Americans Shouldn't Have To Drive, But the Law Insists on It (theatlantic.com) 763
An anonymous reader shares a report: In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the obligation to drive. This truism has been echoed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has pronounced car ownership a "virtual necessity." The Court's pronouncement is telling. Yes, in a sense, America is car-dependent by choice -- but it is also car-dependent by law. As I detail in a forthcoming journal article, over the course of several generations lawmakers rewrote the rules of American life to conform to the interests of Big Oil, the auto barons, and the car-loving 1 percenters of the Roaring Twenties. They gave legal force to a mind-set -- let's call it automobile supremacy -- that kills 40,000 Americans a year and seriously injures more than 4 million more. Include all those harmed by emissions and climate change, and the damage is even greater. As a teenager growing up in the shadow of Detroit, I had no reason to feel this was unjust, much less encouraged by law. It is both.
It's no secret that American public policy throughout the 20th century endorsed the car -- for instance, by building a massive network of urban and interstate highways at public expense. Less well understood is how the legal framework governing American life enforces dependency on the automobile. To begin with, mundane road regulations embed automobile supremacy into federal, state, and local law. But inequities in traffic regulation are only the beginning. Land-use law, criminal law, torts, insurance, vehicle safety regulations, even the tax code -- all these sources of law provide rewards to cooperate with what has become the dominant transport mode, and punishment for those who defy it.
It's no secret that American public policy throughout the 20th century endorsed the car -- for instance, by building a massive network of urban and interstate highways at public expense. Less well understood is how the legal framework governing American life enforces dependency on the automobile. To begin with, mundane road regulations embed automobile supremacy into federal, state, and local law. But inequities in traffic regulation are only the beginning. Land-use law, criminal law, torts, insurance, vehicle safety regulations, even the tax code -- all these sources of law provide rewards to cooperate with what has become the dominant transport mode, and punishment for those who defy it.
Car == Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
There is very little that compares to freedom of movement provided by owning a car, being able to move on demand between any points of your choosing..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed. Buses and trains travel pre-set routes at approximate pre-set times. Nope
Uber/Lift/Taxi, must be "summoned" cost can get up there, less convenient than owning your own car. Nope
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You only think you can make that bargain because you're not directly paying for the miles and miles of pavement required to make your preferred living arrangement workable. Suburban and rural areas are massively subsidized by the people in the cities.
If you had to pay the actual cost of your lifestyle, you'd be singing a different tune.
If you had to grow your own food, mine your own metals, and produce your own manufactured goods in the city in which you live, you would be singing a different tune.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than that. If the GP drives more than an average number of miles, he or she is directly paying for way more than his/her road use.
You see, road damage is proportional to the vehicle's axle weight to the fourth power. Because they use gasoline, cars pay only about 3/4 of the tax per gallon that diesel-powered trucks do, but they do thousands of times less damage per mile. So your gas tax is subsidizing the trucking industry.
What that means is that if you drive more miles than average and do not also buy truck-provided goods proportionately more than average, you're basically paying a portion of everybody else's road damage on top of your own. Unless we fix that externality, trucking will continue to be the dominant mode of transportation in the U.S., which reduces demand for (and improvements to) rail and other modes of transportation that would otherwise be much better ways to move freight around were it not for the artificially deflated cost of trucking.
Re: (Score:3)
AC isn't even close to wrong.
While gas and tab fees pay a portion of the roads, the majority of funding for roads comes from other taxes. Gas taxes and license fees are only directed to federal and state highways. Local streets are funded primarily through property and sales taxes.
If the gas tax was high enough to completely pay for the roads, it would probably have to be $20/gallon.
Re: Car == Freedom (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Car == Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
No freedom of movement doesnt equate to operating a vehicle. In fact, freedom of movement requires no ownership of any kind, save maybe clothing when in public.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the freedom of movement provided by one's own legs to roam wherever you will them to carry you?
I would argue that that is true freedom!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's a safety thing, generally only on the highways....I mean, you don't want to mix traffic that can only max out at 12-MPH or so sustained...with traffic traveling at 75-85 MPH......you're just asking for problems there.
Re:Bans on walking and cycling (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, you don't want to mix traffic that can only max out at 12-MPH or so sustained...with traffic traveling at 75-85 MPH
Then don't mix them. Instead, provide a trail parallel to each such road. The problem is that cities and states neglect even such a "separate but equal" approach.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting... my local market used to be a little bit over one mile away from where I lived until last year. Most times I walked there and back, doing that two or three times a week. If it was really cold or raining heavily, I took the tramway, which comes every three to five minutes. To help me carry groceries and whatnot, I had one of those two-wheeled market carts which costed me ten bucks. :)
Walking 10 miles a week keeps you healthy, more than driving 100 miles a week
article is a lunatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Thinking you know how to make society better by taking away freedom is hallmark of overreach weather the passionately naive left or the self righteous religious right or the intolerant conservative. It is also as bad as libertarians who can't distinguish between the notion that what you do is your business as long as it stays your business and the right to bear nuclear arms in private. Society does require regulation but it should be self determined not imposed by principled do-gooders.
