Automobiles are the most egalitarian form of transportation since walking(ti.org)
ti.org
Automobiles are the most egalitarian form of transportation since walking
https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20468
88 comments
Also, the bicycle is much less costly for the society, indeed its positive effects on our health actually contribute to less expenses for the NHS, this effects would be huge if adopted massively.
The car instead has a negative effect on our health and the infrastructure is much more costly and require much more maintenance, the pollution it creates has negative effects on our health too.
The car instead has a negative effect on our health and the infrastructure is much more costly and require much more maintenance, the pollution it creates has negative effects on our health too.
> Its fuel and thereby range is not determined by your financial status, only your health.
Big assumption that health is more easily procured than gas or electricity. The quest for good health is expensive in time and money too and for many people is limited by genetics or bad luck. You can't trade labor for health either and health declines with age limiting mobility.
Big assumption that health is more easily procured than gas or electricity. The quest for good health is expensive in time and money too and for many people is limited by genetics or bad luck. You can't trade labor for health either and health declines with age limiting mobility.
This hits cars harder: both because almost all of us will reach a point where we can’t drive safely and because cars are one of the leading causes of poor health both due to the hundreds of thousands of severe injuries caused annually, significant air pollution, and the negative health impacts of sitting immobile and training their users that any exposure to the weather or walk longer than a driveway is to be avoided.
Weirdly the good health needed for biking is procured easily by biking.
It must be nice to stay 25 forever.
Bicyclists do tend to stay in much better shape than drivers, it’s true, but I’m reminded that I know more adults who can’t drive safely than bike and several of them were in good health prior to being in some kind of car crash. The status quo in the US is 40k deaths due to driving and hundreds of thousands of life-altering injuries every year so there’s considerable room for improvement here.
That is not universally true. Health conditions aside age has a big impact here on everything from distance to duration, frequency and speed.
This touches on how we organize as a society. I know many who travel 20 miles (32 km) or more for work each day. That doesn’t work on a bicycle. Especially during the cold months.
It’s larger than a transportation issue
It’s larger than a transportation issue
I won't pretend like its a option for everyone, but 32km daily bike commute is definitely doable. And not just for the lycra guys, my aunt did about that distance for years on a commuter bike. Even in the winter months its just a matter of clothing, mentality, and living a place that keeps the roads usable. Depending rush hour queues it can even end up being almost a fast as a car.
My relative only recently understood the extent of their spouse's leg issues when they visited us and had to walk places. The spouse normally drives everywhere.
> Its fuel and thereby range is not determined by your financial status, only your health.
While I generally agree with you, surely this is not an egalitarian property of cycling.
While I generally agree with you, surely this is not an egalitarian property of cycling.
Keep in mind we're comparing to cars here. Where the fuel is under control by oil corporations and government taxes.
Next to cars, bicycles are miles more egalitarian. Don't blame bicycles for the poor health of Americans.
Round where I'm from you see everyone from 7 to 70 cycling. And some very old people get three wheeled bikes so they don't have to worry about losing balance.
Next to cars, bicycles are miles more egalitarian. Don't blame bicycles for the poor health of Americans.
Round where I'm from you see everyone from 7 to 70 cycling. And some very old people get three wheeled bikes so they don't have to worry about losing balance.
It is certainly USA-centric, and some of its assertions do not hold for some of us in the USA (ex: I contribute a wildly disproportionate amount to road upkeep relative to my usage of same compared to average), but I think you (and others) are missing the article's point regarding "egalitarian", since they're referring to economic opportunities rather than merely transportation.
I can drift back in time just 20 years and point out that an automobile is the only reason I was able to pursue the career opportunities I did at that time. A bicycle is not fast enough to cover the distances. Mass transit didn't exist or was not available in times that matched those opportunities. Walking didn't work. Etc.
I can drift back in time just 20 years and point out that an automobile is the only reason I was able to pursue the career opportunities I did at that time. A bicycle is not fast enough to cover the distances. Mass transit didn't exist or was not available in times that matched those opportunities. Walking didn't work. Etc.
It’s more complicated than that, however: cars are one of the most expensive options and that costs many people jobs (poor people get fired if their cars break down more than once in a while) and a large fraction of household income at lower tiers goes to cars for that reason. We’d need to consider that as well.
The other big thing to examine is the degree to which the lack of transit is a policy choice. If we took the billions of dollars spent subsidizing private car ownership and spent it on transit, the results would look a lot more like Europe, Asia, South America, or our own country a century ago. There’d be trade offs, of course, but those are important to consider as possibilities as we head into an era where climate change is going to cause many large problems and cars are around a quarter of our total emissions and EVs cut that number in half at best.
The other big thing to examine is the degree to which the lack of transit is a policy choice. If we took the billions of dollars spent subsidizing private car ownership and spent it on transit, the results would look a lot more like Europe, Asia, South America, or our own country a century ago. There’d be trade offs, of course, but those are important to consider as possibilities as we head into an era where climate change is going to cause many large problems and cars are around a quarter of our total emissions and EVs cut that number in half at best.
This is full of misdirection and half truths.
It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible.
Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different.
The tradeoffs you gloss over are likely to be much lore significant. They start with the tremendous investment required to add these where they don't exist and end with the mix of economic and quality or life impacts inherent in this type of travel.
EV do not drop total emissions out of the gate. Most start with a higher carbon footprint (and environmental impact) than ice vehicles and do not break even until more than half way through the expected life cycle. You do get some gains after break even but those benefits are mostly on relocation rather than reduction and are reset when the car hits battery replacement. I like EV's but they aren't the panacea they're presented as and come with their own problems.
