5 ms·

I'm always surprised how emotional people get when dealing with anything that might challenge car supremacy. Supposedly, the market is supposed to make people l

by dfxm12 3y ago

I'm always surprised how emotional people get when dealing with anything that might challenge car supremacy. Supposedly, the market is supposed to make people lean towards what makes them more money, but that only works if the people involved behave rationally.

zdragnar 3y ago
A local metro area put in a light rail train down through a major city street. It was sold as a way to reduce congestion and bring more people and development opportunities through. The reality is a lot of small minority owned businesses couldn't survive the years of construction and reduced parking, and the trains didn't bring more shoppers through. A lot of homes and buildings were sold as taxes went up, but the new development were all luxury style apartments. The people who benefited were commercial developers and yuppie types, and the lower class, largely minority people who made up most of the area were pushed back into other neighborhoods. It turns out, judging the effects of an action like development requires a lot of local context, and people can quite rationally be upset that they are going to be sacrificed for someone else's gain.
- debacle 3y ago
  What town was this in? We are fighting the same type of thing right now. They are trying to put in a light rail to bring in more "equity," while at the same time re-zoning the existing low income housing that they're claiming the rail is for for townhomes.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    You should fight for automated light metro. Just put the light rail on elevated viaducts (which wouldn't cost much more), and run the same trains fully automated (normally an option on those trains). The whole thing becomes cheap to run (which is where the costs are in modern cities), and much faster.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  One problem is that decent transportation makes areas nicer and more appealing, so more people want to live there, which of course makes the existing housing stock more expensive. This is a consequence of decent transportation being so rare, sadly.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    This particular area has had very heavy bus coverage for years. It actually has fewer buses servicing it now, and to get out of the neighborhood you have to switch over to the light rail.
- 0_____0 3y ago
  Why did taxes go up? That seems to be separate from the issue of construction causing an inconvenience, but is apparently a decisive factor. FWIW the Civic Center area of SF used to be the theater district before BART was built through there in an extremely invasive cut and cover way, which led to theaters shuttering and being replaced by ... seedier operations.[0] [0] Source: I remember reading this somewhere like ten years ago
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The taxes were based on land valuation. This was already a relatively low income part of town, and having direct access to the light rail was seen as a value add. It was likely also a secondary effect of the new luxury style apartments that were built. I lived relatively close to it for a few years (all before the rail was put in and during construction), but definitely wouldn't live there again.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Light rail is the worst of all worlds! Rail should run on its own right-of-way, ideally grade-separated. It shouldn't be sitting in traffic.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The short term effects from installing transit are overall worth the long term benefits, but I fully agree it can be hard if you are seeing the short term ill effects. New luxury are a good thing - it means there is more housing in your city. Sure the local area looks more expensive, but rich yuppies need to live someplace. The real question is are you building enough that the poor can afford to live someplace, or pushing poor out completely. All housing starts out as luxury housing and then 20-40 years latter becomes were the poor want to live. So if you have a problem with housing costs today the problems are rooted in the decisions of 1985! You cannot correct them overnight. However crying the rich benefit so we do nothing just ensures the problems will remain in 2065.
jdminhbg 3y ago
> I'm always surprised how emotional people get when dealing with anything that might challenge car supremacy. People don't think "car supremacy is being challenged," they think "my commute is annoying already and now it's about to get a lot more annoying." I like bike infrastructure and use it frequently and I'm way closer to the yuppie-urbanist edge of the spectrum, but it's important to understand where people are coming from if you want to sell it to them democratically. "Car supremacy is being challenged" sounds to them like "fuck you and how you get around town," and it's unsurprising they react emotionally to that.
- r00fus 3y ago
  I think the frustrating part is that if less people were driving there would be less traffic. Bike lanes won't change the equation as heavily but mass transit sure would.
- soco 3y ago