sic transit public transit (Score:5, Informative)
Who Framed Roger rabbit (Score:5, Funny)
That's the backstory of Roger rabbit by the way
bussing (Score:4, Interesting)
And just to follow up on my post lets pick the most interesting example that has resurfaced recently. Integration and busing. At the time, busing seemed the height of idiotic impositions on local rights. Very controversial and egregious even amongst people dedicated to civil rights. In hindsight it was a good move. Civil rights was stalled because of the structure of american life not because sufficient people could not agree it was a good idea. this radical restructure ended up making a huge difference. but for the bussed kids and their parents it felt like an unsafe experiment in which they were the guinnea pigs. Black kids in all white schools and white kids in balck schools were both out of their safety nets. They spent a lot of time on busses. Parents lost influence over their schools. And money could no longer buy a better education for rich kids like it once could. This last thing is the interesting bit. At once it's good and it's bad. It's good because it shows how Bussing was really the only way to solve the problem. Separate but Equal did not result in equality. Bussing actually assured it in a way that could not be subverted. At the same time it seems like if you have managed to create a lot of wealth for yourself one of your biological directives is to spend it to advance your own kids. It felt like a taking. Your wealth wasnt' worth as much if you could not buy the thing you most wished for anymore. It was very bad in that sense.
It's thus an example of how radical ideas imposed sometimes do work out well. But I'd say in general there are way too many counter examples of bad ideas being shoved down people's throats by empowered groups using the force of govt to enforce their beliefs.
THe reason the civil rights issue can be separated out as special is that unlike a lot of controversial ideas (e.g. abortion rights) the essential notion of equality of opportunity that underlies civil rights is enshrined in not just the constitution and not just in the declaration of independence but in the very reason that people both free and indentured ventured to the Americas in the first place and why immigrant continued to come. If you look at the feet of the statue of liberty her legs are in broken chains. Originally it was supposed to be a reference to slavery but it became more generalized as liberty became a symbol. And the land of opportunity is synonymous with civil rights. Inegration was a radical experiment that surprisingly worked out well. It didn't solve everything and it may not even be required for solving the remaining issues, but it wasn't a failure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All it did was move more affluent kids from public schools into private schools.
Private schools have proliferated a great deal due mainly to the forced bussing of the past.
And now...pretty much any parent, middle class and up, even if they have to struggle, they will work and sacrifice to send their kids to private schools and not have to go to
Re:bussing (Score:4, Insightful)
And now...pretty much any parent, middle class and up, even if they have to struggle, they will work and sacrifice to send their kids to private schools and not have to go to public schools.....which leaves the troubled, low IQ and worst of the bunch to populate the public schools for the most part.
Hmm. Parents aren't letting their children be kidnapped and used for social engineering experiments. Who would have guessed?
Can we learn from this? Utopian schemes that involve using someone's kids as a disposable input don't work.
Re: (Score:3)
But race correlates to economic class as well. So many of those busing programs could validly be about making sure rich, poor, and middle class people are less segregated and have common access to quality education. If you get rid of prejudice based upon economics you've already gone 90% of the way to getting rid of prejudice based on race.
Even in modern days when you bus some kids from poorer schools you see parents lining up to protest about "those kids" coming over bringing their gangs with them. Now
Re:bussing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very little that compares to freedom of movement provided by owning a car, being able to move on demand between any points of your choosing..
In most places, especially most places in America that is certainly true.
If you compare Europe to the US though, or even Asia to the US, it's a lot easier to get around Europe or much of Asia without a car than it is in the US and that's in part because of public policy. Because cars are expected in the US and much of the country has poor public transportation, places have been spreading out horizontally for decades which means future residents also need cars, and it becomes harder to implement public transportation.
Even in Europe a car is more ideal because of the freedom involved, but you don't HAVE to have a car. I know plenty of people in Europe who don't even own a car. I also have know plenty of carless bastards who constantly try bumming rides from people that have them. :)
America is not a very densly populated country- and that makes cars more preferable to mass transit; but the reason why few larger US cities have decent public transit can be traced back to government policies spreading decades. American cities could have been made transit friendly from their early days- but it was decided to be more car-friendly instead.
It's not easy to convert now, many cities over here aren't really ideal for public transit now because they weren't designed with it in mind and now they sprawl. It's hard to go from a car-centric city to a public-transport-centric city. You can't just put in metro lines and reverse urban sprawl. Once a car city, you're probably always going to be a car city, because it becomes the only mode of transit that really works well.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:4, Informative)
The issue I see with your viewpoint, is that as a European, you might not have any idea how big the USA actually is. The distance between Seattle (North West) and Miami (South East), 4400 km, is almost 900 km more than distance between London(Britain) and Tel Aviv (Israel), 3560.
USA is huge compared to Europe. Having actual French relatives, they thought I lived near "Los Angeles" (because I live in California) and wondered if I would pick them up from the Airport, or if taking a taxi would be easier. I live 500 Miles (800km) from LAX (airport). Near is relative. Even by Train it is awful, taking 17 hours. But heck it is cheap ($63). but considering you could fly for $89 in two hours.
Cars aren't a necessity. They are, however, utilitarian in ways that many Europeans just can't fathom, simply because the scale differences.
Here is a map, to give idea of the size difference. It really helps.
https://s23256.pcdn.co/wp-cont... [s23256.pcdn.co]
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Your relatives were being kind of silly, just as you would be if you flew into Paris and asked if they'd pick you up when they live in Marseille.
The difference isn't in the size of the country. If you want to go from Paris to Marseille you can fly, take the train, or drive for a good part of the day. If you want to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco, you can fly, take the train, or drive for about the same length of time. Only difference is the train is a lot slower. Very few people do any of those things every day.