The bottom line is that the automobile for all of its flaws represents complete freedom of movement not offered by any other means available to the average citizen. And you want to do away with it.
It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible.
Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different.
The tradeoffs you gloss over are likely to be much lore significant. They start with the tremendous investment required to add these where they don't exist and end with the mix of economic and quality or life impacts inherent in this type of travel.
EV do not drop total emissions out of the gate. Most start with a higher carbon footprint (and environmental impact) than ice vehicles and do not break even until more than half way through the expected life cycle. You do get some gains after break even but those benefits are mostly on relocation rather than reduction and are reset when the car hits battery replacement. I like EV's but they aren't the panacea they're presented as and come with their own problems.
The bottom line is that the automobile for all of its flaws represents complete freedom of movement not offered by any other means available to the average citizen. And you want to do away with it.
> This is full of misdirection and half truths.
You were referring to your next sentence, it appears:
> It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible.
It is driven by economics, which is driven by the policy decisions I mentioned. When private car usage is as heavily subsidized as it's been in the United States for the last century, it's not surprising that it can be cheaper for many people but that's just saying that the core principle of economics (people respond to incentives) is still true.
Similarly, your aesthetic preferences are not only not universal but in large part cultural. Sitting in traffic is not pleasant, nor is getting hefty repair bills at inconvenient times, etc. but you've been encultured to think of that as the natural order of things and having spent so much money on cars and car-centric living discourages contemplation on that point.
> Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different.
Continuing your trend, this is untrue on all counts. The United States has more land but 80% of the population is urban. In areas where transit is good, people use it heavily. The primary reason people do not use transit is that driving has been massively subsidized and transit systems are typically treated as a last resort for poor people, but that doesn't say people wouldn't use it if we made different decisions. Car centric sprawl has shaped a lot of what Americans who don't travel think of as natural but that's a choice, not a natural law.
You were referring to your next sentence, it appears:
> It is true that transit policy is a choice but it is one largely driven by economics. There is also an element of personal preference. Public transit is not pleasant or flexible.
It is driven by economics, which is driven by the policy decisions I mentioned. When private car usage is as heavily subsidized as it's been in the United States for the last century, it's not surprising that it can be cheaper for many people but that's just saying that the core principle of economics (people respond to incentives) is still true.
Similarly, your aesthetic preferences are not only not universal but in large part cultural. Sitting in traffic is not pleasant, nor is getting hefty repair bills at inconvenient times, etc. but you've been encultured to think of that as the natural order of things and having spent so much money on cars and car-centric living discourages contemplation on that point.
> Believing that the US would become eurplope or Asia if not for transportation policy is simply untrue. There are some regions that could adapt but the ones most likely to benefit from and use mass transit already have it and barely use it. The simple truth is our cities and geographies are different.
Continuing your trend, this is untrue on all counts. The United States has more land but 80% of the population is urban. In areas where transit is good, people use it heavily. The primary reason people do not use transit is that driving has been massively subsidized and transit systems are typically treated as a last resort for poor people, but that doesn't say people wouldn't use it if we made different decisions. Car centric sprawl has shaped a lot of what Americans who don't travel think of as natural but that's a choice, not a natural law.
> this is such a US centric view
The lived experience of the vast majority of US citizens is an illegitimate viewpoint? Whose viewpoints deserve a seat at the table?
The lived experience of the vast majority of US citizens is an illegitimate viewpoint? Whose viewpoints deserve a seat at the table?
Some parts of the world do require licensing.
You 'could' take it cross country but that depends on your health and financial status...which means you won't because it's incredibly impractical for the vast majority of people.
You 'could' take it cross country but that depends on your health and financial status...which means you won't because it's incredibly impractical for the vast majority of people.
[deleted]
femto nitpick, health is a subtle point and a big IF, if your health plummet, no more bike transportation and sudden reliance on public transportation and/or car (or maybe short flat trips in sweet weather)
a car, as bad and costly as it is, shields you from that.
end of femto nitpick
a car, as bad and costly as it is, shields you from that.
end of femto nitpick
You argue in qualitative terms, while the article supports its point on quantitative data.
> you can technically take it cross country
And "technically" anyone could take mass transit, yet he shows that (at least in the US) they do not. In the end what matters for public policy is what people and up actually doing, not what they theoretically could do.
> you can technically take it cross country
And "technically" anyone could take mass transit, yet he shows that (at least in the US) they do not. In the end what matters for public policy is what people and up actually doing, not what they theoretically could do.
Too old, fat, physically disabled people, etc. can have a job and turn that job into petrol to feed their cars. OTOH they can't drive a bicycle. That's not very egalitarian.
> Too old
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/hycbb0/olivi...
> fat
2. See 1, up to a point. For morbidly obese people, see 1. so you don't become morbidly obese.
> physically disabled people
See 1. For serious disability, most of those people can't drive, either. More than that, cars still have their uses, so I agree. Let's promote cars PRIMARILY for seriously disabled people. Abled bodied people, public transit, bikes, foot/electric scooters.
> OTOH they can't drive a bicycle. That's not very egalitarian.
Entire countries can.
China was initially built on bikes. As was Vietnam. As is the Netherlands.
Countries which are some of the most egalitarian in the world.
Let's not pretend cars are not the middle and upper class comfortable transportation devices. Cars are very, very convenient. Convenience is amazing, but it's also a slow poison.
