You will have to solve the epidemic of homelessness and crime in high-density areas of the United States before people will accept using mass transit. I fully support doing so - I would for example support a national project to build cheap concrete housing for all who need it - but that's the barrier.
I used to live in Portland and Tri-Met and my bike were my two means of transportation for many years. I would absolutely not use public transportation in that city today.
The entire west coast is really bad about its strategy for tackling homelessness. The central issue there is the federal government needs to massively ramp up housing, it can’t be solved at a local level (there’s a role to play for cities but basically you need nationwide housing reform.)
Chicago and NYC have massively used transit systems despite their homeless populations. I lived in Chicago and I miss a real transit system here in TX badly.
That is to say, we don’t need to do A before B. We need to do A & B
> a national project to build cheap concrete housing for all who need it
Out of curiosity, have you looked into this?
This was basically the NYCHA approach in the '30s-'50s. Then we got the '70s-80s, and for sure some good came from these developments -- rap music! -- but by all accounts they were not wonderful places to live. Not only because they often segregated poverty, but also because they were poorly maintained, like so many other state-owned housing schemes.
Housing is expensive, yes, and we need more of it, yes. But low-cost housing without other support is not a solution to the "epidemic of homelessness and crime" in cities. We need better plans to help people get out of poverty, treatment for addiction and other mental health problems, integration into society, meaningful work, etc. etc.
I'm not picking on you in particular (you do say "for example", so perhaps you already know the above!) but other should know that the mere availability of cheap or even free housing is not a panacea for social ills.
The history of the LA area "Red Car" transit system makes for interesting reading (covered well on WikiPedia). A large well used, electric, urban rail system that no longer exists. Primarily because it was originally funded by the developers of the "beach" cities as a way to increase the value of their housing developments, since residents were able to commute to jobs downtown and elsewhere. However, once the houses were all built and sold, there was no incentive to keep funding the street cars and the system eventually closed. Many of the disused lines were used as the basis for new freeways, ironically.
Transit (and freeways) as property development schemes are very underecognized, thanks for pointing this out.
The Henry George Theorem (Sitglitz 1977) states that (in the right conditions) funding of public goods like transit and freeways increases the land value and therefore land rents by more than the investment amount. Namely, it creates value, but for whoever owns the land.
Changing to less car centric development has the potential to vastly increase value. I'd advocate for a land value tax to fund the public investment, but would be happy with whatever non-car centric options are made available, honestly.
I talk about this a lot when I discuss transportation policy (not a professional or anything, just been interested in for two decades).
People seem to think that there is some pendulum that swings in directions when it comes to infrastructure. It's really not. These things happen in cascades. Once a new mode is dominate, it takes over until it outlives it's usefulness and then collapses.
The LA Red Car is exactly this scenario, as is long haul rail transportation. And if you've been reading the Chuck Marhon for the last decade, you might see the suburban development pattern leaning toward a similar cascade.
I don't see the automobile disappearing from the American city any time soon (the hoi polloi love the idea of the damn things too much even if the hate being in traffic), but you can live car free in so many American cities these days, it's really shocking.
I shouldn't have needed to move to the Netherlands to feel safe with my kids biking to school. The US is a wasteland and when you've seen otherwise it just seems like a nightmarish hellscape of stroads.
You didn't need to. I bet most places in the US are safe for your kids to bike to school. I see kids walking and biking to and from school all the time in my neighborhood. Never heard of any problems with it.
I just spent a week in New Jersey. It was not possible to get anywhere without a car. I had to take a lot of Ubers from my hotel. Surrounded by large multi lane roads and car parks. No pavement to walk even if you wanted to. Every business needed a huge car park. Everything was incredibly spread out.
Maybe this is normal for Americans, but for me it was a car hellscape. I don't own a car living in London, and there just isn't the same need.
This is so normal for Americans that you'll see people in this thread vehemently defending this hellscape against any criticism, since they can't imagine an alternative. A resident of London who doesn't own a car is a prisoner in their own home, in the mind of the average American.
It is normal for urban and near urban America. Too many people without enough sense, crowded in too small a space. On darker days, I think we need a more effective plague to shrink the population.
My "need" for a car is driven by things that make life worth living, none of which are found in a city. OTOH, I can appreciate that city life works for some people and I would never try to impose a rural or suburban life on them.
