3 ms·

It is certainly USA-centric, and some of its assertions do not hold for some of us in the USA (ex: I contribute a wildly disproportionate amount to road upkeep

It is certainly USA-centric, and some of its assertions do not hold for some of us in the USA (ex: I contribute a wildly disproportionate amount to road upkeep relative to my usage of same compared to average), but I think you (and others) are missing the article's point regarding "egalitarian", since they're referring to economic opportunities rather than merely transportation. I can drift back in time just 20 years and point out that an automobile is the only reason I was able to pursue the career opportunities I did at that time. A bicycle is not fast enough to cover the distances. Mass transit didn't exist or was not available in times that matched those opportunities. Walking didn't work. Etc.

acdha 4y ago
It’s more complicated than that, however: cars are one of the most expensive options and that costs many people jobs (poor people get fired if their cars break down more than once in a while) and a large fraction of household income at lower tiers goes to cars for that reason. We’d need to consider that as well. The other big thing to examine is the degree to which the lack of transit is a policy choice. If we took the billions of dollars spent subsidizing private car ownership and spent it on transit, the results would look a lot more like Europe, Asia, South America, or our own country a century ago. There’d be trade offs, of course, but those are important to consider as possibilities as we head into an era where climate change is going to cause many large problems and cars are around a quarter of our total emissions and EVs cut that number in half at best.
- willnonya 4y ago
  This is full of misdirection and half truths. It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible. Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different. The tradeoffs you gloss over are likely to be much lore significant. They start with the tremendous investment required to add these where they don't exist and end with the mix of economic and quality or life impacts inherent in this type of travel. EV do not drop total emissions out of the gate. Most start with a higher carbon footprint (and environmental impact) than ice vehicles and do not break even until more than half way through the expected life cycle. You do get some gains after break even but those benefits are mostly on relocation rather than reduction and are reset when the car hits battery replacement. I like EV's but they aren't the panacea they're presented as and come with their own problems. The bottom line is that the automobile for all of its flaws represents complete freedom of movement not offered by any other means available to the average citizen. And you want to do away with it.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > This is full of misdirection and half truths. You were referring to your next sentence, it appears: > It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible. It is driven by economics, which is driven by the policy decisions I mentioned. When private car usage is as heavily subsidized as it's been in the United States for the last century, it's not surprising that it can be cheaper for many people but that's just saying that the core principle of economics (people respond to incentives) is still true. Similarly, your aesthetic preferences are not only not universal but in large part cultural. Sitting in traffic is not pleasant, nor is getting hefty repair bills at inconvenient times, etc. but you've been encultured to think of that as the natural order of things and having spent so much money on cars and car-centric living discourages contemplation on that point. > Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different. Continuing your trend, this is untrue on all counts. The United States has more land but 80% of the population is urban. In areas where transit is good, people use it heavily. The primary reason people do not use transit is that driving has been massively subsidized and transit systems are typically treated as a last resort for poor people, but that doesn't say people wouldn't use it if we made different decisions. Car centric sprawl has shaped a lot of what Americans who don't travel think of as natural but that's a choice, not a natural law.

acdha 4y ago

It’s more complicated than that, however: cars are one of the most expensive options and that costs many people jobs (poor people get fired if their cars break down more than once in a while) and a large fraction of household income at lower tiers goes to cars for that reason. We’d need to consider that as well. The other big thing to examine is the degree to which the lack of transit is a policy choice. If we took the billions of dollars spent subsidizing private car ownership and spent it on transit, the results would look a lot more like Europe, Asia, South America, or our own country a century ago. There’d be trade offs, of course, but those are important to consider as possibilities as we head into an era where climate change is going to cause many large problems and cars are around a quarter of our total emissions and EVs cut that number in half at best.

willnonya 4y ago
This is full of misdirection and half truths. It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible. Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different. The tradeoffs you gloss over are likely to be much lore significant. They start with the tremendous investment required to add these where they don't exist and end with the mix of economic and quality or life impacts inherent in this type of travel. EV do not drop total emissions out of the gate. Most start with a higher carbon footprint (and environmental impact) than ice vehicles and do not break even until more than half way through the expected life cycle. You do get some gains after break even but those benefits are mostly on relocation rather than reduction and are reset when the car hits battery replacement. I like EV's but they aren't the panacea they're presented as and come with their own problems. The bottom line is that the automobile for all of its flaws represents complete freedom of movement not offered by any other means available to the average citizen. And you want to do away with it.
- acdha 4y ago
  > This is full of misdirection and half truths. You were referring to your next sentence, it appears: > It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible. It is driven by economics, which is driven by the policy decisions I mentioned. When private car usage is as heavily subsidized as it's been in the United States for the last century, it's not surprising that it can be cheaper for many people but that's just saying that the core principle of economics (people respond to incentives) is still true. Similarly, your aesthetic preferences are not only not universal but in large part cultural. Sitting in traffic is not pleasant, nor is getting hefty repair bills at inconvenient times, etc. but you've been encultured to think of that as the natural order of things and having spent so much money on cars and car-centric living discourages contemplation on that point. > Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different. Continuing your trend, this is untrue on all counts. The United States has more land but 80% of the population is urban. In areas where transit is good, people use it heavily. The primary reason people do not use transit is that driving has been massively subsidized and transit systems are typically treated as a last resort for poor people, but that doesn't say people wouldn't use it if we made different decisions. Car centric sprawl has shaped a lot of what Americans who don't travel think of as natural but that's a choice, not a natural law.