  Also when no working alternative is being offered. Just shutting down car access and offering a bike is difficult to swallow. Add to that a workable public transport network and we may talk. Some people love to drive but having the option to sip your coffee and read the news in a not-overcrowded bus going from across your street to the office building with say only one change in the same time driving requires, is an option quite difficult to beat.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    > Some people love to drive but having the option to sip your coffee and read the news in a not-overcrowded bus going from across your street to the office building with say only one change in the same time driving requires, I don't believe anywhere with mass transit offers this kind of experience during commute hours. I think this is a fairy tale story about transit that just plain does not and cannot exist for a meaningful amount of time, especially as cities become more and more densely populated.
    - ildjarn 3y ago
bsder 3y ago
Why do you assume people aren't behaving rationally? Even construction of roads takes years--public transit takes longer. Everybody present suffers the effects of the construction for benefits that may or may not materialize in a reasonable timeframe. As for bike infrastructure, the fundamental problem is that you cannot share car and bike infrastructure. Bikes are simply too vulnerable to cars. That means that bike infrastructure needs to be separated which, by definition, takes space away from cars. If you have a new development, you can do that since nobody has an expectation. However, if you take something away and make life more irritating for people, they're going to naturally complain. Loudly. Finally, public transit doesn't do any good until it hits a critical mass. Modern cities don't always help that--most US cities don't have a core that everybody works in--where people work is smeared out across a geographic area. You have to reverse that, but those same people are also the people that don't want to commute anyway and want to work from home so you lose a lot of possible users of your system.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Why do you assume people aren't behaving rationally? Sorry, I thought this was clear from my comment: according the article, bike lanes are good for business. Rational business owners want business to be good.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Bike lanes in the areas studied. That doesn't mean all bike lanes are good for business... Where I live with have extensive bike lanes. They are good for every bar and ice cream shop along the way: people use those bike lanes on nice Saturdays for a ride to the bars and ice cream shops on the way, and you can see all the bike racks outside of those businesses along the route. However this is bad for businesses not on the bike route as they lose out. It is also neutral for all businesses along the route that are not about alcohol or ice cream - nobody goes to the furniture store on a bike.
    - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
      I drive by furniture stores in my car, and let me tell ya, nobody's going to furniture stores anymore. If you really want to spends thousands of dollars on a couch or kitchen table, just ask the store to deliver.
0_____0 3y ago
Cars are the suburban denizen's power armor. They are not a tool, they are an extension of the self. Walk up to a person in a car and lay your hand on the hood - they will likely react as if they felt a stranger's caress on the small of their back
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Would you react well to a stranger touching your many-thousand-dollar bike? Or your phone or laptop? I don't really get what's supposed to be so special about a car that we should feel good about letting others "walk up to and lay a hand on" it.
  - 0_____0 3y ago
    Those too are sometimes considered extensions of the self, but they're not part of this discussion. The above was discussing lack of rationality from car drivers.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      But what about the reaction is specific to cars? It's a very expensive thing with paint that can be somewhat easily scratched. Unwelcome, uninvited contact by a stranger on literally any other possession would, I think, invite a similar reaction.
      - dfxm12 3y ago
        A stranger laying a hand on a phone is, based on experience, likely a stranger trying to steal it. It's totally rational there to be jumpy. Someone touching your bike is a awfully close to touching you. I think it's rational to be a bit suspicious when a stranger gets that close to you, no matter what they are doing, but especially if they are touchy feely. People touching my car will quite obviously do no damage to it or me. If I'm in the car, I may lock the doors/roll up the windows, if they aren't already. If you want to move the goalposts now and say a stranger isn't merely touching your car, but keying it, that's a different situation, and unrelated to the discussion. I don't know exactly what a rational response is to irrational behaviour. :)
scoofy 3y ago
I think it’s because automobile transportation defines an entire lifestyle. The cost of vehicle ownership needs to be offset by suburban real estate to justify it. When much our our auto infrastructure is operating over capacity at peak times, the idea of doing anything but doubling down on automobile infrastructure means these folks will be doomed to have suboptimal transit for the rest of their lives. Transportation alternatives only help folks who haven’t built their lives around a car.