And yet the fact it needs to be explained in order to proceed in a discussion on the matter says a lot about the cultural normalization of the car.
Many do not consider resource consumption in production and disposal, as well as emissions as regards particulate matter (road and tire wear), when engaging in topics like this, so clearly this insight is not as obvious to many as it ought to be.
Yale Climate Connections - didn't expect a politically neutral post from that. But they make a good argument for higher density, which I agree with. But there are some advantages to a car-centric society:
- higher personal freedom - you can go anywhere, anytime. With transit / walking, you can go some places, some of the time. This is huge and opens up a lot of possibilities for work, vacations, socializing, healthcare.
- bulk stores like Costco is only possible because people have cars. You will have to pry my Costco membership card from my cold, dead hands.
It's a lot cheaper to let people drive in to a central bulk store like this and buy what they want in large quantities than to have a network of tiny, walkable stores and try to predict demand and optimally distribute goods to them with delivery vans.
> higher personal freedom - you can go anywhere, anytime. With transit / walking, you can go some places, some of the time. This is huge and opens up a lot of possibilities for work, vacations, socializing, healthcare.
It seems like people have gotten stuck in this false dichotomy where the only two possibilities are detached single-family homes on an acre of land or 50-story high rises with hundreds of housing units.
An acre of land is 43560 sq ft. That's enough for a 10,000 sq ft per-story multi-story building and dozens of ground-level parking spaces. You can fill a neighborhood with those, put shops on the ground floor and housing above it, and have a walkable neighborhood where every household has one car instead of two.
> bulk stores like Costco is only possible because people have cars. You will have to pry my Costco membership card from my cold, dead hands.
You could pretty easily replace this with ecommerce for bulk goods. It's actually kind of weird that this isn't more popular because bulk purchases should reduce shipping overhead. Why isn't there a Costco truck that drops off a month's supply of groceries at your front door once a month?
Car-centric design reduces freedom, because it requires an expensive car in order to go anywhere. Nothing says freedom like a $900/month car payment in order to get to work and buy groceries![0]
Bulk stores like Costco are only necessary because people live in such sprawling communities. In places where you live a short walk from a grocery store, you can practice just-in-time logistics, and buy whatever you need as soon as you need it.
It's a lot cheaper, both in economic and environmental terms, to build cities where people don't need to drive for their daily needs.
Stores like Costco and Ikea exist in countries with good public transit. They're just one among many types of store. Transit advocacy isn't about eliminating everything except public transit. It can just be about improving transit so that the infrastructure for vehicles isn't overwhelmed with all the people who don't need to use cars and don't have other options.
I had a friend in the city who was doing pretty well with Zipcar, where one could somewhat spontaneously rent a car in one's urban neighborhood to use for errands or trips. This could be a good solution in dense environments for Costco runs, especially when the nearest Zipcar lot is just a couple of minutes' walk away.
I personally go shopping by bike, but I notice there are some things I can't readily buy that way, like furniture. (I did successfully buy a microwave by bike, but a larger appliance than that would be pretty daunting.)
I have family visiting me right now in the big city from the small town, and it's weird for us to notice how different things are.
There are also advantages to a less car-centric society.
- "In 2022 the average vehicle costs $11,450 per year to own and operate. The breakdown of the figure comes to $4,496 for purchasing the vehicle, $3,120 in gasoline and motor oil expenses, and $3,834 in other vehicle-related costs." - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/cost-car-ownersh... . If you are in a two-car family, and a less car-centric environment means you only need one car for those Costco runs and wind surfing afternoons, then you can save thousands of dollars.
- You can go out with friends to a bar and drink, and not worry about having a designated driver.
- There's much less need for “Restricted” or “Hardship” License for repeat DUI offenders.
- Kids have higher personal freedom as they don't depend on a parent to drive
- People who aren't able to drive (due to any of many reasons) have higher personal freedom
- During your commute you can read or do other things which occupy your attention.
- You don't have to worry about finding parking or paying for parking.
- Your taxes go down as you don't need to subsidize so much driving infrastructure
Having mass transit access also opens up possibilities for work you can't as easily get with a car. That's why places already have Park&Ride - parking at the job location is too expensive with only car access.
In a less car-centric society there should be little difference between the health car you get with a car and without. Plus, if your health condition means you can't drive, you'll likely have better healthcare access.