The difference is that if you live in Paris, you probably live in a multi-family home of some sort and commute by public transit. If you live in LA, you either live in a single family dwelling with a yard in the suburbs and commute by car, or you dream about doing so.
People who live in rural areas in the US need cars to get around, just as they do in France.
The population density of France is 122 / km^2. The population of the US isn't much less, at 93 / km^2. But the density of LA is 3000 / km^2 while the density of Paris is 22,000 / km^2.
Re: (Score:3)
But the density of LA is 3000 / km^2 while the density of Paris is 22,000 / km^2.
The thing that people don't realize is that LA itself (just the city) is big. The LA Metropolitan Area (including surrounding counties, etc...) is HUGE (comparable to some smaller countries).
I live within the city limits of Los Angeles. It takes me 1/2 hour to get from my house to downtown LA... and that is WITHOUT TRAFFIC.
Re: (Score:3)
People who live in rural areas in the US need cars to get around, just as they do in France.
The population density of France is 122 / km^2. The population of the US isn't much less, at 93 / km^2. But the density of LA is 3000 / km^2 while the density of Paris is 22,000 / km^2.
I always hear this Europe vs US comparison and it does seem to me that it comes from the perspective of either city dwellers (outside of New York) or people that visit Europe.
While it is true that Europe has a lot more train service than the US overall, it is also true that large areas of Europe and many places that tourists don't visit don't have good train service. So the perspective is valid only up to a limited point and doesn't support the notion about Europe being some sort of car free paradise.
I th
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue I see with your viewpoint, is that as a European, you might not have any idea how big the USA actually is.
As someone who has spent 20+ years living in the US, I think I have a pretty good idea. In fact, having lived in multiple different countries for various lengths of time I think I'm better placed than most to have an idea.
The fact is though that very few people travel between Seattle and Miami on a regular basis, and even if they do they don't travel by car usually, mass transit is actually better in that example.
For small towns and people who travel between small towns on a regular basis cars are a necessity because of the gap between small towns- I won't argue that.
For city living, it is because cities were built around cars being expected that the spread is so wide. If denizens were not expected to have cars and policies put in place for public transit 60 years ago cities in the US would look more like they do in Europe and Asia today. Nowadays with cities already spread like they are public transit is going to be hard to implement successfully. There's no reason cities in the US couldn't have been built around mass transit- other than that wasn't the desire of those governing.
Places like New York City that were built around mass transit from the beginning, I'd much rather take the metro most places than actually drive. New York is probably more friendly for being carless than most places in Europe or Asia. Mass transit is always a bit "chicken and the egg". In order to have good mass transit you have to have a compact city and lots of people using it. In order to have a compact city and people using mass transit, you have to have good mass transit. The two things either grow up together (like New York) - or they're never going to mesh well (like LA or Atlanta).
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I suspect the cause is more fundamental than "Americans could have had good public transport if they wanted it."
If you roll the calendar back to medieval times, the upper limit for the physical size and population of a city was the rate at you could transport food grown in the surrounding countryside, into the city to feed the city residents. Basically, enough perishable food had to be grown each day within a day's wagon ride radius of the city to feed the city's population, or the city residents would starve. Europe hit this upper limit in medieval times when the limiting factor was the speed of a horse-drawn wagon laden with goods. There was no way to increase the population of the city simply because you couldn't move food into it fast enough to feed everyone. Consequently, Europe has a lot of small, dense cities fairly close together. With a few cities having grown into large metropolises in modern times.
The U.S. was colonized towards the end of this horse-drawn wagon period. Large parts of the U.S. were colonized when steam locomotives were the preferred means of moving cargo. The higher speed of a train means your one-day radius becomes much larger. Larger radius = more food = you can support a bigger population in a city. Combine this with the larger land area of the U.S., and you end up with cities much further apart, with larger but less dense metropolises. (The limit was lifted with the advent of refrigerated rail cars, basically resulting in Chicago providing beef for both New York and Los Angeles. When you decrease the density of a city, you decrease the effectiveness of public transport. Buses and trains have to travel further, but you can't increase the distance between stops without forcing people to walk further. Consequently they become less preferable to individual cars and taxis which can travel point-to-point without intermediate stops.
New York City is the exception which proves the rule. It's built on an island. So although it was growing during the era of industrialization, instead of expanding outward like most U.S. cities did, it was constrained into a limited size by the island borders, making it more like dense European cities. That both necessitated and made it more cost-effective for them to develop a good public transportation system. In a way, NYC ended up with the best of both worlds. High population density which improves the effectiveness of public transport. Yet built late enough into industrialization that they could lay the streets out in a grid, which also improves the effectiveness of public transport.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, I know quite a few people who commute that far EACH WAY every single working day. In a car.
Not a big deal around here, but then again, I'm in Texas, where 60 miles is just around the corner.
That is a big deal! Why would I want to spend that much time (1.5hr? 2hr?) in a car on the road? Why should such a huge proportion of my time be spent driving the same route over and over again? I don't care how nice the car is or how fun it is to drive, before long I would rather be watching TV or spending actual time with my kids, or relaxing, or cooking, or something, anything other than driving. It's just a very large amount of time spent doing... well, nothing.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA last night on theatlantic.com and it really spoke to me. Thought about posting it here myself, in fact.
If you compare Europe to the US though, or even Asia to the US, it's a lot easier to get around Europe or much of Asia without a car than it is in the US...
