4 ms·

There's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on social media right now that completely overlooks the reality of how most US cities are dispersed. I agree

by kbos87 4y ago

There's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on social media right now that completely overlooks the reality of how most US cities are dispersed. I agree that the utopian ideal of a car-free existence is appealing, but it's far from realistic for a lot of places and there's an awful lot of shaming and shunning going on of regular people living their lives right now.

kortilla 4y ago
Trends come and go, but the suburbs will continue to grow. Anti-car posts are fun because they are escapism from the worst part of the suburbs. However, you lose all of the best parts when you switch to the current alternatives (expensive density and shared public transportation).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ripley12 4y ago
I don't see the "shaming and shunning" aspect much, myself. When I do see it it's usually directed at people who are driving dangerously or fighting policy that would make it easier to live without a car.
xracy 4y ago
It's not about shaming and shunning. It's about educating, so that people are more amenable to non-car-centric changes to public transit and their cities that will improve everyone's way of life. I think the thing about Public Transit, is if you truly love driving your car, you should still be in favor of public transit, because better public transit means less traffic for you.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Someone has to pay for transit and it usually comes from drivers
  - xracy 4y ago
    Who subsidizes the roads for drivers?
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Gas taxes.. where does transit money come from? General revenues and gas taxes.
      - throw0101c 4y ago
        > Gas taxes.. Questionable: "Why Gas Taxes Aren't Paying the Bills Anymore" * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-taxes-aren-t-paying-the-bills-for-roads-anymore https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-ta... "Gas Taxes Don't Cover the Costs of Our Roads" * https://www.onthecommons.org/gas-taxes-dont-cover-costs-our-roads https://www.onthecommons.org/gas-taxes-dont-cover-costs-our-... "Ten Years of Highway Trust Fund Bankruptcy: Why Did It Happen, and What Have We Learned?" * https://www.enotrans.org/article/ten-years-of-highway-trust-fund-bankruptcy-why-did-it-happen-and-what-have-we-learned/ https://www.enotrans.org/article/ten-years-of-highway-trust-... Further, expanding roads for car-centric use just makes things worse: > It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements in the road network can make congestion worse if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient or if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox There is decades of empirical evidence that building more roads/highways does not improve congestion (but makes it worse): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      All of society subsidizes fuel for drivers by the absence of sufficient pigovian taxes to offset the externalities of burning it. (Well, additionally by the way US military and foreign policy revolves around fossil fuel supply. Which lots of people around the world pay for, and not just US taxpayers.)
0x53 4y ago
So this is a common argument, but I don’t think it holds true. Here is a video comparing the train system in Spain to the one in the US. Around the 8 minute mark he compares the population of the US east coast with Spain and their train system. The truth is that the population density in certain areas of the US is certainly high enough to support much better public transit that doesn’t exist. https://youtu.be/wfxJhX8Y4QI https://youtu.be/wfxJhX8Y4QI
magicalist 4y ago
> There's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on social media right now that completely overlooks the reality of how most US cities are dispersed This content is literally about how US cities are dispersed.
cycomanic 4y ago
The point of this is that city planning is a slow process it literally takes decades to change cities. So yes you can't change cities to only operate with public transport overnight, because they have not been designed that way, but if you want to make them so that public transport becomes an option then you need to start now. And we do need to change how we get around, even if we go full electric cars, we still use too much of our energy needs for transport.
nayuki 4y ago
Defaults are powerful. Undoing them will feel uncomfortable. Since the 1940s, the vision sold to society is one of private motor transport, free-flowing highways, and houses on big lots. The past 80 years have seen the execution of this plan with little to no reflection or criticism. We're finally starting to wake up to the reality that we find ourselves living in. We're questioning the choices made by our forebears and the infrastructure that has been constructed. If we want to change how cities are designed, we have to recognize the problem first. Only then can we embark on a decades-long transformation where we slowly replace buildings and roads with ones that reflect a new vision. The fact that US cities are dispersed is a red herring. Most cities will have expensive areas that people want to move into but are prevented from doing so due to a lack of available housing. The demand to densify already exists. By adjusting zoning laws, parking minimums, and transportation networks, housing can be added in those areas, and no one would be coerced to move to somewhere they don't want to be.