> It's a lot cheaper to let people drive in to a central bulk store like this and buy what they want in large quantities than to have a network of tiny, walkable stores and try to predict demand and optimally distribute goods to them with delivery vans.
Cheaper for who? Car ownership can be a huge financial burden compared to transit.
> bulk stores like Costco is only possible because people have cars. You will have to pry my Costco membership card from my cold, dead hands.
Costco users in urban areas would disagree with your assessment that it's only possible with cars. I'm looking at this Costco in Soma right now and watching people walk out with enough bulk goods to carry in their granny carts or bags in hands.
I really don’t understand this post. You can obviously have both? Like it’s very super-duper obvious how you can just live in a city and don’t use your car at all, but drive out to get outside of the city.
I live in Vancouver, I go to Costco which is downtown (15 min walk or 7 min metro ride), drive up to skiing or hiking mountains multiple times a month (weather and etc. depended). I don’t even want to point at even better cities in other countries (most of Japan, Switzerland, parts of France and many more) as that’s cheating. But you really can have your cake and eat it too, it’s very much been done multiple times around the world.
Your freedom to drive generally reduces other people's freedom to walk, bike, and take transit. Among other things it's often illegal to build homes where people want to live so that you can park your car there.
You can have both. At my home in India I can just walk and get all essentials I need (food medicine etc.) If I need to buy a lot of things I take a car and go to the nearest supermarket.
There is an environmental cost to using only cars to get your essential things. We need to start considering them now
Strong disagree. Having spent good amounts of time in parts of the world where you can operate for months without getting in a car, it felt far more free. The barrier to entry in the US being owning a car, paying insurance and paying for a place to store it is the opposite of freedom.
> In “Fighting Traffic,” Norton argued that car culture was largely forced on an unwilling public by car dealers, manufacturers, automotive clubs, and others who banded together to promote automobile use, calling themselves “motordom.”
The problem of this analysis is that at the time of the protests, cars were a luxury good for the rich. However, as cars have become ubiquitous, the opposition to them goes away and people want more infrastructure in support of them.
American society is heavily suburban and rural, and therefore dependent on cars. None of that is going to change. And thanks for that. American cities are largely inhuman places.
The idea that things can't change, much less that cities of all places can't change, can only be thought by shortening knowledge of history to a tiny window.
Even current American cities have changed drastically in the past 50 years. They will change again.
Cars give people the freedom to go places and carry luggage that would be impossible or inconvenient on public transport.
Taking this freedom away from people is divisive, bordering on hostile.
Ideologues in metropolitan bubbles talk a lot about getting rid of cars. They disregard, either ignorantly or willfully, the needs of everyone outside their bubble.
Car shares give people this freedom, but for less money.
Despite these "bubbles" in metropolitan areas, they are still ruined by ever present cars.
So you want a car? Great, go live in the 100% of the country that caters to your every need, by law. But please don't get in the way of others that want to build their own paradise. It doesn't concern you and you should mind your own business.
However it shouldn't be necessary for me to walk in a ditch along a high speed road with no sidewalk just to get to the grocery that is less than half a mile away.
I agree and I use public transit almost exclusively. I want better infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation, but every time the subject comes up it gets tangled up with ideological evangelism and comes across as condescending and authoritarian. Instead of framing it as some crusade against cars or using the political hammer of climate doomerism, argue for reduced traffic, better and cheaper options for people to get around, road safety... those are things that everyone can agree on and have been used to support mass transit projects in other countries successfully.
You’re either ignorantly or willfully misunderstanding the problem. Cars existing isn’t bad on its own, it’s the fact that, especially in North America, it’s not only the default but also more often than not the only option people consider
[+] [-] s1gnp0st|2 years ago|reply
I used to live in Portland and Tri-Met and my bike were my two means of transportation for many years. I would absolutely not use public transportation in that city today.
[+] [-] alexsereno|2 years ago|reply
Chicago and NYC have massively used transit systems despite their homeless populations. I lived in Chicago and I miss a real transit system here in TX badly.
That is to say, we don’t need to do A before B. We need to do A & B
[+] [-] zamfi|2 years ago|reply
Out of curiosity, have you looked into this?
This was basically the NYCHA approach in the '30s-'50s. Then we got the '70s-80s, and for sure some good came from these developments -- rap music! -- but by all accounts they were not wonderful places to live. Not only because they often segregated poverty, but also because they were poorly maintained, like so many other state-owned housing schemes.