This was my experience living in Sweden, visiting various other European and Asian countries, and living in Australia as well. In these places, cities are organised into actual neighbourhoods with a variety of shops, public services (clinic, library, parks, etc.), restaurants, and access to public transport within reasonable walking distance of most homes. I lived in a suburb of Stockholm for over a decade and got along just fine without a car, even taking the winter weather there into account. I could get 80-90% of what I needed within a 10 minutes walk, and for anything else, there were subway and bus stations within that distance as well. I had much the same experience living in Brisbane for several years before that.
Here in the US, I pay something like 5 times as much a month for transportation as I did in Stockholm (car payment/insurance/fuel/maintenance/taxes vs a monthly transport pass). It would be lot more than that if I wasn't able to work at home most of the time and I had to commute to an office every day. In addition, obtaining daily/weekly necessities by car here takes me at least twice as much time as walking 5 or 10 minutes to the shops in my neighbourhood in Stockholm did.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just density in Europe that does this either. I knew friends who lived in a rural village and one headed off to university each day by train and the stop was just a short bike ride away. The price too is affordable. For instance, the CalTrain here in Silicon Valley feels very expensive compared to the European or Japanese trains I've taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, many/most of us have more than 1 car in the family, you double up when needed.
Or often insurance on a car in the shop, will provide for a rental car.
Or, you just suck it up and rent a car for a week, it won't kill you. At worst, you should have friends...and usually good friends help you out with rides.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Buses and Subways are NASTY!
Then there are all the Homeless using them to crap and puke in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, car == convenience
We have the right to freedom of movement, we do not have the right of freedom of movement in the most comfortable/convenient method possible.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:4)
Or course we DO.
Not sure where you get this way of thinking.
In the US, your rights are natural and inherit from you birth...and they are yours as long as they haven't been restricted by law (ie some things are crimes).
But yes, by birth, you pretty much have the right to just about anything you want or want to do in life, within current law.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Try being a cyclists or pedestrian for a period of time. It is very clear you are low prioritiy, and treated as more of a nuisance than anything else.
- Bike lanes disappear at random, making safe'ish routes circuitous when possible at all.
- Cars don't respect right-of-way. Heck, they mostly don't look up from their cell phones before crossing in front of you.
- Bike lanes are treated as free space to put up construction signs, park in, blindly open doors into, or otherwise block at will.
- Everything is spread out due to the bloat of giant parking lots, wide roads, etc.
When I visit Europe for work the public transit system works darn well, I have never wanted a rental car in the times I have been there, though I have wished for a bike.
The USA has prioritized cars, and it has made a trade-off that has made all the other options lousy as a result. Many schools cannot be reached on foot or bicycle safely, leading to processions of soccer mom's queued up twice a day due to defunded school buses.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Do many people out there really think and believe this way?
They'd rather us all live piled on top of each other, no freedom of movement, no room to live and stretch your arms without touching someone else?
Geez, WTF?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm still trying to figure out how housing is racist.
Re:Redlining (Score:4, Insightful)
Redlining was a LOOOONG time ago, and not really relevant now, and against the law.
So, the concept of single family zoning, is NOT racist. I mean, I see plenty of blacks, hispanics and other minorities living in single family dwellings, with yards and the whole caboot.
Re:Redlining (Score:4, Interesting)
It is still around, but like a lot of racism today it is coded with wording to make it seem like it is trying to solve an other problem.
Many laws gives administrators latitude on when to enforce or let a violation slide. So many of these "Ex-Redline" areas, you will find a lot of crazy laws on the books that no one really follows unless there are people who you want to kick out, often many of the crazy laws will apply around stereotypes of the minorities. Including schools having Dress code violations that say prevent hair weaves. Laws to prevent "Gang Activity" also can be misused.
You may see minorities in these area, but they need to follow a pristine way of life. While others will have a degree of latitude.
Inheriting pre-FHA land (Score:4, Insightful)
the heritability of poverty across generations
Redlining was a LOOOONG time ago, and not really relevant now
Some landowners who bought land prior to the Fair Housing Act 1968 remain alive to this day. And even if not, their heirs of the privileged social class have inherited said land. Heritability of wealth and poverty causes pre-FHA problems to continue into the FHA era. I can identify two questions to address separately:
Re:Redlining (Score:4, Insightful)
See, you don't understand. In this new "woke" day and age, it matters not what you and I and society does TODAY, all that matters is what our great great grandparents might have done (mine were itinerant farmers still in Europe, but I'm white so I must have been guilty of slavery in the US anyway). We have to atone for the sins of those who came several generations before us.
Meanwhile, we see that new black immigrants greatly outperform blacks born in the US [blackenterprise.com]. So clearly it's racist, somehow. And since Mitch McConnell's great great grandparents owned slaves, Orange Man Bad. And because Kamala Harris' ancestors owned slaves, Orange Man Bad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that a handful of black families were wealthy enough suggests that it's down to individual wealth and prosperity rather than race... A racist system would not allow blacks to reach this status.
There are also plenty of impoverished whites, who are facing the same problems as impoverished blacks and are just as likely to remain below the poverty line.
Re:Redlining (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do Asians do so well in the US? Hell they weren't even allowed to immigrate until the 1950's in many areas, and Japanese were thrown into detention camps during WWII.
Honestly it seems like treating someone's success (or lack thereof) as a foregone conclusion is the best way to make sure that they never actually try to make it.
Re: (Score:3)
That breaks down when that higher melanin kids is say...Asian.
It has more to do with what I'd call 'racial' associated culture, than just race.
