4 ms·

> How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate Well, I'm about to renew the annual rail passes (which cover our entire

> How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate Well, I'm about to renew the annual rail passes (which cover our entire local region) for two of our children, but this approach only works because we happen to live 5 mins walk from a local station and their school is 10 mins walk from another station, on the same line. Good luck persuading people who don't have the benefit of such "lucky geography" to do the same :/

picture 3y ago
I feel like I'm doing a good job of, if not persuading people, at least putting the idea in people's heads by talking about it. Being optimistic is our best bet :)
- jgilias 3y ago
  I feel like we have been optimistic for far too long. The Paris target is also based on being optimistic about the situation. It’s only when we’re going to swoosh past that target and become very, very realistic about the situation is when _maybe_ we’re going to actually do something as a civilization that might start making things right.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The trouble with "more effective public transit" is that it's really not about having more transit, it's about having higher density housing construction so there are more areas that you can run a subway or a bus and have it full of passengers. In cities this means you have to fight with property owners who want to keep housing costs high by limiting supply. And even if you win it will be years before the necessary amount of new housing is built to even start talking about new mass transit lines, whereas we need to do something now. And in rural areas it's just not going to happen at all. The farmer is always going to have a truck. But it could be an electric truck.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > it's about having higher density housing construction Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? FWIW, my wife and I have spoken at length over the last year about what it would take for us to move, leaving our house and garden and safe streets and clean parks, our open countryside being only a short walk in pretty much every direction, and that our 7 year-old is able to walk the half mile to her primary school on her own every morning... ...and as it stands, there is no job offer _at all_ that would persuade us to move to the city. Especially after what we saw during the pandemic.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? The thing preventing it right now is that it's illegal. Most areas zoned for higher density housing already have it, so to make more it would have to go somewhere currently zoned for lower density, which the existing zoning prohibits. As for whether people want it, why does the existing higher density housing tend to cost more rather than less per square foot? Because it's nearer to jobs and shops and mass transit, and many people like that. Nobody is forcing you to live there. In fact, if the place you currently live was one of the ares rezoned, it would net you a tidy sum -- the value of the land goes up because now someone can build a condo tower on it, meanwhile you can go use a fraction of the money to buy another single family home for even less than the one you have now is worth because the new construction reduces housing scarcity.
      - logifail 3y ago
        > The thing preventing it right now is that it's illegal Just like towers (condos or any other kind) are round here. Your local politicans are elected? So are ours.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Your claim was that nobody wants to live in them. But then why ban them, if no one would build them anyway because no one wants to live in them? The current problem is that the people who want to live in them are priced out of the areas where they would have to go by the zoning rules they would want to change. Having a 20% lower cost per square foot doesn't make it more affordable to move there when the smallest available unit is required to have three times as many square feet. But since they can't afford to move there they can't vote to change the law there. It's effectively a local law against poor people living there, which the poor people can't vote against because they don't live there. That seems bad.
kdmccormick 3y ago
Yeah, sounds like a tough sell. Instead, let's persuade people to vote for politicians who support funding rail, bike, and ped infrastructure at par with or even with priority over car infrastructure.
- logifail 3y ago
  > politicians who support funding rail, bike, and ped infrastructure My eldest (who travels to school by train every day) has children in his class who are brought to school every day in their parents cars. I know most of these kids, almost all of them live in villages with a regular bus service which would take them to school, yet instead the children get a lift with Mum or Dad in the car. I'm not sure this is just about more infrastructure. There are some pretty seriously ingrained habits at play, too.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

picture 3y ago

I feel like I'm doing a good job of, if not persuading people, at least putting the idea in people's heads by talking about it. Being optimistic is our best bet :)

jgilias 3y ago
I feel like we have been optimistic for far too long. The Paris target is also based on being optimistic about the situation. It’s only when we’re going to swoosh past that target and become very, very realistic about the situation is when _maybe_ we’re going to actually do something as a civilization that might start making things right.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The trouble with "more effective public transit" is that it's really not about having more transit, it's about having higher density housing construction so there are more areas that you can run a subway or a bus and have it full of passengers. In cities this means you have to fight with property owners who want to keep housing costs high by limiting supply. And even if you win it will be years before the necessary amount of new housing is built to even start talking about new mass transit lines, whereas we need to do something now. And in rural areas it's just not going to happen at all. The farmer is always going to have a truck. But it could be an electric truck.
- logifail 3y ago
  > it's about having higher density housing construction Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? FWIW, my wife and I have spoken at length over the last year about what it would take for us to move, leaving our house and garden and safe streets and clean parks, our open countryside being only a short walk in pretty much every direction, and that our 7 year-old is able to walk the half mile to her primary school on her own every morning... ...and as it stands, there is no job offer _at all_ that would persuade us to move to the city. Especially after what we saw during the pandemic.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Umm, how would one go about selling that policy? Do enough (any?) people want that? The thing preventing it right now is that it's illegal. Most areas zoned for higher density housing already have it, so to make more it would have to go somewhere currently zoned for lower density, which the existing zoning prohibits. As for whether people want it, why does the existing higher density housing tend to cost more rather than less per square foot? Because it's nearer to jobs and shops and mass transit, and many people like that. Nobody is forcing you to live there. In fact, if the place you currently live was one of the ares rezoned, it would net you a tidy sum -- the value of the land goes up because now someone can build a condo tower on it, meanwhile you can go use a fraction of the money to buy another single family home for even less than the one you have now is worth because the new construction reduces housing scarcity.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > The thing preventing it right now is that it's illegal Just like towers (condos or any other kind) are round here. Your local politicans are elected? So are ours.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Your claim was that nobody wants to live in them. But then why ban them, if no one would build them anyway because no one wants to live in them? The current problem is that the people who want to live in them are priced out of the areas where they would have to go by the zoning rules they would want to change. Having a 20% lower cost per square foot doesn't make it more affordable to move there when the smallest available unit is required to have three times as many square feet. But since they can't afford to move there they can't vote to change the law there. It's effectively a local law against poor people living there, which the poor people can't vote against because they don't live there. That seems bad.

kdmccormick 3y ago

Yeah, sounds like a tough sell. Instead, let's persuade people to vote for politicians who support funding rail, bike, and ped infrastructure at par with or even with priority over car infrastructure.

logifail 3y ago
> politicians who support funding rail, bike, and ped infrastructure My eldest (who travels to school by train every day) has children in his class who are brought to school every day in their parents cars. I know most of these kids, almost all of them live in villages with a regular bus service which would take them to school, yet instead the children get a lift with Mum or Dad in the car. I'm not sure this is just about more infrastructure. There are some pretty seriously ingrained habits at play, too.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]