5 ms·

Robert Moses, a planner, demolished and fractured thriving neighborhoods to build massive highways in New York City in his quest to see cars working at scale. A

Robert Moses, a planner, demolished and fractured thriving neighborhoods to build massive highways in New York City in his quest to see cars working at scale. Architects and planners of the time like Moses and Le Corbusier did not pay close attention to markets, they were focused on utopic designs and unrealistic beliefs of what humans would achieve in radically new spaces. That is why we have legacy highways and sprawling public housing projects.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Sure, and places without those big projects still became car dependent. Cars still ended up scaling. You found an unrelated problem.
- specialist 5y ago
  TLDR: Roads were built despite the market's desire for mass transit. The first automobile suburb was Long Island. Created by Robert Moses. Copied by all. Money was stolen from public transit and spent on roads, stolen from urbans to pay for suburbs. In fact, cars did not scale. The road capacity did not, could not, ever, accommodate the demand. Physically, logically, economically impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/039...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There is literally 0 market desire for mass transit. Mass transit is not viable on the free market functionally. It doesn't mean we should not build it. Before the first automobile suburb, cars were already in sufficient concentrations to require infrastructure to be taken away from other modes of transport and onto cars - the first example was in the 1910s, MUCH before Robert Moses designed any suburb - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term This is simply an a-historical take on reality. Cars got infrastructure by being enough of a nuisance to force the government to build around them. And it started in the city, not in the suburbs. Not that suburbs are good, but it's important to get these things right. Things can scale without scaling enough. Cars did scale, they just did so unsustainably. Since we're being pedantic anyways.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      I wouldn’t say 0 desire. I don’t own a car anymore and rely on good mass transit to get around. It’s far less expensive than owning a car. There are also people who cannot drive who desire mass transit.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Desire != market desire. At the price it would be to make and operate a transit system without taxes or eminent domain or enforced monopolies, or land value increase kickbacks, almost none of the people that need it would find it a compelling value proposition. And then as a result low ridership would lead to even higher per person price, which makes it even less feasible. It's just not possible for the private sector to make a good transit system without most of the heavy lifting coming from the public sector. Public transit has to exist outside the market. For example even in m city with a really efficient system, even with all of the infrastructure already built using government powers and mostly paid off, even if the price increase did not increase ridership, I would have to pay ~3x more for transit, which would make it unaffordable.
        withinboredom 5y ago
        Ah, I see! Thanks for exposing that. TIL
        drak0n1c 5y ago
        Isn't Japan a counterexample? While government was essential for establishing the initial feasibility and cultural proof of concept, private competitors grew so much more successful than JNR rail that 30 years ago they decided to privatize the entire rail system. Since then, there has been unabated upgrades and additions of lines and regular train car improvements. The only major inefficiencies and decline has been in remote extremely low ridership areas. The trains are still pretty affordable, and everyone uses them.
        sudosysgen 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

Sure, and places without those big projects still became car dependent. Cars still ended up scaling. You found an unrelated problem.

specialist 5y ago
TLDR: Roads were built despite the market's desire for mass transit. The first automobile suburb was Long Island. Created by Robert Moses. Copied by all. Money was stolen from public transit and spent on roads, stolen from urbans to pay for suburbs. In fact, cars did not scale. The road capacity did not, could not, ever, accommodate the demand. Physically, logically, economically impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/039...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There is literally 0 market desire for mass transit. Mass transit is not viable on the free market functionally. It doesn't mean we should not build it. Before the first automobile suburb, cars were already in sufficient concentrations to require infrastructure to be taken away from other modes of transport and onto cars - the first example was in the 1910s, MUCH before Robert Moses designed any suburb - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term This is simply an a-historical take on reality. Cars got infrastructure by being enough of a nuisance to force the government to build around them. And it started in the city, not in the suburbs. Not that suburbs are good, but it's important to get these things right. Things can scale without scaling enough. Cars did scale, they just did so unsustainably. Since we're being pedantic anyways.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    I wouldn’t say 0 desire. I don’t own a car anymore and rely on good mass transit to get around. It’s far less expensive than owning a car. There are also people who cannot drive who desire mass transit.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Desire != market desire. At the price it would be to make and operate a transit system without taxes or eminent domain or enforced monopolies, or land value increase kickbacks, almost none of the people that need it would find it a compelling value proposition. And then as a result low ridership would lead to even higher per person price, which makes it even less feasible. It's just not possible for the private sector to make a good transit system without most of the heavy lifting coming from the public sector. Public transit has to exist outside the market. For example even in m city with a really efficient system, even with all of the infrastructure already built using government powers and mostly paid off, even if the price increase did not increase ridership, I would have to pay ~3x more for transit, which would make it unaffordable.
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        Ah, I see! Thanks for exposing that. TIL
      - drak0n1c 5y ago
        Isn't Japan a counterexample? While government was essential for establishing the initial feasibility and cultural proof of concept, private competitors grew so much more successful than JNR rail that 30 years ago they decided to privatize the entire rail system. Since then, there has been unabated upgrades and additions of lines and regular train car improvements. The only major inefficiencies and decline has been in remote extremely low ridership areas. The trains are still pretty affordable, and everyone uses them.
        sudosysgen 5y ago