Re: (Score:3)
The Jim Crow apartheid was limited to a relatively small area of the southern US. How did that have any effect on the wealth gap in Detroit and Chicago?
The reason I ask is that your talking points and scarecrows are wearing thin. You need to work on some new ones.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, it is 2019 now...that's about 49 years ago, time to quit bitching about the bad things in the past, those quit being factors a long time ago.
Re:Car == Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
> Sprawling american single-family large yarded suburbs
I'm not sure where you live, but in South Florida at least, sprawling single-family greenfield suburbs haven't had anything that vaguely resembles large yards for at LEAST the past 10-20 years.
Here's is what a brand new neighborhood with single family homes in the neighborhood of ~$650k, approximately 15 miles and an hour drive away from downtown Miami looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com]
Here's what a slightly less expensive brand new neighborhood with "attached single-family homes" costing around $420k looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com]
This neighborhood is approximately 10-15 years old. By comparison, its front yards are positively IMMENSE (though the back yards are pretty small... about the same size as the front yard plus driveway): https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com]
Another fairly typical nice middle-class South Florida single-family neighborhood built sometime around 2005 that I'd say is fairly representative of late-90s/early-00s Broward County. The lots aren't quite as claustrophobic, but it's FAR from the expansive ocean of grass typically pictured for American suburbia: https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com]
That's not to say that ALL brand new neighborhoods have houses shoehorned onto postage-stamp lots... but if you want a brand new house on a relatively large lot (which is still pretty small by the standards of 20th-century American Suburbia), the homes in THIS neighborhood START at "only" $1.2 million -- https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com]
Of course, if that's not urban enough for you, you can always move to downtown Miami: https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com] ... or the area near Fort Lauderdale's train station: https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com] ... or, if you'd prefer the temporarily-uncrowded extreme Everglades-edge of Broward County, you could move into one of the new skyscrapers getting built around the perimeter of Sawgrass Mills (one of the largest malls in the US). https://www.google.com/maps/@2... [google.com] [go back to map view w/satellite image and zoom out to see just how close this is to the literal Everglades).
Florida: we aren't Coruscant yet... but we're trying.
Waste of time (Score:4, Funny)
Don't even bother reading the linked article. It's written by a total Shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to readers: The above is a lame joke playing on the fact that the author of the article's last name is "Shill". It's actually an interesting article, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Interesting)
Jokes aside I'm not sure what the point of the article is. He doesn't really provide any solutions. Sure, he tries to list things he thinks are solutions but they aren't. And they aren't even directly related to the main subject of his article. The main subject is Americans shouldn't have to rely on cars as primary transportation. However the listed solutions only deal with one of his supporting points, pedestrian and driver safety. He doesn't actually give a way to break anyone free of needing a car.
The truth is, while it is possible and even practical to not own a car in places like NYC, you can't do the same in the majority of America. And the only point he gives that is even weakly related to solving this problem; relaxing zoning laws. Will not come anywhere close to changing the established make up of communities across the nation. You can't change that overnight and city planning has happened in such a way as to make public transport an unfeasible undertaking in all but the most dense communities.
Given the author is a law professor this all makes sense. Lawyers can easily get tunnel vision about the ills of society that come before court. Both civil and criminal. You see a lot of bad. I imagine he has dealt with a lot of cases involving traffic mishaps. However the job of lawyers is not to find solutions, it is to argue that their point of view is correct and just. It's up to regulators and policy makers to find solutions, and even they get it wrong a lot. Although not nearly as often as people think.
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Funny)
Jokes aside I'm not sure what the point of the article is. He doesn't really provide any solutions. Sure, he tries to list things he thinks are solutions but they aren't. And they aren't even directly related to the main subject of his article.
There is a very strongly implied message in this completely bullshit article:
There shouldn't be any suburbs. There shouldn't be any quiet, clean, peaceful neighborhoods. There shouldn't be any freedom or autonomy. Everyone should be forced to live in a large city, crammed together in giant apartment buildings containing hundreds of tiny apartments. The only method of travel, other than walking, should be public transportation, where everyone is herded like cattle, at times and routes of the government's choosing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Jokes aside I'm not sure what the point of the article is. He doesn't really provide any solutions. Sure, he tries to list things he thinks are solutions but they aren't. And they aren't even directly related to the main subject of his article. The main subject is Americans shouldn't have to rely on cars as primary transportation. However the listed solutions only deal with one of his supporting points, pedestrian and driver safety. He doesn't actually give a way to break anyone free of needing a car.
The truth is, while it is possible and even practical to not own a car in places like NYC, you can't do the same in the majority of America. And the only point he gives that is even weakly related to solving this problem; relaxing zoning laws. Will not come anywhere close to changing the established make up of communities across the nation. You can't change that overnight and city planning has happened in such a way as to make public transport an unfeasible undertaking in all but the most dense communities.
I don't even want to live close enough to bike/walk to work. The area here isn't that great (the brand new gas station build on the opposite corner of the intersection leading to our building complex has to have armed guards there have been so many robberies), and what decent houses there are, since it is more urban than where I actually live, are both smaller and more expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
ahhhh diversity, the panacea of modern society.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax gas to make it $10/gallon. Tax new car sales at 50-100%. Lot of folks would move closer to work,
No, 'folks' would vote out the politicians who raised taxes, and vote in new politicians who promise to reduce the taxes. We've seen this happen in California.
Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax gas to make it $10/gallon. Tax new car sales at 50-100%. Lot of folks would move closer to work, take up cycling, ride the bus, etc. Increased cycling would lead to an outcry to fix bike lanes.