by kbos87 4y ago

kortilla 4y ago

Trends come and go, but the suburbs will continue to grow. Anti-car posts are fun because they are escapism from the worst part of the suburbs. However, you lose all of the best parts when you switch to the current alternatives (expensive density and shared public transportation).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ripley12 4y ago

I don't see the "shaming and shunning" aspect much, myself. When I do see it it's usually directed at people who are driving dangerously or fighting policy that would make it easier to live without a car.

xracy 4y ago

It's not about shaming and shunning. It's about educating, so that people are more amenable to non-car-centric changes to public transit and their cities that will improve everyone's way of life. I think the thing about Public Transit, is if you truly love driving your car, you should still be in favor of public transit, because better public transit means less traffic for you.

ipaddr 4y ago
Someone has to pay for transit and it usually comes from drivers
- xracy 4y ago
  Who subsidizes the roads for drivers?
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Gas taxes.. where does transit money come from? General revenues and gas taxes.
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      > Gas taxes.. Questionable: "Why Gas Taxes Aren't Paying the Bills Anymore" * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-taxes-aren-t-paying-the-bills-for-roads-anymore https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-ta... "Gas Taxes Don't Cover the Costs of Our Roads" * https://www.onthecommons.org/gas-taxes-dont-cover-costs-our-roads https://www.onthecommons.org/gas-taxes-dont-cover-costs-our-... "Ten Years of Highway Trust Fund Bankruptcy: Why Did It Happen, and What Have We Learned?" * https://www.enotrans.org/article/ten-years-of-highway-trust-fund-bankruptcy-why-did-it-happen-and-what-have-we-learned/ https://www.enotrans.org/article/ten-years-of-highway-trust-... Further, expanding roads for car-centric use just makes things worse: > It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements in the road network can make congestion worse if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient or if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox There is decades of empirical evidence that building more roads/highways does not improve congestion (but makes it worse): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    All of society subsidizes fuel for drivers by the absence of sufficient pigovian taxes to offset the externalities of burning it. (Well, additionally by the way US military and foreign policy revolves around fossil fuel supply. Which lots of people around the world pay for, and not just US taxpayers.)

0x53 4y ago

So this is a common argument, but I don’t think it holds true. Here is a video comparing the train system in Spain to the one in the US. Around the 8 minute mark he compares the population of the US east coast with Spain and their train system. The truth is that the population density in certain areas of the US is certainly high enough to support much better public transit that doesn’t exist. https://youtu.be/wfxJhX8Y4QI https://youtu.be/wfxJhX8Y4QI

magicalist 4y ago

> There's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on social media right now that completely overlooks the reality of how most US cities are dispersed This content is literally about how US cities are dispersed.

cycomanic 4y ago

The point of this is that city planning is a slow process it literally takes decades to change cities. So yes you can't change cities to only operate with public transport overnight, because they have not been designed that way, but if you want to make them so that public transport becomes an option then you need to start now. And we do need to change how we get around, even if we go full electric cars, we still use too much of our energy needs for transport.

nayuki 4y ago

Defaults are powerful. Undoing them will feel uncomfortable. Since the 1940s, the vision sold to society is one of private motor transport, free-flowing highways, and houses on big lots. The past 80 years have seen the execution of this plan with little to no reflection or criticism. We're finally starting to wake up to the reality that we find ourselves living in. We're questioning the choices made by our forebears and the infrastructure that has been constructed. If we want to change how cities are designed, we have to recognize the problem first. Only then can we embark on a decades-long transformation where we slowly replace buildings and roads with ones that reflect a new vision. The fact that US cities are dispersed is a red herring. Most cities will have expensive areas that people want to move into but are prevented from doing so due to a lack of available housing. The demand to densify already exists. By adjusting zoning laws, parking minimums, and transportation networks, housing can be added in those areas, and no one would be coerced to move to somewhere they don't want to be.