You can't really be morbidly obese, for example, if you don't have access to a car. I mean, you probably can, but the odds of that happening are so low it's not worth taking about that scenario.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/hycbb0/olivi...
> fat
2. See 1, up to a point. For morbidly obese people, see 1. so you don't become morbidly obese.
> physically disabled people
See 1. For serious disability, most of those people can't drive, either. More than that, cars still have their uses, so I agree. Let's promote cars PRIMARILY for seriously disabled people. Abled bodied people, public transit, bikes, foot/electric scooters.
> OTOH they can't drive a bicycle. That's not very egalitarian.
Entire countries can.
China was initially built on bikes. As was Vietnam. As is the Netherlands.
Countries which are some of the most egalitarian in the world.
Let's not pretend cars are not the middle and upper class comfortable transportation devices. Cars are very, very convenient. Convenience is amazing, but it's also a slow poison.
You can't really be morbidly obese, for example, if you don't have access to a car. I mean, you probably can, but the odds of that happening are so low it's not worth taking about that scenario.
There are also people who can't drive a car for medical reasons, and I guess there are more of those. You'd have to come with actual numbers to convince me.
There are electric "micromobility" options including bikes and things more suitable to physically disabled people though.
Micromobility overall is more egalitarian than the car will ever be, and better in lots of other ways too.
Micromobility overall is more egalitarian than the car will ever be, and better in lots of other ways too.
There's less traffic on the road for those who _need_ to drive. Plus, in places like the Netherlands you see a lot of elderly/disabled people riding around on the bike lanes on mobility scooters [1].
[1] https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=mobility+scooter
[1] https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=mobility+scooter
But women in Saudi Arabia can cycle on their own
So no mobility for old, frail and sick people? Truly egalitarian in the sense of the new left.
You might want to familiarize yourself with e-bikes.
I guess this is the same old ignorance of the right.
I can also throw meaningless insults, sigh...
I guess this is the same old ignorance of the right.
I can also throw meaningless insults, sigh...
Not true. Come to Malmö, Copenhagen or Amsterdam and see who rides bikes.
Some get three wheeled bikes if they have balance problems.
Some get three wheeled bikes if they have balance problems.
Nothing which costs that much and excludes so many people can honestly be called egalitarian – especially since it comes at the cost of removing so much public space from any other use.
The intellectual dishonesty here is especially staggering:
> Horses, intercity trains, streetcars, you name it, were always used mainly by the relatively wealthy and were inaccessible to the poor, especially in cities.
In addition to being flat up wrong about streetcars, note how he mixes things like horses which have always been expensive and intercity trains (which serve a different purpose) without mentioning things like buses or bicycles which poor people heavily depend on.
Later, he puts access to a car as a sign of egalitarianism without asking whether that’s a sign of preference or necessity. Someone who looks at percentage of income paid and the difficulty of maintaining employment without a car would come to very different conclusions. That is, of course, if the goal was to learn rather than to find support for the position they started with.
The intellectual dishonesty here is especially staggering:
> Horses, intercity trains, streetcars, you name it, were always used mainly by the relatively wealthy and were inaccessible to the poor, especially in cities.
In addition to being flat up wrong about streetcars, note how he mixes things like horses which have always been expensive and intercity trains (which serve a different purpose) without mentioning things like buses or bicycles which poor people heavily depend on.
Later, he puts access to a car as a sign of egalitarianism without asking whether that’s a sign of preference or necessity. Someone who looks at percentage of income paid and the difficulty of maintaining employment without a car would come to very different conclusions. That is, of course, if the goal was to learn rather than to find support for the position they started with.
> Nothing which costs that much and excludes so many people can honestly be called egalitarian
But sky high costs of dense urban living is egalitarian?
But sky high costs of dense urban living is egalitarian?
That's a policy choice in a few cities[1], not an unalterable natural law. It's also confounded by how you do the comparison. If you're asking how much it costs to buy a 4,000 square foot single family dwelling, yes, cities are far more expensive but it's not that simple because, for example, suburbanites are far more likely to need cars ($11k/year average according to AAA) and people who live in cities don't need as much space because e.g. rather than having to pay for a lawn their kids play in the local park.
It's also again important to consider how much of this is policy. For example, Tokyo is far more affordable that many American urban areas because they didn't have policies preventing density and the city wasn't gutted to provide highways for suburbanites who only contribute minimally to the economy and culture. In the U.S. the history of racism behind the rise of suburbs makes that really complicated because the neighborhoods most likely to be bulldozed or cut off for highway projects / parking lots were the poor neighborhoods, reducing the supply available for low-income residents.
1. And, for example, the median income in NYC is $43k so there are definitely reasons to question stereotypes: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
It's also again important to consider how much of this is policy. For example, Tokyo is far more affordable that many American urban areas because they didn't have policies preventing density and the city wasn't gutted to provide highways for suburbanites who only contribute minimally to the economy and culture. In the U.S. the history of racism behind the rise of suburbs makes that really complicated because the neighborhoods most likely to be bulldozed or cut off for highway projects / parking lots were the poor neighborhoods, reducing the supply available for low-income residents.
1. And, for example, the median income in NYC is $43k so there are definitely reasons to question stereotypes: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
Urban living is cheaper than suburban living. Not having a car allows for huge savings.
At best you can save the car's ownership cost: financing + taxes + insurance + maintenance, which is, according to AAA, ~11K/year on average for a new vehicle in 2022 [1]. This is provided you don't pay for transportation at all and do not suffer any additional expenses because of your situation e.g. you don't pay for delivery, your shopping costs are not higher because of the reduced selection etc.