Simplistic solutions often lead to disastrous results. No, people who live in areas with limited housing already are not going to move so they can walk to work. I live in a university city. Most of the university employees cannot afford to live within walking distance, were there sufficient homes available for them to do so. The university is actively trying to force people to stop driving and have been remarkably unsuccessful at it, simple because there is no adequate alternative for most people. Their decisions to replace parking spaces with other things have turned the neighboring communities into parking lots, which has resulted in ridiculous special parking zones for residents (who don't have garages of their own because they'd rather rely upon on-street public parking.) Ask the uni's neighbors if they're in Utopia.
Many folks just can't cycle. Buses don't exist in a lot of places, or what does exist is unrealistic for such a utopia as you suggest.
"If there is a problem, tax it into submission" is the liberal view on everything, and it rarely works.
Tax coffers would run over, allowing the needed bike lane improvements and road to bike lane conversions to happen.
State gas taxes go to the state to pay for state roads. People who live in rural or small city areas are NOT going to support taxing their gas so the money can be given to the big cities to build more bike lanes. Roads are not going to be converted to bike lanes no matter how much ground unicorn horn dust you sprinkle on the problem.
Voila.
Yes, voila indeed. Your ideas for Utopia are fascinating. Do you have a newsletter?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like it's a personal injury lawyer to me.
"recognition of the freedom to walk" We already have some pretty comprehensive pedestrian safety and rights laws on the books. So what more is being asked for? The legal right to jay-walk anywhere one wants? Not likely. Keep in mind that all of those quaint 19th century street scenes with pedestrians cross-crossing every which way between carriages and street cars were also pre Prohibition. And one of the significant arguments in favor of eliminating public d
what are you even trying to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like someone is having a problem with reality.
Re:what are you even trying to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Author started with a premise: "obligation to drive".
Author expected to find some laws forbidding people to walk on country roads or such.
Author didn't find any.
The Supreme court talks about the complement "obligation to not drive".
Author sucks at logic and thinks the supreme court supports his premise.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
More like 1 hour travel time.
The Northeast corridor is covered by an "ok" high-speed rail system, primarily limited by using tracks that were designed for freight rail instead of high-speed passenger rail.
Everywhere else in the US that this has been attempted (and replacing that freight-rail-based route) runs into the problem of purchasing right-of-way is really expensive. So, we could do it, but we've already got these Interstates and cars.....
Re: (Score:2)
More like 1 hour travel time.
It really is 3 hours travel time, the problem is your link doesn't work. It shows travel time from "my location" to "nyc." Yeah, this makes no sense when your search is explicitly "dc to nyc." But if you replace "my location" with "washington dc" the result is between 3 and 4 hours depending on the departure time. That's pretty dumb since that's about the same time as going by car. THAT's the real issue houghi is trying to say: even the US "high speed" rail is slower than traveling by car, and travel b
Re:Not the real issue (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a false narrative that is brought up a lot. Its usually made by Americans who want to be like Europe or by Europeans who have no idea what America is actually like. Mass transit on the scale and density of Europe is not and never will be economically feasible in the US. Why? Because outside of the major cities like NYC, LA etc the population density is very low. Trains going everywhere works in Europe because communities dense and close to one another. The only open land in western Europe that isn't actively developed is Zone Rouge in France that can't be.
The EU is 1.7 million square miles while the USA is 3.5 million. I'm not counting the entire continent of Europe because not everywhere on the continent has such an extensive rail network as the west. The EU also has a population density of 303 people per square mile whereas the USA is 87 per square mile. Its a simple math equation. There just aren't enough people packed in together all going a short distance to the same place. American communities are more spread out over larger areas for the same nominal population. This means any rail network would have to have far more stops with fewer people using each. The cost per capita and in absolute terms would be higher while the income would be lower. Its just bad economics.
Europe also had its rail network destroyed not long before high speed became viable. War is bad and expensive but it did open an opportunity to make better more modern rail lines at just the right time. The US didn't get bombed which means its extensive network didn't get rebuilt. To adopt high speed rail would require a massive overhaul of the existing network which would be very expensive and also cause disruptions to existing operations. And we actually do use our rail a lot. Just not for moving people. We use it to move stuff. Freight rail is a big business in the US and makes a lot more economic sense. Absolute speed and comfort are not concerns and because of the zoning "issues" the article author notes, most cities have one industrial district which means rail only has to go to one place. Its great for logistics.
So America did not abandon rail. America uses it for what works best given the circumstances. There is no such thing as a one size fits all policy and part of the job of a government is to make policy decisions the best benefit their citizens and make sense. Using rail for freight and cars for transit makes sense in most American communities. In those where light rail transit is viable it is done. In places where it is not then tax payer funds are not wasted on it.
Re:Not the real issue (Score:4, Informative)
American communities are more spread out over larger areas for the same nominal population.
That is a zoning decision made by local governments. It's not permanent, and could be changed such that we do build our cities to higher density.
But it is difficult to dislodge because the current landowners would not make as much money, and the current landowners are the ones who can vote for city councils and zoning boards.
Europe also had its rail network destroyed not long before high speed became viable.
100mph rail lines existed in the 1800s.
Right of way is the thing limiting high-speed rail, because you can't have crossings and you need relatively few turns.
First, the rail lines in Europe were not as blown up as you assert. Second, the rebuilt rail lines more-or-less followed the old rail lines that aren't all that great for high-speed rail.