Housing is expensive, yes, and we need more of it, yes. But low-cost housing without other support is not a solution to the "epidemic of homelessness and crime" in cities. We need better plans to help people get out of poverty, treatment for addiction and other mental health problems, integration into society, meaningful work, etc. etc.
I'm not picking on you in particular (you do say "for example", so perhaps you already know the above!) but other should know that the mere availability of cheap or even free housing is not a panacea for social ills.
[+] [-] slothtrop|2 years ago|reply
If you let people build 15 min cities where walking/cycling makes sense, they will.
[+] [-] jinushaun|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftTalker|2 years ago|reply
We've tried that. It didn't go well.
[+] [-] dboreham|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epistasis|2 years ago|reply
The Henry George Theorem (Sitglitz 1977) states that (in the right conditions) funding of public goods like transit and freeways increases the land value and therefore land rents by more than the investment amount. Namely, it creates value, but for whoever owns the land.
Changing to less car centric development has the potential to vastly increase value. I'd advocate for a land value tax to fund the public investment, but would be happy with whatever non-car centric options are made available, honestly.
[+] [-] scoofy|2 years ago|reply
People seem to think that there is some pendulum that swings in directions when it comes to infrastructure. It's really not. These things happen in cascades. Once a new mode is dominate, it takes over until it outlives it's usefulness and then collapses.
The LA Red Car is exactly this scenario, as is long haul rail transportation. And if you've been reading the Chuck Marhon for the last decade, you might see the suburban development pattern leaning toward a similar cascade.
I don't see the automobile disappearing from the American city any time soon (the hoi polloi love the idea of the damn things too much even if the hate being in traffic), but you can live car free in so many American cities these days, it's really shocking.
[+] [-] johngossman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CalRobert|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zoklet-enjoyer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattPalmer1086|2 years ago|reply
Maybe this is normal for Americans, but for me it was a car hellscape. I don't own a car living in London, and there just isn't the same need.
[+] [-] dublinben|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickydroll|2 years ago|reply
My "need" for a car is driven by things that make life worth living, none of which are found in a city. OTOH, I can appreciate that city life works for some people and I would never try to impose a rural or suburban life on them.
[+] [-] cbsmith|2 years ago|reply
Not exactly a shocking discovery that a product explicitly designed to be an alternative fueled car is still a car.
[+] [-] uoaei|2 years ago|reply
Many do not consider resource consumption in production and disposal, as well as emissions as regards particulate matter (road and tire wear), when engaging in topics like this, so clearly this insight is not as obvious to many as it ought to be.
[+] [-] FredPret|2 years ago|reply
- higher personal freedom - you can go anywhere, anytime. With transit / walking, you can go some places, some of the time. This is huge and opens up a lot of possibilities for work, vacations, socializing, healthcare.
- bulk stores like Costco is only possible because people have cars. You will have to pry my Costco membership card from my cold, dead hands.
It's a lot cheaper to let people drive in to a central bulk store like this and buy what they want in large quantities than to have a network of tiny, walkable stores and try to predict demand and optimally distribute goods to them with delivery vans.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|2 years ago|reply
It seems like people have gotten stuck in this false dichotomy where the only two possibilities are detached single-family homes on an acre of land or 50-story high rises with hundreds of housing units.
An acre of land is 43560 sq ft. That's enough for a 10,000 sq ft per-story multi-story building and dozens of ground-level parking spaces. You can fill a neighborhood with those, put shops on the ground floor and housing above it, and have a walkable neighborhood where every household has one car instead of two.
> bulk stores like Costco is only possible because people have cars. You will have to pry my Costco membership card from my cold, dead hands.
You could pretty easily replace this with ecommerce for bulk goods. It's actually kind of weird that this isn't more popular because bulk purchases should reduce shipping overhead. Why isn't there a Costco truck that drops off a month's supply of groceries at your front door once a month?
[+] [-] dublinben|2 years ago|reply
Bulk stores like Costco are only necessary because people live in such sprawling communities. In places where you live a short walk from a grocery store, you can practice just-in-time logistics, and buy whatever you need as soon as you need it.
It's a lot cheaper, both in economic and environmental terms, to build cities where people don't need to drive for their daily needs.