by dfxm12 3y ago

zdragnar 3y ago

A local metro area put in a light rail train down through a major city street. It was sold as a way to reduce congestion and bring more people and development opportunities through. The reality is a lot of small minority owned businesses couldn't survive the years of construction and reduced parking, and the trains didn't bring more shoppers through. A lot of homes and buildings were sold as taxes went up, but the new development were all luxury style apartments. The people who benefited were commercial developers and yuppie types, and the lower class, largely minority people who made up most of the area were pushed back into other neighborhoods. It turns out, judging the effects of an action like development requires a lot of local context, and people can quite rationally be upset that they are going to be sacrificed for someone else's gain.

debacle 3y ago
What town was this in? We are fighting the same type of thing right now. They are trying to put in a light rail to bring in more "equity," while at the same time re-zoning the existing low income housing that they're claiming the rail is for for townhomes.
- bluGill 3y ago
  You should fight for automated light metro. Just put the light rail on elevated viaducts (which wouldn't cost much more), and run the same trains fully automated (normally an option on those trains). The whole thing becomes cheap to run (which is where the costs are in modern cities), and much faster.
CalRobert 3y ago
One problem is that decent transportation makes areas nicer and more appealing, so more people want to live there, which of course makes the existing housing stock more expensive. This is a consequence of decent transportation being so rare, sadly.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  This particular area has had very heavy bus coverage for years. It actually has fewer buses servicing it now, and to get out of the neighborhood you have to switch over to the light rail.
0_____0 3y ago
Why did taxes go up? That seems to be separate from the issue of construction causing an inconvenience, but is apparently a decisive factor. FWIW the Civic Center area of SF used to be the theater district before BART was built through there in an extremely invasive cut and cover way, which led to theaters shuttering and being replaced by ... seedier operations.[0] [0] Source: I remember reading this somewhere like ten years ago
- zdragnar 3y ago
  The taxes were based on land valuation. This was already a relatively low income part of town, and having direct access to the light rail was seen as a value add. It was likely also a secondary effect of the new luxury style apartments that were built. I lived relatively close to it for a few years (all before the rail was put in and during construction), but definitely wouldn't live there again.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Light rail is the worst of all worlds! Rail should run on its own right-of-way, ideally grade-separated. It shouldn't be sitting in traffic.
bluGill 3y ago
The short term effects from installing transit are overall worth the long term benefits, but I fully agree it can be hard if you are seeing the short term ill effects. New luxury are a good thing - it means there is more housing in your city. Sure the local area looks more expensive, but rich yuppies need to live someplace. The real question is are you building enough that the poor can afford to live someplace, or pushing poor out completely. All housing starts out as luxury housing and then 20-40 years latter becomes were the poor want to live. So if you have a problem with housing costs today the problems are rooted in the decisions of 1985! You cannot correct them overnight. However crying the rich benefit so we do nothing just ensures the problems will remain in 2065.

jdminhbg 3y ago

> I'm always surprised how emotional people get when dealing with anything that might challenge car supremacy. People don't think "car supremacy is being challenged," they think "my commute is annoying already and now it's about to get a lot more annoying." I like bike infrastructure and use it frequently and I'm way closer to the yuppie-urbanist edge of the spectrum, but it's important to understand where people are coming from if you want to sell it to them democratically. "Car supremacy is being challenged" sounds to them like "fuck you and how you get around town," and it's unsurprising they react emotionally to that.