1. https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/your-driving-costs
1. https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/your-driving-costs
Don’t forget storage: that’s pricey in urban environments and elsewhere it is often is a considerable part of overall housing costs unless land is basically free.
I don't think many apartment dwellers pay for storage unless they have moved to an apartment from a house. If you are talking about car "storage" I am pretty sure it's free when you own a house.
I was talking about car storage: you get a bill if you park at a garage for work but at home it’s far from free since you’re paying for a significant amount of land and structure on your property and if you live on a private driveway you’re paying some fraction of that as well.
If you live in an outer suburb or more rural area the land costs are pretty low but if you live anywhere near a city it’s not uncommon for that to be adding 20-30% to your housing costs. Even if that’s available a la carte at an apartment complex it means land not being used for people, increasing the per-resident overhead costs, and since parking and traffic concerns are often used to prevent density it reduces the overall supply.
If you live in an outer suburb or more rural area the land costs are pretty low but if you live anywhere near a city it’s not uncommon for that to be adding 20-30% to your housing costs. Even if that’s available a la carte at an apartment complex it means land not being used for people, increasing the per-resident overhead costs, and since parking and traffic concerns are often used to prevent density it reduces the overall supply.
AAA number includes all expenses of owning the car regardless. I am not sure where you live but in the US we don't buy property by a square foot, we buy lots. You cannot really buy a house on a lot of land and strike out a car-sized portion of driveway for a discount.
I live in a city and would not get any discount on my property if I decided to park on the street (also free) instead of parking off street.
I live in a city and would not get any discount on my property if I decided to park on the street (also free) instead of parking off street.
The AAA number does not include storage:
> AAA selects top-selling, mid-priced models and compares them across six categories: fuel, maintenance/repair/tire costs, insurance, license/registration/taxes, depreciation, and finance charges.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/08/annual-cost-of-new-car-owne...
> I am not sure where you live but in the US we don't buy property by a square foot, we buy lots. You cannot really buy a house on a lot of land and strike out a car-sized portion of driveway for a discount.
Here in the U.S. the lots are sized with the assumption that a large fraction of the space will be used for a driveway and parking spaces or garages and that often is required by zoning codes (the term is “parking minimum”). That means that the decision to focus modern life around car travel instead of other means is implicitly increasing those costs because your house, employer, most businesses, etc. involve extra land purchased to store cars for the ~90-95% of the day where they're idle.
In my neighborhood, that often means roughly half of the total lot size. A transit-oriented design could have significantly more homes available at lower cost since the land is worth more than the structure here.
> I live in a city and would not get any discount on my property if I decided to park on the street (also free) instead of parking off street.
Yes. This is the city subsidizing private car owners — it comes out of your taxes, you just don't get an itemized bill or an explanation of the amenities you're not getting because the space and budget are being devoted to car storage.
If you travel around the country, notice how many cities have narrow sidewalks crowded with people while at most half as many people drive by — that's because the decision was made (probably in the 1950s) that the highest status people would be driving and so things like sidewalks were allocated the space which remains after putting in a wide road and street parking.
It's bad for business but we're so used to it we don't even see the other potential uses of that space and money. It took those pandemic closures to get a lot people to reconsider land allocation in cities and it's generally lead to upticks in sales for adjacent business every time space devoted to cars has been reduced because most of those people driving by never stop on their commute home.
> AAA selects top-selling, mid-priced models and compares them across six categories: fuel, maintenance/repair/tire costs, insurance, license/registration/taxes, depreciation, and finance charges.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/08/annual-cost-of-new-car-owne...
> I am not sure where you live but in the US we don't buy property by a square foot, we buy lots. You cannot really buy a house on a lot of land and strike out a car-sized portion of driveway for a discount.
Here in the U.S. the lots are sized with the assumption that a large fraction of the space will be used for a driveway and parking spaces or garages and that often is required by zoning codes (the term is “parking minimum”). That means that the decision to focus modern life around car travel instead of other means is implicitly increasing those costs because your house, employer, most businesses, etc. involve extra land purchased to store cars for the ~90-95% of the day where they're idle.
In my neighborhood, that often means roughly half of the total lot size. A transit-oriented design could have significantly more homes available at lower cost since the land is worth more than the structure here.
> I live in a city and would not get any discount on my property if I decided to park on the street (also free) instead of parking off street.
Yes. This is the city subsidizing private car owners — it comes out of your taxes, you just don't get an itemized bill or an explanation of the amenities you're not getting because the space and budget are being devoted to car storage.
If you travel around the country, notice how many cities have narrow sidewalks crowded with people while at most half as many people drive by — that's because the decision was made (probably in the 1950s) that the highest status people would be driving and so things like sidewalks were allocated the space which remains after putting in a wide road and street parking.
It's bad for business but we're so used to it we don't even see the other potential uses of that space and money. It took those pandemic closures to get a lot people to reconsider land allocation in cities and it's generally lead to upticks in sales for adjacent business every time space devoted to cars has been reduced because most of those people driving by never stop on their commute home.
I am still not seeing how am I paying for parking. In my city the lot size and the impervious coverage (you cannot build to cover more than 40% of the land) is caused by preventing flooding, if people built more houses and covered more land it would cause more flooding and has nothing to do with the cars.
> The claim that “accessible public transportation” can produce greater equality ignores the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite. In 2019, the median income of people who commuted by transit to work was significantly higher than the median income of people who commuted by any other method. More people who commuted by transit in 2019 earned over $65,000 a year than those who earned under $25,000.
