5 ms·

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

actionablefiber 4y ago
I'm not sure this applies here. Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, who are increasingly saying "screw cars, give us trains and buses and bikes and let us walk around town." And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, possibly arguing to hot-swap the ICEs with EVs while keeping all the new highways and sprawling developments, and young people want to revert to the patterns of development from over a century ago with car-free infrastructure.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives Even in 1960 80% of households had a car: https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-trans.... Even in 1925 it was over half. There isn't a generation in American history where most people lived in a city and took public transit. In the 1920s and 1930s when that was common for people living in cities, half the country lived in rural places.
  - hannasanarion 4y ago
    You say this as if the only places that can be walkable are metropolitan downtowns. Small towns and villages used to be pleasant and walkable too. Many had single-line streetcars. There has never been a time in US history where the majority of people living in rural counties were farmers. The USDA estimates that the population of rural counties who actually work in agriculture peaked at around 40% in 1950, it's now more like 14%. Most people in rural areas live in towns, and they shouldn't be forced to own cars either.
    - b3morales 4y ago
      I always liked the idea of - live in a town - keep car in a garage in the town - retrieve car only when you need to go somewhere outside the town
      - rayiner 4y ago
        This is totally impractical at scale. In most small towns, you need to go outside town routinely, and possibly daily. Even if you live and work in town, your kid may go to a high school or your spouse may work one town over. And once everyone is already paying for a car, it doesn't make much sense to ask them to also pay extra taxes for public transport within town.
        rainsford 4y ago
        Cars cost money to drive, so there is value in not making every trip a car trip even if you needed to buy a car anyways. And that's ignoring the costs of building your town exclusively around car travel. Even in places where you regularly need to use a car, there is value in balancing things so you don't have to use a car every single time you leave your house.
        rayiner 4y ago
        And public transit also costs money to operate and ride. The point is that your proposal doubles up on capital costs.
        rainsford 4y ago
        I don't think there is any free lunch here. The more trips that are made by car, and the longer those trips are, the more the community also needs to invest in capital costs like road and parking infrastructure (which also comes with a non-trivial opportunity cost in downtown areas). And the more you drive the sooner you'll have to replace your car, incurring more frequent capital costs. Of course alternatives aren't free either and sometimes they may not be worth it. But I disagree with the idea that it obviously doesn't make economic sense to invest in any alternatives once you've purchased a car.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  Aren't you rather confirming that Adams quote? Young people want change, old people want to keep it the way it's always been (in their lifetime).
- drstewart 4y ago
  >Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, That's #2 >And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, That's #3
lamontcg 4y ago
I find myself 50 years old right now. When I was 18 I owned a '67 mustang. When I was 35 I had a Honda Prelude SH. Now I want to go back to the 1920s and get single occupancy vehicles out of the urban center, and I was working from home full time since 2015. I finally got off my high horse and started using the lime bikes and scooters to get to downtown and back for events instead of driving.

actionablefiber 4y ago

I'm not sure this applies here. Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, who are increasingly saying "screw cars, give us trains and buses and bikes and let us walk around town." And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, possibly arguing to hot-swap the ICEs with EVs while keeping all the new highways and sprawling developments, and young people want to revert to the patterns of development from over a century ago with car-free infrastructure.

rayiner 4y ago
> And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives Even in 1960 80% of households had a car: https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-trans.... Even in 1925 it was over half. There isn't a generation in American history where most people lived in a city and took public transit. In the 1920s and 1930s when that was common for people living in cities, half the country lived in rural places.
- hannasanarion 4y ago
  You say this as if the only places that can be walkable are metropolitan downtowns. Small towns and villages used to be pleasant and walkable too. Many had single-line streetcars. There has never been a time in US history where the majority of people living in rural counties were farmers. The USDA estimates that the population of rural counties who actually work in agriculture peaked at around 40% in 1950, it's now more like 14%. Most people in rural areas live in towns, and they shouldn't be forced to own cars either.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    I always liked the idea of - live in a town - keep car in a garage in the town - retrieve car only when you need to go somewhere outside the town
    - rayiner 4y ago
      This is totally impractical at scale. In most small towns, you need to go outside town routinely, and possibly daily. Even if you live and work in town, your kid may go to a high school or your spouse may work one town over. And once everyone is already paying for a car, it doesn't make much sense to ask them to also pay extra taxes for public transport within town.
      - rainsford 4y ago
        Cars cost money to drive, so there is value in not making every trip a car trip even if you needed to buy a car anyways. And that's ignoring the costs of building your town exclusively around car travel. Even in places where you regularly need to use a car, there is value in balancing things so you don't have to use a car every single time you leave your house.
        rayiner 4y ago
        And public transit also costs money to operate and ride. The point is that your proposal doubles up on capital costs.
        rainsford 4y ago
        I don't think there is any free lunch here. The more trips that are made by car, and the longer those trips are, the more the community also needs to invest in capital costs like road and parking infrastructure (which also comes with a non-trivial opportunity cost in downtown areas). And the more you drive the sooner you'll have to replace your car, incurring more frequent capital costs. Of course alternatives aren't free either and sometimes they may not be worth it. But I disagree with the idea that it obviously doesn't make economic sense to invest in any alternatives once you've purchased a car.
iforgotpassword 4y ago
Aren't you rather confirming that Adams quote? Young people want change, old people want to keep it the way it's always been (in their lifetime).
drstewart 4y ago
>Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, That's #2 >And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, That's #3

lamontcg 4y ago

I find myself 50 years old right now. When I was 18 I owned a '67 mustang. When I was 35 I had a Honda Prelude SH. Now I want to go back to the 1920s and get single occupancy vehicles out of the urban center, and I was working from home full time since 2015. I finally got off my high horse and started using the lime bikes and scooters to get to downtown and back for events instead of driving.