4 ms·

Keeping the number of cars on the road flat would be a huge achievement. The fact is that cars provide a huge amount of utility which is hard to give up unless

Keeping the number of cars on the road flat would be a huge achievement. The fact is that cars provide a huge amount of utility which is hard to give up unless you live in a dense city with good public transport provisions.

adrianN 4y ago
Carcentric city planning and good public transport are pretty much mutually exclusive.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  Not necessarily, but that's how the anti-car crowd wants to frame the discussion, which is why it's not going to get anywhere. If you want to increase non-car infrastructure, you need to convince people it's in their best interest, not attempt to punish them for owning a car. People would love to have an fast, safe, and convenient system for getting around, and right now, that's a car. Most anti-car discussions talk about punishing people for having a car without trying to replace it with something sensible that is fast, safe, and convenient. Of course there's push back.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    If you want to increase non-car infrastructure you either have the problem that you have room, but density is insufficient (e.g. suburbia, cities with too many huge parking lots), or that there is no room (e.g. reasonably dense metro areas). In either case you need to fundamentally restructure the infrastructure to make public transport attractive. That's not really possible without making life worse for drivers.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Again, that's where you lose the discussion. You think motorists love huge parking lots or wide roads. They don't. They couldn't care less - they just want sufficient parking and sufficient travel lanes to get around. If there's one fast lane with less traffic, they'll be happier than 5 lanes of slow traffic. They don't want congestion, and are willing to support initiatives that reduce congestion. Right now, the only consistent initiative is either painting bike lanes in the middle of no where that no one will use or adding more car lanes. But the frame of the discussion right now is to punish motorists for being motorists - they don't have a choice. They can't afford to live closer (or there's no options that give what they are looking for), and there's no safe, fast, or convenient way to any place they need to go without a car. Give them a safe, fast, and convenient way from suburbia to downtown, and they'll support reducing highways into half their size. Right now, the discussion is "suburbia bad, car bad, you bad - be better"
      - adrianN 4y ago
        Now please suggest how you want to provide fast convenient car travel without wide roads and lots of parking. I'm all ears for clever plans that can replace five lanes of slow traffic with one lane of fast traffic. The only one I can think of is to cut the number of cars by at least 80%, probably more.
        ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Yes. A goal is to reduce the number of cars & to optimize the space used for other modes of transportation. However, to achieve that goal, you need wide & motivated political support. You want people to support your goal in the way MAGA crowds line up for hours to cheer for Trump - otherwise, you're not going to get it done. You don't achieve that by talking down to them, treating their choices with disdain, or telling them that they expect to much. You do that by giving them a vision they want to fight for & a path to fight for it. A vision, for example, where you don't need to drive, but you could drive - and that driving experience will be even better than today. A vision that you wouldn't want to drive, even though the driving experience is even better than today, because the alternative is even better than an improved driving experience. That's how you achieve support. If you tell them they should stop using cars, they're going to ignore you, because there's no better alternative or even remotely equivalent alternative. If you actually try implementing it without making a better alternative, they're going to resent you and your goal.
        VBprogrammer 4y ago
        I think what you are saying is you can't make public transport more appealing just by making the alternatives worse.
        ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Yes, that's definitely what I am saying.
        adrianN 4y ago
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    But a car is only fast, safe, and convenient if a relative minority of people use them. Once they become the default, cars are terrible.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Even in a metro area with nothing but cars (& a token bus system), it's still the fastest, safest, and most convenient method of transportation, because there is no real alternative. If you attack the fastest, safest, and most convenient method without providing an alternative that is even better, you will face resentment. If you can provide an alternative that is even better while making driving better too, you'll probably get enough real support to make it reality.
      - CalRobert 4y ago
        The things making walking, transit, etc. Better are usually the things that make driving worse.

adrianN 4y ago

Carcentric city planning and good public transport are pretty much mutually exclusive.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
Not necessarily, but that's how the anti-car crowd wants to frame the discussion, which is why it's not going to get anywhere. If you want to increase non-car infrastructure, you need to convince people it's in their best interest, not attempt to punish them for owning a car. People would love to have an fast, safe, and convenient system for getting around, and right now, that's a car. Most anti-car discussions talk about punishing people for having a car without trying to replace it with something sensible that is fast, safe, and convenient. Of course there's push back.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If you want to increase non-car infrastructure you either have the problem that you have room, but density is insufficient (e.g. suburbia, cities with too many huge parking lots), or that there is no room (e.g. reasonably dense metro areas). In either case you need to fundamentally restructure the infrastructure to make public transport attractive. That's not really possible without making life worse for drivers.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    Again, that's where you lose the discussion. You think motorists love huge parking lots or wide roads. They don't. They couldn't care less - they just want sufficient parking and sufficient travel lanes to get around. If there's one fast lane with less traffic, they'll be happier than 5 lanes of slow traffic. They don't want congestion, and are willing to support initiatives that reduce congestion. Right now, the only consistent initiative is either painting bike lanes in the middle of no where that no one will use or adding more car lanes. But the frame of the discussion right now is to punish motorists for being motorists - they don't have a choice. They can't afford to live closer (or there's no options that give what they are looking for), and there's no safe, fast, or convenient way to any place they need to go without a car. Give them a safe, fast, and convenient way from suburbia to downtown, and they'll support reducing highways into half their size. Right now, the discussion is "suburbia bad, car bad, you bad - be better"
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Now please suggest how you want to provide fast convenient car travel without wide roads and lots of parking. I'm all ears for clever plans that can replace five lanes of slow traffic with one lane of fast traffic. The only one I can think of is to cut the number of cars by at least 80%, probably more.
      - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Yes. A goal is to reduce the number of cars & to optimize the space used for other modes of transportation. However, to achieve that goal, you need wide & motivated political support. You want people to support your goal in the way MAGA crowds line up for hours to cheer for Trump - otherwise, you're not going to get it done. You don't achieve that by talking down to them, treating their choices with disdain, or telling them that they expect to much. You do that by giving them a vision they want to fight for & a path to fight for it. A vision, for example, where you don't need to drive, but you could drive - and that driving experience will be even better than today. A vision that you wouldn't want to drive, even though the driving experience is even better than today, because the alternative is even better than an improved driving experience. That's how you achieve support. If you tell them they should stop using cars, they're going to ignore you, because there's no better alternative or even remotely equivalent alternative. If you actually try implementing it without making a better alternative, they're going to resent you and your goal.
        VBprogrammer 4y ago
        I think what you are saying is you can't make public transport more appealing just by making the alternatives worse.
        ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Yes, that's definitely what I am saying.
        adrianN 4y ago
- CalRobert 4y ago
  But a car is only fast, safe, and convenient if a relative minority of people use them. Once they become the default, cars are terrible.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    Even in a metro area with nothing but cars (& a token bus system), it's still the fastest, safest, and most convenient method of transportation, because there is no real alternative. If you attack the fastest, safest, and most convenient method without providing an alternative that is even better, you will face resentment. If you can provide an alternative that is even better while making driving better too, you'll probably get enough real support to make it reality.
    - CalRobert 4y ago
      The things making walking, transit, etc. Better are usually the things that make driving worse.