Europeans decided to spend the money to buy the right-of-way they needed for high-speed rail. We USAians decided to spend the money to buy the right-of-way for roads.
Using rail for freight and cars for transit makes sense in most American communities
Only because of the decisions we made while building those communities. And those decisions are not set in stone.
Self driving cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving cars will not be commonplace until after we're dead.
Getting to an 80% solution took a very long time. Getting that 80% solution to 90% took the same amount of time. Getting that 90% solution to 92% is going to take the same amount of time. Then we go from 92% to 93%, and so on.
It's an extremely hard problem unless we decide to create dedicated right-of-ways that do things like forbid humans on foot and human-driven cars. And ya know, we could put down some tracks instead of asphalt on that
Quality of life (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, my time wasted doesn't even begin to address the very real danger in living in a heavy car culture.
I love my car, but I've had enough.
WFH (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Obligation or Practicability? (Score:2, Redundant)
In America, the freedom of movement comes with an asterisk: the obligation to drive.
America is a very large place. If you don't live in a dense urban core or if you wish to travel outside the urban core you live in, walking or riding a bicycle is not a practical solution. Pubic or private shared transportation (bus, plane, train, etc.) can get you places, but if you want to have true freedom of travel to get precisely where you want to go rapidly, from a practical sense, you are going to need to drive. Granted this freedom has a huge cost (infrastructure, environment, accidents, etc.) also
Just another symptom (Score:2)
No. Stop being dumb (Score:2, Troll)
You don't have to drive in the US and everyone knows it.
The author's wish for everyone else to conform to his preference is petty and childish. Grow up -- the sun doesn't rise and set based on your feelings. No one else has any obligation to validate your preferences.
Re: I like driving and owning a car (Score:2, Insightful)
The article is full of made-up facts and pure bullshit. The only number that is even close to true is that office parking spaces are roughly equivalent to office space in area.
And the EV hitjob is as pathetic as any FastCompany article on the topic.
Total waste of bits this one.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I can't find compatible GNU drivers for my Tesla.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is silly. We drive for two reasons:
-We can
-We prefer to
There is no place on earth where people who had the means and freedom to drive themselves places would not do so. The reasons why people don't are that it's been made too expensive, no parking is available, governments frustrate efforts to transport yourself, etc.
Everyone wants to travel in conditions that are safe, comfortable, and which come and go on your own terms, to places of your choosing, and at times of your choosing.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Insightful)
Controlling the movement of people is one of the biggest avenues there is for government control.
Once the government forces everyone to rely on a service they provide by eliminating other options, they can then control everyone by manipulating the availability of it.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Insightful)
This ^^^ a 1000 times this ^^^. Just imagine for example an America where a character like Donald Trump had the power to say ensure the "women's march" was poorly attended by furloughing 90% of the TSA in the days leading up to it snarling airports and rail stations causing everyone to miss planes and trains. That type of shit happens all the times in middle eastern dictatorships. It does not happen here because everyone would see the transparent attempt it is but unlike those places could do something about it; hop in car go anyway and make all the more noise.
Picking on Trump because he is in office now - not because I think he is anymore likely to play that type of game if he could than the last guy or whomever happens to be the next.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does not happen here because everyone would see the transparent attempt it is but unlike those places could do something about it; hop in car go anyway and make all the more noise.
Until someone closes lanes on the George Washington bridge [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Articles like this make me think that someone is trying to spread a specific mindset.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no place on earth where people who had the means and freedom to drive themselves places would not do so.
Well, that's totally incorrect.
For example ... New York City. Lots of people there *could* buy a car, but don't because they're more trouble than they're worth.
Or think about all those people who own a car but still ride their bicycle to work/on errands, etc.
Cars are mighty convenient at times, but there are times where they just aren't worth it -- they're expensive, storing/parking them is expensive in congested areas, some places are so congested that even a bicycle can get anywhere faster than a car, etc.
They make sense in most rural areas, but in the heart of a major city? Often, it's not the best way to get around.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in a very minor city and while we have a two car garage and could afford two cars, we only have one. Why? Parking downtown where I work costs around $2,000 per year. I could shave 10-15 minutes off my bus commute if I drove, but saving an hour of my time each week isn't worth that sort of money. I instead take that commute to get some work done, and shave off a bit of time in the office.
It does mean that I'm at the mercy of the buses, but they're generally on time. Plus I have to walk a bit more than if
Re: (Score:3)
How do you expect him to mischaracterize what they say if he reads it completely and honestly attempts to respond to what the person clearly intended to say?
You can't rightly expect someone to twist someone's words out of context while also acting in good faith. Come on now.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is silly. Saying that "we prefer to" drive, when a free market for transportation doesn't exist, is like saying residents of Communist countries "prefer to" live in Brutalist concrete housing blocks because that is where they "chose" to live. Or that people "prefer to" sit in gridlock because they do it for hours every day. Crazy, huh?
More worryingly, people use such arguments to justify taking away our freedoms, property rights, and tax dollars, to build our cities around the car. I'm talking about forcing developers to build more parking than the market would otherwise choose to build, forcing business owners to provide more parking than is financially optimal (where MC=MR [intelligenteconomist.com]), using sales taxes rather than gas taxes and other user fees to finance roads [taxfoundation.org], and so on. "Let us force people to drive everywhere because that is what they seem to want."
No, I reject your pro-authoritarian argument that "we prefer to" drive, and I do so because I want more freedom, lower taxes, and less traffic. Or maybe I'm the crazy one for wanting these things? It's so hard to tell these days...