Might have something to do with the fact that there is not much public transport in the US and most can be found in very large cities. Since city dwellers have a higher income on average this is not the least bit surprising.
The conclusion of the article is build on this argument and quickly falls apart in Europe. The argument not even true for the US because it is warped by cities like New York City.
Might have something to do with the fact that there is not much public transport in the US and most can be found in very large cities. Since city dwellers have a higher income on average this is not the least bit surprising.
The conclusion of the article is build on this argument and quickly falls apart in Europe. The argument not even true for the US because it is warped by cities like New York City.
> Might have something to do with the fact that there is not much public transport in the US and most can be found in very large cities
Around the world, is there much public transit out of cities? And maybe public transit itself is a red herring. Maybe the right question would be on non-car transit?
Around the world, is there much public transit out of cities? And maybe public transit itself is a red herring. Maybe the right question would be on non-car transit?
I can say that I've never had trouble traveling to rural areas outside of the U.S. - things like buses are widely used because cars and especially gas prices shift the tradeoffs.
Ridiculously US centric article, and this:
> The claim that “accessible public transportation” can produce greater equality ignores the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.
skips over a public transport history of the US that has seen the elite (eg Koch brothers) work to sink any public transport effort specifically to increase the per capita use of fossil fuels (and their profits), and planners using infrastructure projects to divide vibrant neighbourhoods and push out those determined as poor, unwanted, etc.
> The claim that “accessible public transportation” can produce greater equality ignores the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.
skips over a public transport history of the US that has seen the elite (eg Koch brothers) work to sink any public transport effort specifically to increase the per capita use of fossil fuels (and their profits), and planners using infrastructure projects to divide vibrant neighbourhoods and push out those determined as poor, unwanted, etc.
The use of "elite" to describe people using public transit is absurd at face value, but makes perfect sense when you understand "elite" as coded language for anyone living in a city, tinged with a connotation of contempt and awash with political undertone.
Which is insane since cities were the original great leveler. The way for poor people to achieve social mobility.
> Ridiculously US centric article...
The lived experience of the vast majority of US citizens is an illegitimate viewpoint? Whose viewpoints deserve a seat at the table?
The lived experience of the vast majority of US citizens is an illegitimate viewpoint? Whose viewpoints deserve a seat at the table?
The author is making a globally-sweeping claim in service of their opposition to "government planning". If their claim is trivially disproven by looking at countries with similar or greater quality of life around the world, that suggests that this is in fact not a universal truth but a deliberate policy outcome.
The fact that it's also not true even within the United States (currently in some places, everywhere prior to WWII) similarly confirms that this isn't a deep truth but rather a convoluted restatement that most people will end up using the option which is favored by policy.
The fact that it's also not true even within the United States (currently in some places, everywhere prior to WWII) similarly confirms that this isn't a deep truth but rather a convoluted restatement that most people will end up using the option which is favored by policy.
insanely expensive light-rail projects when buses can provide as good or better transportation for far less money
Haha. Insanely expensive, I don't doubt, but as good as or better service? Spotted the person who hasn't relied on public transport for more than a month of their life. Compared to light rail, buses are miserable.
Haha. Insanely expensive, I don't doubt, but as good as or better service? Spotted the person who hasn't relied on public transport for more than a month of their life. Compared to light rail, buses are miserable.
I’ve looked at this a lot and the only thing that matters is dedicated right of way… because that’s how you can stick to a timetable which is very important to mass transit. BRT projects are supposed to do dedicated pavement for the buses which can make them competitive. However, for many projects that’s the first thing that goes to save costs.
No, even when the bus manages to be on time, it's still miserable compared to light rail or the subway. Jerky, bumpy, loud; more cumbersome entry and exit; less room, not that there's much room on either if they're crowded.
> Compared to light rail, buses are miserable.
I’ve been on gross light rail cars and great buses. Both have their pros and cons, but buses are not “miserable” because bus.
I’ve been on gross light rail cars and great buses. Both have their pros and cons, but buses are not “miserable” because bus.
The only thing I agree with the author on is that buses are underinvested
“In the US”.
One only has to visit a less wealthy country (just cross the border to Mexico) where the fallacy of the article is evident when the average person’s salary is not enough to buy even a clunker and keep it running (fuel is damn expensive). And public transportation is used massively due to it being the only other option to getting around. “ mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.” Please what? Has this person ever actually used public transportation? Just get your head out of your iPad and look around. And that’s just one example. I even doubt this holds generally true in the US.
One only has to visit a less wealthy country (just cross the border to Mexico) where the fallacy of the article is evident when the average person’s salary is not enough to buy even a clunker and keep it running (fuel is damn expensive). And public transportation is used massively due to it being the only other option to getting around. “ mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.” Please what? Has this person ever actually used public transportation? Just get your head out of your iPad and look around. And that’s just one example. I even doubt this holds generally true in the US.
> where the fallacy of the article is evident
This article is the author’s commentary about the lived experience of US residents. It’s incoherent to allege it’s fallacious because the lived experience in some other country isn’t the same.
This article is the author’s commentary about the lived experience of US residents. It’s incoherent to allege it’s fallacious because the lived experience in some other country isn’t the same.
You keep jumping from subthread to subthread, saying the same thing, and ignoring all responses to the assertion you are making. The lived experience of US residents is the result of policy choices over decades, and it would have been different if you hadn't allowed robber barons to set your transport and urban planning policy.
I don't agree with their logic here:
"the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite. In 2019, the median income of people who commuted by transit to work was significantly higher than the median income of people who commuted by any other method."
