5 ms·

Have at it, but please don’t try to get in the way of the vast majority that prefers cars.

xyst 3y ago
Do you live in the USA? We don’t “prefer” cars. Cars are the only way to get around in this country. There are no options for a majority of people. It’s not a preference. It’s a choice shoved down our throats by decades of destroying urban cores, bulldozing poor communities/neighborhoods in favor of massive highway projects, and removing bustling streets of human activity with useles parking lots. The suburban experiment is a massive failure on all levels. It’s not scalable. It’s incredibly wasteful. Federal/state/local governments dump trillions of dollars on maintenance of this fucking mess.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  I believe that take is ahistorical. The other options withered away because most people prefer cars and the associated lifestyle. Dense city cores are still there for the taking, if you can handle the crime.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    This take is very historical. The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mortgages to white families to move to the suburbs - these new suburbs often had covenants prohibiting black residents. (The new highways were also often built through black neighborhoods, which were often seen as a "blight", were cheaper to acquire through eminent domain, and whose residents didn't have the political or economic power to put up much resistance.) Traffic policies were set up to maximize traffic flow, which often meant more roads, and wide roads, enabling faster speed. But these make it more dangerous to do anything except drive places. Restrictive zoning laws resulting in purely residential areas with no corner shop, so even something as simple getting some milk requires driving to the store. Certainly some people prefer that lifestyle. But the historical truth is that much of it was deliberate top-down policy to encourage people towards that specific lifestyle, and now it's pretty well locked in. Take for example how residential areas were often designed around cul-de-sacs. The idea was to have quiet streets where kids could safely play. However, once the kids get a bit older, what do they do? They can't drive, so can't even do a simple errand like pick up milk. Instead, one of the parents ends up as a private chauffeur, eg, a "soccer mom". Often this means the family must be a two car family as there is no other solution. How many of these soccer moms would prefer having a good bus system so their 12-year-old can go to practice and come home on their own? Even if people do have a preference for single-family housing with a lawn, parking, etc. why should we continue to subsidize that preference? It costs money to provide water, sewer, roads, and power, as well as emergency services and schools, and much of those are fixed costs. For the most part, wealth suburbs are subsidized by poor residents - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI . You've been brainwashed to think there are only two options. There are more than car-dependent suburbia and "dense city cores". That's probably all that you know about, because the planning process for generations in the US has prohibited mid-rise building and multi-family homes. It does not need to be that way. You can have suburbs without being car-dependent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6ZENGko1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6ZENGko1I a European compare a US suburb to one in Leipzig. The latter is denser, yes, but not the city core. There are restaurants and schools within walking distance, as well as tram service.
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      > The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mortgages to white families to move to the suburbs Why do you think the government did this? I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. It's not some grand conspiracy by evil fossil fuel overlords.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        > Why do you think the government did this? You can't seriously disentangle the different factors. Clearly white supremacy was one factor that went into the overall vision. From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new-york-highway-i81-viaduct-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new... : "The construction of I-81, along with the rest of America’s highway system, was a part of the federally funded program in the 1950s called “urban renewal”, which targeted formerly redlined, urban Black neighborhoods, labeled “slums’’, for removal. The former 15th ward neighborhood of Syracuse, once a thriving Black community, was the chosen location to build I-81. As a result, dozens of Black homes and businesses were bulldozed." "These infrastructure projects prioritized the needs of (largely white) commuters in the suburbs over the lives of poor Black residents in cities. It wasn’t limited to Syracuse or New York state; across the country, federal estimates show about 1.2 million Americans were displaced by urban renewal. That legacy lives on today: in Portland, Oregon, Black residents call part of the Interstate 5 highway that runs from Washington to California their “Robert E Lee statue”. In New Orleans, the Claiborne Expressway has been dubbed a “racist monument”." > I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. While you can posit that, bear in mind that racial discrimination was official government policy when the interstate highway system was planned and construction started in the 1950s. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States : "In the United States during the 1940s, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, low-cost mortgages through the G.I. Bill, and residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living and prevent ethnic minorities from doing the same. The result was severe urban decay that, by the 1960s, resulted in crumbling "ghettos"." If you use the narrow lens that something is justified because the majority of voters want it, then you end up also justifying racial discrimination during the 1950s. If the majority of voters want the poorest 25% of the population to subsidize suburban living, is that fair? Because that's what we have, and tyranny of the majority is a failure mode for majority rule. (Even more so given how black adults are dis-proportionally disenfranchised.) Who is arguing "evil fossil fuel overlords"? That would be ahistorical.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I prefer a car to any mode of public transport. I don't like sharing a cabin with the public. I prefer to listen to music without headphones and not be subjected to the sights and smells of septa. I wasn't brainwashed. It's much better.
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    Traffic sucks, but I still prefer to leave when I'm ready, go directly to my destination, and bring cargo when needed. I wince when I hear people making drastic compromises to hand carry groceries; I also prefer Costco.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  I cannot live in an urban setting. It is way too unhealthy for me. My recreation preferences also necessitate long distance or remote driving. If we start to see 500+ mi ranges on an SUV-sized vehicle, that will be very tempting. I used to have an HEV sedan which got that kind of range and loved it - no great on unpaved roads, though.

