, quick care when I worked in the US and had a good HMO.
I don't think it's hard to make this claim hold up at all.
Have you looked at local differences apart from comparing HUGE countries with each other; one of which has an extremely low population density? Since you are mentioning walkable "very similar" infrastructure, how do you quantidy actual walkability?
It takes a single search to find many different studies and meta-studies about correlations between noise, air pollution and mental illness, cardiovascular health, life expectancy and others.
I encourage you to look for studies about a metropolitan area near you:
Car traffic is not harmless. Noise is not harmless.
It's just that those who contribute the most to pollution anr noise usually don't experience it every day for hours on end, or even during their sleep.
If you prefer esoteric subjects to obvious ones, I'd recommend this study:
Walkability is good for physical health. Walking is a light exercise. Physical health improves mental health. But I'm not sure if walkability directly improves mental health.
This 1000%. I live in Seattle and I was lucky enough to find a 30min walkable commute to work but holy hell it is unbelievably stressful. Crazy drivers not respecting pedestrians, super loud trucks everywhere, constant road rage with blaring horns, sketchy looking sidewalks.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that I'm pretty sure I have hearing loss from walking next to trucks that make an unbelievable amount of noise. Garbage trucks are the worst offenders in my experience.
It's definitely gotten to the point where I have to find alternative routes from the main streets for my own safety.
And isn't Seattle supposed to be one of the most walkable cities in the US?
I'm not a fan of the condescending tone of a lot of NotJustBikes' videos, but he made a solid piece about the sheer sound impact of vehicles in cities:
Whereabouts are you? I remember in 2008 I visited and it seemed like the whole continent stank of diesel but it's much better now, or my sense of smell has weakened. I'm in the Netherlands and there's not too many cars on the road compared to many other places, though.
Yeah, visited a few smaller cities in Spain and they were all very nice and walkable, at least in the areas I was at. Made me kinda sad to think about how we miss the mark on this.
Feels like NYC is the only place, and it's great, just expensive to live in.
> Feels like NYC is the only place, and it's great, just expensive to live in.
There's actually a lot of walkable areas of many American cities or alternatively smaller rural towns. Generally, the older the city the easier these neighborhoods are to find. even LA has walkable neighborhoods (even though you'll still need a car to get around in general). But yes... expensive.
Boston and San Francisco are walkable, too, but on a much smaller scale. There are small cities, mainly in the eastern US that are walkable.
I hope the rising popularity of e-bikes makes some lower density cities more navigable without a car. Pretty much all "stroads" should be converted to 2 car lanes and a turning lane in the middle, which would leave room for protected bike lanes.
Modern America reserves walkability for college campuses (which explains some of the nostalgia that attaches to them); golf courses and shopping malls -- which may explain part of their popularity.
Great points here. Walkability is the main reason people enjoy their college experience so much. Imagine having to drive from your dorm, to class, then to hang out with friends, then back. It would be a nightmare. Unfortunately, this is the everyday experience for most Americans.
Actually, American shopping malls are a great example of UNwalkability, because they are usually out in the middle of nowhere with respect to the closest population center, mostly to fit giant parking lots but also because American Malls were a weird result of a certain retail and real estate situation.
In America, "going to the mall" is almost always a trip you get into your car for, even if you live in a big city! You can't just drop in to get something as you walk around.
But what I'm saying is: they're privatizing and selling walkability, as long as you get inside them. So walkability is no longer part of the commons. Agree with you that the parking lots contribute to sprawl, and in general v sad about it.