The fact is that people in cities are more likely to use public transit, and living near cities correlates strongly with income. But within metropolitan areas, transit is much more egalitarian (by their metric) than private car ownership.
The fact is that people in cities are more likely to use public transit, and living near cities correlates strongly with income. But within metropolitan areas, transit is much more egalitarian (by their metric) than private car ownership.
This seems very US focused. I don't think the article's thesis would hold for European mass transit.
Maybe the author has it backwards. Correlation causation etc. Could it be that access to public transport, or better infrastructure in general, gives people the opportunity to earn better wages?
I definitely appreciate reading points of view very different than my own, but—even aside from the US-centricity pointed out by other commentors—it seems to me that the author has got some things obviously wrong, most principally the relation between wealth and access to public transport:
It is pretty clear that most US residents do not have meaningful access to public transport at all, and even fewer have access to high-quality transport (i.e. clean, safe and pleasant vehicles with turn-up-and-go frequency within a short walk). Those that do are naturally concentrated in just a few major (and mainly older) cities—NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, Washington and the like—which are also some of the most expensive places to live. Even within those cities, housing near transport routes tends to be more valued and thus more expensive. So yes: the people who have the best access to transit tend to be those who have higher incomes. (This is true in Europe too, albeit not so markedly since even less-well-off areas tend to have at least a decent basic service.)
The US, having built itself into a configuration that makes public transport mostly non-viable, can't easily fix this. In that context it probably _does_ make sense to try to provide basic automobiles to those who can't afford them. But don't pretend that this is anything other than a band-aid on the gaping wound that is poor decisions about land-use.
It is pretty clear that most US residents do not have meaningful access to public transport at all, and even fewer have access to high-quality transport (i.e. clean, safe and pleasant vehicles with turn-up-and-go frequency within a short walk). Those that do are naturally concentrated in just a few major (and mainly older) cities—NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, Washington and the like—which are also some of the most expensive places to live. Even within those cities, housing near transport routes tends to be more valued and thus more expensive. So yes: the people who have the best access to transit tend to be those who have higher incomes. (This is true in Europe too, albeit not so markedly since even less-well-off areas tend to have at least a decent basic service.)
The US, having built itself into a configuration that makes public transport mostly non-viable, can't easily fix this. In that context it probably _does_ make sense to try to provide basic automobiles to those who can't afford them. But don't pretend that this is anything other than a band-aid on the gaping wound that is poor decisions about land-use.
> The US, having built itself into a configuration that makes public transport mostly non-viable…
False. Buses are almost universally viable in urban environments.
False. Buses are almost universally viable in urban environments.
Two things strikes me about the article…
1. It oversimplifies too many things. That includes public transit availability, costs, etc
2. It’s US centric. The numbers are based on U.S. numbers. Far too many people think other places are like the U.S.
Where I live public transit doesn’t go where low income folks live and work. While there are exceptions, that’s the rule. So, low income earners often have cars that are at least 10 years old to get where they need to go
1. It oversimplifies too many things. That includes public transit availability, costs, etc
2. It’s US centric. The numbers are based on U.S. numbers. Far too many people think other places are like the U.S.
Where I live public transit doesn’t go where low income folks live and work. While there are exceptions, that’s the rule. So, low income earners often have cars that are at least 10 years old to get where they need to go
> mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.
So does this article really apply outside of the US, RU, and other such places with vast swathes of low-density not-so-economically-integrated populations?
So does this article really apply outside of the US, RU, and other such places with vast swathes of low-density not-so-economically-integrated populations?
Same in the UK, even highly populated areas (e.g. surrounding London). Trains are very expensive compared to cars. There are discount schemes for some groups (e.g. student/pensioner), but it's really for the wealthy only.
> Trains are very expensive compared to cars.
That sounds like a deliberate policy choice? Trains have became more expensive here during Covid, but back when I was using them extensively, a national annual subscription (lump sum, after which the rides were free) only cost a little more than double what insurance+plates alone cost for my car.
That sounds like a deliberate policy choice? Trains have became more expensive here during Covid, but back when I was using them extensively, a national annual subscription (lump sum, after which the rides were free) only cost a little more than double what insurance+plates alone cost for my car.
I wouldn't say it's a policy choice, the opposite. The rail system is privatised in the UK and yet still receives government subsidies. In addition, there's a huge drive to stop cars in our cities. Many "clean air initiatives", inflated parking charges, reducing lanes, pedestrianising spaces etc. It's just, regardless of how many paying passengers, or how short the journey, no one has ever been able to make trains work cost effectively here.
It doesn't even apply within the US. His methodology here is terrible.
I’d be curious to see some of those aggregate statistics broken out.
The idea that the average income of mass transit users is higher than that of drivers (pre-pandemic) is counter intuitive.
It’s most likely an artifact of the fact that salaries in NYC are high and the bulk of mass transit commuting was in/to/from NYC. I’d be curious to see the same statistics NYC-only and ex-NYC.
I don’t have the data but could likely be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
The idea that the average income of mass transit users is higher than that of drivers (pre-pandemic) is counter intuitive.
It’s most likely an artifact of the fact that salaries in NYC are high and the bulk of mass transit commuting was in/to/from NYC. I’d be curious to see the same statistics NYC-only and ex-NYC.
I don’t have the data but could likely be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
> The idea that the average income of mass transit users is higher than that of drivers (pre-pandemic) is counter intuitive.