Re:Use GNU! (Score:4, Insightful)
like saying residents of Communist countries "prefer to" live in Brutalist concrete housing blocks because that is where they "chose" to live
No its not like because under communism the state is literal ensuring there are no other choices. Here in free(ish) capitalistic America I can assure you the alternative market does not exist because there is no demand. If people really hated driving there would be more buses / cabs etc. To the degree there is a demand there is Uber and Lyft.
I'm talking about forcing developers to build more parking than the market would otherwise choose to build, forcing business owners to provide more parking than is financially optimal (where MC=MR), using sales taxes rather than gas taxes and other user fees to finance roads, and so on.
And yet the people VOTE for and re-elect the very people on city councils that enact such legislation. Its almost like people prefer it! Its very expensive to add parking and roads later, after space has not been reserved for it. Try driving around Boston and tell me its bad idea to plan for expanded used of roadways in the future.. Now go to Chicago and tell me that with the benefit of being able to anticipate the popularity of the automobile the decision to build infrastructure in support of it was not of long term benefit. You can go to Charlotte and see what failing to plan for enough automotive growth looks like. Gridlock exists because places did not do the very thing you are complaining about and build more parking and wide roadways anticipating the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I'd travel almost exclusively by bicycle if it weren't for the expectation of a death sentence meted out by motor vehicle drivers either hellbent on killing me or too distracted to pay attention to anything that weighs less than a ton.
Re:Use GNU! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you miss the point of the article. First of all, your argument could be turned around. Why do Europeans favor public transportation? Because "they can" and "they prefer too." But that's not really true. Wherever you live, your preferred system of transportation will be whatever is most convenient within your community. That's why in NYC it's not uncommon to have no vehicle whereas in middle American one cannot survive without a car. This "we" that has supposedly made some decision is quite imaginary. Where I live there are literally no public transportation options. While I'm okay with that—it's a very rural area—what I'm not okay with is that there are no passenger trains connecting any of the state's major metropolitan areas. There are no forms of public transportation that connect our suburban areas with the cities they surround.
While there are clear benefits to a car, that doesn't mean that everyone wants to use them (also, calling cars "safe" is highly ironic considering they are the least safe form of transportation). We have just structured our infrastructure in such a way that most people can't imagine functioning without one. You can get practically anywhere in Great Britain without a car. If people had more transportation options, while they may find the benefits of a car to be enticing, they also might find that they're not worth the cost.
I mean, ideally I would have a jetpack and just fly to wherever I want to go. But if everyone had a jetpack it would be a disaster.
Re: Use GNU! (Score:3)
I choose to ride my bike to the beach instead of driving because: 1) bicycle parking is more convenient; 2) it's better for my health; and 3) it's better for the environment.
I guess that disproves your statement that "There is no place on earth where people who had the means and freedom to drive themselves places would not do so".
Your opinion reflects only a portion of the population. I believe that was the whole point of the article.
Re: Use GNU! (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: horseshit everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This centralization is not solely due to cars, in fact it is generally worse in cities with more established public transport systems.
I do agree with you, workplaces should be more dispersed so people are able to live and work close by and maybe even walk to work, or an increase in remote working where it makes sense.
Lots of people are forced to spend 40 hours a month stuck on a bus or train, which is in many ways worse than sitting in a car especially for those of us who suffer from motion sickness.
Re: (Score:3)
I do agree with you, workplaces should be more dispersed so people are able to live and work close by and maybe even walk to work
The unintended consequences of this are:
1) If you change jobs you either have to move, or you need to go on a long commute to get to the new job. Since moving is expensive and disruptive, most people are going to go for the commute rather than move.
2) Neither commuting nor mass transportation will be as effective as it is now, since we can now make express routes between where people live and where they work. When everyone is commuting to dispersed businesses in small communities, it's going to be far worse
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
much prefer a world where horseback is common and smaller communities more clustered and commercial properties more permitted in rural regions.
You are suggesting something very sad... a version of history in which You or I would never have been born (with a very high probability), and if we had, then
we would almost certainly be sustenance farmers with very little chance of realizing anything greater, a much shorter lifespan filled with hard labor and disease (essentially, the human condition for the 99%
Re: (Score:3)
Horses for transportation were an environmental disaster.
https://www.historic-uk.com/Hi... [historic-uk.com]
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
https://enviroliteracy.org/env... [enviroliteracy.org]
Benjamin Franklin complained in the late-eighteenth century of the “thundering of coaches, chariots, chaises, wagons, drays and the whole fraternity of noise” which assailed the ears of Philadelphians. Boston and N
diamter of switzerland less than Los angeles (Score:3)
Roughly speaking the entire area of switzerland is smaller than Greater Los Angeles. The bus system of Zurich is a joke compared to Los Angeles. And remember the number of miles of bus paths scales as the square of the diameter of the city if you want to connect everyone.
Weekly bus outage exceeding a day (Score:2)
Buses in some cities routinely have 36- to 60-hour planned outages. Buses in Fort Wayne, Indiana, for example, stop at 6 PM on Saturday evening and start again at 6 AM on Monday morning [fwcitilink.com] to allow bus drivers time to be at home with their families over the weekend. On some weekends, buses stop from 6 PM on Saturday to 6 AM on Tuesday.
And if your reflexive reply is "then move," good luck finding a way for most of the city's 200,000 residents to afford to do so.