r00fus 3y ago
I think the frustrating part is that if less people were driving there would be less traffic. Bike lanes won't change the equation as heavily but mass transit sure would.
soco 3y ago
Also when no working alternative is being offered. Just shutting down car access and offering a bike is difficult to swallow. Add to that a workable public transport network and we may talk. Some people love to drive but having the option to sip your coffee and read the news in a not-overcrowded bus going from across your street to the office building with say only one change in the same time driving requires, is an option quite difficult to beat.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  > Some people love to drive but having the option to sip your coffee and read the news in a not-overcrowded bus going from across your street to the office building with say only one change in the same time driving requires, I don't believe anywhere with mass transit offers this kind of experience during commute hours. I think this is a fairy tale story about transit that just plain does not and cannot exist for a meaningful amount of time, especially as cities become more and more densely populated.
  - ildjarn 3y ago

bsder 3y ago

Why do you assume people aren't behaving rationally? Even construction of roads takes years--public transit takes longer. Everybody present suffers the effects of the construction for benefits that may or may not materialize in a reasonable timeframe. As for bike infrastructure, the fundamental problem is that you cannot share car and bike infrastructure. Bikes are simply too vulnerable to cars. That means that bike infrastructure needs to be separated which, by definition, takes space away from cars. If you have a new development, you can do that since nobody has an expectation. However, if you take something away and make life more irritating for people, they're going to naturally complain. Loudly. Finally, public transit doesn't do any good until it hits a critical mass. Modern cities don't always help that--most US cities don't have a core that everybody works in--where people work is smeared out across a geographic area. You have to reverse that, but those same people are also the people that don't want to commute anyway and want to work from home so you lose a lot of possible users of your system.

dfxm12 3y ago
Why do you assume people aren't behaving rationally? Sorry, I thought this was clear from my comment: according the article, bike lanes are good for business. Rational business owners want business to be good.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Bike lanes in the areas studied. That doesn't mean all bike lanes are good for business... Where I live with have extensive bike lanes. They are good for every bar and ice cream shop along the way: people use those bike lanes on nice Saturdays for a ride to the bars and ice cream shops on the way, and you can see all the bike racks outside of those businesses along the route. However this is bad for businesses not on the bike route as they lose out. It is also neutral for all businesses along the route that are not about alcohol or ice cream - nobody goes to the furniture store on a bike.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    I drive by furniture stores in my car, and let me tell ya, nobody's going to furniture stores anymore. If you really want to spends thousands of dollars on a couch or kitchen table, just ask the store to deliver.

0_____0 3y ago

Cars are the suburban denizen's power armor. They are not a tool, they are an extension of the self. Walk up to a person in a car and lay your hand on the hood - they will likely react as if they felt a stranger's caress on the small of their back

zdragnar 3y ago
Would you react well to a stranger touching your many-thousand-dollar bike? Or your phone or laptop? I don't really get what's supposed to be so special about a car that we should feel good about letting others "walk up to and lay a hand on" it.
- 0_____0 3y ago
  Those too are sometimes considered extensions of the self, but they're not part of this discussion. The above was discussing lack of rationality from car drivers.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    But what about the reaction is specific to cars? It's a very expensive thing with paint that can be somewhat easily scratched. Unwelcome, uninvited contact by a stranger on literally any other possession would, I think, invite a similar reaction.
    - dfxm12 3y ago
      A stranger laying a hand on a phone is, based on experience, likely a stranger trying to steal it. It's totally rational there to be jumpy. Someone touching your bike is a awfully close to touching you. I think it's rational to be a bit suspicious when a stranger gets that close to you, no matter what they are doing, but especially if they are touchy feely. People touching my car will quite obviously do no damage to it or me. If I'm in the car, I may lock the doors/roll up the windows, if they aren't already. If you want to move the goalposts now and say a stranger isn't merely touching your car, but keying it, that's a different situation, and unrelated to the discussion. I don't know exactly what a rational response is to irrational behaviour. :)

scoofy 3y ago

I think it’s because automobile transportation defines an entire lifestyle. The cost of vehicle ownership needs to be offset by suburban real estate to justify it. When much our our auto infrastructure is operating over capacity at peak times, the idea of doing anything but doubling down on automobile infrastructure means these folks will be doomed to have suboptimal transit for the rest of their lives. Transportation alternatives only help folks who haven’t built their lives around a car.