I don’t know about NYC but here in DC you’ll see the same argument made. The demographics of commuter rail and long-distance subway trips are more affluent because that’s who can live in those suburbs (federal government commuters also get subsidies which are appealing compared to the traffic), while bus ridership had a lot more poor and especially elderly people. Trying to come up with one policy for the average of all 3 systems is going to be misleading in every direction.
I don’t know about NYC but here in DC you’ll see the same argument made. The demographics of commuter rail and long-distance subway trips are more affluent because that’s who can live in those suburbs (federal government commuters also get subsidies which are appealing compared to the traffic), while bus ridership had a lot more poor and especially elderly people. Trying to come up with one policy for the average of all 3 systems is going to be misleading in every direction.
The fact that the blog post doesn't once mention bicycles gives a taste for the validity of its main argument.
O’Toole as usual has an agenda to find a way to make every positive thing about transit seem bad.
It’s clear here in that he uses average US-wide incomes to segment the population in urban areas. NYC has the highest transit ridership: if you make $65,000 a year, you might not be making rent. If you make $25,000 a year, you’re not able to afford to live anywhere near transit, and would be making less than minimum wage in new york state.
all you need to do is compare the cost to take transit to the cost to drive a car to see the weakness in his argument.
It’s clear here in that he uses average US-wide incomes to segment the population in urban areas. NYC has the highest transit ridership: if you make $65,000 a year, you might not be making rent. If you make $25,000 a year, you’re not able to afford to live anywhere near transit, and would be making less than minimum wage in new york state.
all you need to do is compare the cost to take transit to the cost to drive a car to see the weakness in his argument.
While I generally don't support this view, in my corner of the world there's an unexpected advantage of having access to cars, namely they give one leverage when picking where to live.
Around here the middle class can't afford real estate - not in 2022 at least. The credit advisor working for a housing development company who I met the other day told me that 75% of their clients pay cash, because the pool of those who are eligible for a mortgage is so small nowadays.
Housing close to public transport gets expensive really quick. Meanwhile if you have a car you can live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere and actually have the credit score for the property because it costs half of anything close to civilisation.
Of course there are fuel costs and whatnot, but you can work with/around that. There's no going around not having the credit score for a even a one-bedroom apartment in the city.
Here's a collection of European countries where there's no consistent trend in urbanization vs the Netherlands, which apparently are turning into a collection of cities:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?end=2...
I know for a fact that where I live the decrease is caused by people moving to the suburbs - it's a widely talked about topic.
Around here the middle class can't afford real estate - not in 2022 at least. The credit advisor working for a housing development company who I met the other day told me that 75% of their clients pay cash, because the pool of those who are eligible for a mortgage is so small nowadays.
Housing close to public transport gets expensive really quick. Meanwhile if you have a car you can live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere and actually have the credit score for the property because it costs half of anything close to civilisation.
Of course there are fuel costs and whatnot, but you can work with/around that. There's no going around not having the credit score for a even a one-bedroom apartment in the city.
Here's a collection of European countries where there's no consistent trend in urbanization vs the Netherlands, which apparently are turning into a collection of cities:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?end=2...
I know for a fact that where I live the decrease is caused by people moving to the suburbs - it's a widely talked about topic.
> > The claim that “accessible public transportation” can produce greater equality ignores the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite.
Yes, the elites of poor countries around the world, places with a GDP per capita a 10th of the US one :-))))
One of the first thing poor countries to improve the lives of their wretched (thing people almost starving) is to add bus, tram and train lines so these poor people can go farther away from home to get decent paying jobs.
Yes, the elites of poor countries around the world, places with a GDP per capita a 10th of the US one :-))))
One of the first thing poor countries to improve the lives of their wretched (thing people almost starving) is to add bus, tram and train lines so these poor people can go farther away from home to get decent paying jobs.
Dystopian post-apocalyptic hellscape blogger:
"Guns are very egalitarian devices! Everybody has at least one and uses it regularly!"
"Guns are very egalitarian devices! Everybody has at least one and uses it regularly!"
Guns are unironically considered egalitarian by American conservatives; the argument is that the 2nd Amendment levels the playing field for individual citizens vs. the government.
Excellent article!
Why are so few of these posted to hacker news?
More and more automobiles is the perfect antidote to a society who's wealth has been built on exclusionary zoning.
It's useless trying to plan any desirable alternative to the status quo in the form of mass transit when everyone sees their home as a get-rich-while-doing-nothing investment ponzi scheme rather than a commodity to be consumed:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/12/home...
Why are so few of these posted to hacker news?
More and more automobiles is the perfect antidote to a society who's wealth has been built on exclusionary zoning.
It's useless trying to plan any desirable alternative to the status quo in the form of mass transit when everyone sees their home as a get-rich-while-doing-nothing investment ponzi scheme rather than a commodity to be consumed:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/12/home...
Poorer households are actually the majority of users in Los Angeles [1].
I suspect this isn't the case in many other American cities, because
a. Transit is a luxury good, raising prices and gentrifying an area
b. Transit is the easiest to build to close places (from the CBD), which are often rich
c. Poorer communities just aren't a priority for most cities, at least not until recently.
Anecdotally, in Europe the modal split is probably more even.
[1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-l...
I suspect this isn't the case in many other American cities, because
a. Transit is a luxury good, raising prices and gentrifying an area
b. Transit is the easiest to build to close places (from the CBD), which are often rich
c. Poorer communities just aren't a priority for most cities, at least not until recently.
Anecdotally, in Europe the modal split is probably more even.
[1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-l...
[deleted]
The argument that this article makes looks more like a failure of making public transportation available to most of people in parts of the US.