[0] https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/08/annual-cost-of-new-car-owne...
[+] [-] AlotOfReading|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schoen|2 years ago|reply
I personally go shopping by bike, but I notice there are some things I can't readily buy that way, like furniture. (I did successfully buy a microwave by bike, but a larger appliance than that would be pretty daunting.)
I have family visiting me right now in the big city from the small town, and it's weird for us to notice how different things are.
[+] [-] eesmith|2 years ago|reply
- "In 2022 the average vehicle costs $11,450 per year to own and operate. The breakdown of the figure comes to $4,496 for purchasing the vehicle, $3,120 in gasoline and motor oil expenses, and $3,834 in other vehicle-related costs." - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/cost-car-ownersh... . If you are in a two-car family, and a less car-centric environment means you only need one car for those Costco runs and wind surfing afternoons, then you can save thousands of dollars.
- You can go out with friends to a bar and drink, and not worry about having a designated driver.
- There's much less need for “Restricted” or “Hardship” License for repeat DUI offenders.
- Kids have higher personal freedom as they don't depend on a parent to drive
- People who aren't able to drive (due to any of many reasons) have higher personal freedom
- During your commute you can read or do other things which occupy your attention.
- You don't have to worry about finding parking or paying for parking.
- Your taxes go down as you don't need to subsidize so much driving infrastructure
Having mass transit access also opens up possibilities for work you can't as easily get with a car. That's why places already have Park&Ride - parking at the job location is too expensive with only car access.
In a less car-centric society there should be little difference between the health car you get with a car and without. Plus, if your health condition means you can't drive, you'll likely have better healthcare access.
[+] [-] 0xdde|2 years ago|reply
Cheaper for who? Car ownership can be a huge financial burden compared to transit.
[+] [-] epistasis|2 years ago|reply
Costco users in urban areas would disagree with your assessment that it's only possible with cars. I'm looking at this Costco in Soma right now and watching people walk out with enough bulk goods to carry in their granny carts or bags in hands.
[+] [-] kredd|2 years ago|reply
I live in Vancouver, I go to Costco which is downtown (15 min walk or 7 min metro ride), drive up to skiing or hiking mountains multiple times a month (weather and etc. depended). I don’t even want to point at even better cities in other countries (most of Japan, Switzerland, parts of France and many more) as that’s cheating. But you really can have your cake and eat it too, it’s very much been done multiple times around the world.
[+] [-] CalRobert|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdedev|2 years ago|reply
There is an environmental cost to using only cars to get your essential things. We need to start considering them now
[+] [-] 303uru|2 years ago|reply
Strong disagree. Having spent good amounts of time in parts of the world where you can operate for months without getting in a car, it felt far more free. The barrier to entry in the US being owning a car, paying insurance and paying for a place to store it is the opposite of freedom.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|2 years ago|reply
The problem of this analysis is that at the time of the protests, cars were a luxury good for the rich. However, as cars have become ubiquitous, the opposition to them goes away and people want more infrastructure in support of them.
[+] [-] seabea|2 years ago|reply
Not to mention the cost of parts.
[+] [-] nullindividual|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrangle|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epistasis|2 years ago|reply
The idea that things can't change, much less that cities of all places can't change, can only be thought by shortening knowledge of history to a tiny window.
Even current American cities have changed drastically in the past 50 years. They will change again.
[+] [-] seabea|2 years ago|reply
For those who live away from any civilization, they've made their choice about transportation.
[+] [-] cbeach|2 years ago|reply
Taking this freedom away from people is divisive, bordering on hostile.
Ideologues in metropolitan bubbles talk a lot about getting rid of cars. They disregard, either ignorantly or willfully, the needs of everyone outside their bubble.
[+] [-] epistasis|2 years ago|reply
Car shares give people this freedom, but for less money.
Despite these "bubbles" in metropolitan areas, they are still ruined by ever present cars.
So you want a car? Great, go live in the 100% of the country that caters to your every need, by law. But please don't get in the way of others that want to build their own paradise. It doesn't concern you and you should mind your own business.
[+] [-] seabea|2 years ago|reply
However it shouldn't be necessary for me to walk in a ditch along a high speed road with no sidewalk just to get to the grocery that is less than half a mile away.
[+] [-] gmm1990|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slily|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nrabulinski|2 years ago|reply