xyst 3y ago

Do you live in the USA? We don’t “prefer” cars. Cars are the only way to get around in this country. There are no options for a majority of people. It’s not a preference. It’s a choice shoved down our throats by decades of destroying urban cores, bulldozing poor communities/neighborhoods in favor of massive highway projects, and removing bustling streets of human activity with useles parking lots. The suburban experiment is a massive failure on all levels. It’s not scalable. It’s incredibly wasteful. Federal/state/local governments dump trillions of dollars on maintenance of this fucking mess.

baggy_trough 3y ago
I believe that take is ahistorical. The other options withered away because most people prefer cars and the associated lifestyle. Dense city cores are still there for the taking, if you can handle the crime.
- eesmith 3y ago
  This take is very historical. The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mortgages to white families to move to the suburbs - these new suburbs often had covenants prohibiting black residents. (The new highways were also often built through black neighborhoods, which were often seen as a "blight", were cheaper to acquire through eminent domain, and whose residents didn't have the political or economic power to put up much resistance.) Traffic policies were set up to maximize traffic flow, which often meant more roads, and wide roads, enabling faster speed. But these make it more dangerous to do anything except drive places. Restrictive zoning laws resulting in purely residential areas with no corner shop, so even something as simple getting some milk requires driving to the store. Certainly some people prefer that lifestyle. But the historical truth is that much of it was deliberate top-down policy to encourage people towards that specific lifestyle, and now it's pretty well locked in. Take for example how residential areas were often designed around cul-de-sacs. The idea was to have quiet streets where kids could safely play. However, once the kids get a bit older, what do they do? They can't drive, so can't even do a simple errand like pick up milk. Instead, one of the parents ends up as a private chauffeur, eg, a "soccer mom". Often this means the family must be a two car family as there is no other solution. How many of these soccer moms would prefer having a good bus system so their 12-year-old can go to practice and come home on their own? Even if people do have a preference for single-family housing with a lawn, parking, etc. why should we continue to subsidize that preference? It costs money to provide water, sewer, roads, and power, as well as emergency services and schools, and much of those are fixed costs. For the most part, wealth suburbs are subsidized by poor residents - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI . You've been brainwashed to think there are only two options. There are more than car-dependent suburbia and "dense city cores". That's probably all that you know about, because the planning process for generations in the US has prohibited mid-rise building and multi-family homes. It does not need to be that way. You can have suburbs without being car-dependent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6ZENGko1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6ZENGko1I a European compare a US suburb to one in Leipzig. The latter is denser, yes, but not the city core. There are restaurants and schools within walking distance, as well as tram service.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    > The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mortgages to white families to move to the suburbs Why do you think the government did this? I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. It's not some grand conspiracy by evil fossil fuel overlords.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      > Why do you think the government did this? You can't seriously disentangle the different factors. Clearly white supremacy was one factor that went into the overall vision. From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new-york-highway-i81-viaduct-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new... : "The construction of I-81, along with the rest of America’s highway system, was a part of the federally funded program in the 1950s called “urban renewal”, which targeted formerly redlined, urban Black neighborhoods, labeled “slums’’, for removal. The former 15th ward neighborhood of Syracuse, once a thriving Black community, was the chosen location to build I-81. As a result, dozens of Black homes and businesses were bulldozed." "These infrastructure projects prioritized the needs of (largely white) commuters in the suburbs over the lives of poor Black residents in cities. It wasn’t limited to Syracuse or New York state; across the country, federal estimates show about 1.2 million Americans were displaced by urban renewal. That legacy lives on today: in Portland, Oregon, Black residents call part of the Interstate 5 highway that runs from Washington to California their “Robert E Lee statue”. In New Orleans, the Claiborne Expressway has been dubbed a “racist monument”." > I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. While you can posit that, bear in mind that racial discrimination was official government policy when the interstate highway system was planned and construction started in the 1950s. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States : "In the United States during the 1940s, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, low-cost mortgages through the G.I. Bill, and residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living and prevent ethnic minorities from doing the same. The result was severe urban decay that, by the 1960s, resulted in crumbling "ghettos"." If you use the narrow lens that something is justified because the majority of voters want it, then you end up also justifying racial discrimination during the 1950s. If the majority of voters want the poorest 25% of the population to subsidize suburban living, is that fair? Because that's what we have, and tyranny of the majority is a failure mode for majority rule. (Even more so given how black adults are dis-proportionally disenfranchised.) Who is arguing "evil fossil fuel overlords"? That would be ahistorical.
willcipriano 3y ago
I prefer a car to any mode of public transport. I don't like sharing a cabin with the public. I prefer to listen to music without headphones and not be subjected to the sights and smells of septa. I wasn't brainwashed. It's much better.
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  Traffic sucks, but I still prefer to leave when I'm ready, go directly to my destination, and bring cargo when needed. I wince when I hear people making drastic compromises to hand carry groceries; I also prefer Costco.
nullindividual 3y ago
I cannot live in an urban setting. It is way too unhealthy for me. My recreation preferences also necessitate long distance or remote driving. If we start to see 500+ mi ranges on an SUV-sized vehicle, that will be very tempting. I used to have an HEV sedan which got that kind of range and loved it - no great on unpaved roads, though.