Is US-centric not allowed here? I see several complaints about that.
I see no problem with a US writer speaking to what he finds is best for himself and fellow US citizens. That this would cause so many complaints and potentially have an article flagged is dystopian, like some of us are less equal than others.
I see no problem with a US writer speaking to what he finds is best for himself and fellow US citizens. That this would cause so many complaints and potentially have an article flagged is dystopian, like some of us are less equal than others.
[deleted]
> The claim that “accessible public transportation” can produce greater equality ignores the fact that mass transit, whether private or public, has generally been used mainly by an elite. In 2019, the median income of people who commuted by transit to work was significantly higher than the median income of people who commuted by any other method.
Probably ignores the fact that most public transportation infrastructure and people that use it are located in cities where median salaries are higher. Public transportation commuters can still very much have a lower median salary in that area.
> In 2021, only 5.0 percent of workers with incomes under $25,000 a year took transit to work, while the other 95 percent disproportionately have to pay the mostly regressive taxes that are used to support transit.
Probably good that mass transit was avoided during a pandemic. Can't determine how much it says about the taxes "regressivity" though.
> By comparison highways are mainly paid for out of user fees which aren’t regressive because people pay for only what they use.
Not from the US, but this doesn't seem to be true, if i'm reading [the table on this page](https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/) correctly.
> Of the 4.1 percent of workers who lived in households with no cars in 2021...
My understanding is that life without a car is quite challenging in the US - I'd get one too if I lived there. And yeah, the data [does seem to support it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...). But it's not an argument for cars, just an argument against US urban planning. Requiring an expensive purchase to be able to participate in society is pretty messed up.
> The Times article is correct that debt and the high cost of borrowing for people who have poor credit is a problem, but that is not the fault of the automobile.
> Nor are traffic stops that punitively focus on low-income drivers, which the article also cites, the fault of cars.
And gun violence isn't the gun's fault. It's public-policy-around-the-gun's fault - which is in turn gun advocacy's fault. You can always install metal detectors in schools and put guards everywhere, but you could also, you know, just not have that many guns.* Similarly, you could just put in more public transportation.
> numerous studies have shown that one of the best ways to get people who don’t have access to cars out of poverty is to give them access to an automobile.
I don't believe that we need to choose any single policy over another, but given limited resources I'd prioritize redirecting tax revenue into: - education to give people actual careers - cheap (tax-based, even) healthcare - social safety-nets that support economically vulnerable
Over
> low- or zero-interest loans to low-income people who lack cars so they can buy a decent used or low-cost new car.
Just put in more bus lines. Please. Why do anyone need to take a loan out at all? What happens if they get fired or can't pay the loan for any reason?
* Not going to pretend that anti-gun stances aren't political suicide in the US and that actual feasibility any gun ban is quite questionable. I'm just railing against this denialist blame-shifting attitude and the cartoonish work-arounds it leads to.
Probably ignores the fact that most public transportation infrastructure and people that use it are located in cities where median salaries are higher. Public transportation commuters can still very much have a lower median salary in that area.
> In 2021, only 5.0 percent of workers with incomes under $25,000 a year took transit to work, while the other 95 percent disproportionately have to pay the mostly regressive taxes that are used to support transit.
Probably good that mass transit was avoided during a pandemic. Can't determine how much it says about the taxes "regressivity" though.
> By comparison highways are mainly paid for out of user fees which aren’t regressive because people pay for only what they use.
Not from the US, but this doesn't seem to be true, if i'm reading [the table on this page](https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/) correctly.
> Of the 4.1 percent of workers who lived in households with no cars in 2021...
My understanding is that life without a car is quite challenging in the US - I'd get one too if I lived there. And yeah, the data [does seem to support it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...). But it's not an argument for cars, just an argument against US urban planning. Requiring an expensive purchase to be able to participate in society is pretty messed up.
> The Times article is correct that debt and the high cost of borrowing for people who have poor credit is a problem, but that is not the fault of the automobile.
> Nor are traffic stops that punitively focus on low-income drivers, which the article also cites, the fault of cars.
And gun violence isn't the gun's fault. It's public-policy-around-the-gun's fault - which is in turn gun advocacy's fault. You can always install metal detectors in schools and put guards everywhere, but you could also, you know, just not have that many guns.* Similarly, you could just put in more public transportation.
> numerous studies have shown that one of the best ways to get people who don’t have access to cars out of poverty is to give them access to an automobile.
I don't believe that we need to choose any single policy over another, but given limited resources I'd prioritize redirecting tax revenue into: - education to give people actual careers - cheap (tax-based, even) healthcare - social safety-nets that support economically vulnerable
Over
> low- or zero-interest loans to low-income people who lack cars so they can buy a decent used or low-cost new car.
Just put in more bus lines. Please. Why do anyone need to take a loan out at all? What happens if they get fired or can't pay the loan for any reason?
* Not going to pretend that anti-gun stances aren't political suicide in the US and that actual feasibility any gun ban is quite questionable. I'm just railing against this denialist blame-shifting attitude and the cartoonish work-arounds it leads to.
The author doesn't consider the world beyond the US.
Mass transit being used by elites and cars by the poor is far from true in many other places. In fact, mass transit was free in many communist countries, and is still free in cities here and there.
Mass transit being used by elites and cars by the poor is far from true in many other places. In fact, mass transit was free in many communist countries, and is still free in cities here and there.
yawn
It requires much less maintenance overhead, no license at all to drive, and you can technically take it cross country if you want.
Its fuel and thereby range is not determined by your financial status, only your health.