Is There 'A Hill You're Prepared To Die On' ?

[Razgovory]

So you should force them to live elsewhere?

[Sheilbh]

2: I stand by the bit you've quoted. You SHOULD be able to afford to live somewhere with decent transport. People shouldn't be economically forced to live in crappy isolated houses where they've no choice but to drive.

Yeah I don't see the problem with that line at all. And there are people in rural areas who already can't rely on a car for transport. My dad's too old and doesn't trust himself driving anymore but should still be able to pop into town, there's teenagers, there are people in the countryside who can't afford a car or can only afford one for a family. Those people are incredibly badly served - there is normally (at least in my experience) one or two buses in the morning mainly for school kids and the elderly to pop to the shops plus one or two buses around 4-6pm for the kids/shoppers to get home - it doesn't work, for example, if you have a job.

The entire point is we should be making sure they are also served well and not just cut off. Added to that I broadly have a "if you build it they will come" view that if people have good, reliable, affordable, regular alternatives to car transport they will use their car less and it will become more of an optional/lifestyle choice.

[Sheilbh]

So you should force them to live elsewhere?

No, so you should in good public transport and public services.

[Threviel]

So you should force them to live elsewhere?

No, so you should in good public transport and public services.

At what cost?

[Tamas]

Also what you seem to be missing is that living your life with as little dependency on external factors such other people and society in general (such as public transport) as possible, is a reward and an aim on its own, for many.

Then there's the factor of just how much more pleasant to be travelling on my own instead of being a sardine in a rolling tin. I know, I know, in your magical dream land there'd be enough buses and trains for the whole population to be comfortable. Still, even if public transport would be cheaper and quicker than a car (it's a long way from either right now) I am sure I'd often choose a car for the comfort of travel.

A much more realistic utopian future for you to dream about would be the reducing of car ownership and people going around in self-driving electric cars they hire for one-offs or have subscription for. That's far more desireable, and realistic, than trying to replace cars with buses and trains.

[Oexmelin]

The car industry indeed has succeeded in making the car more than a mode of transportation, but an ironclad symbol of middle-class aspirations. For many people, I get the distinct impression that the logistical arguments are less about actual logistics, but rather serve as garnish for what is actually a deep-seated repugnance towards the very idea, not to mention, the use, of public transportation.

[Tamas]

The car industry indeed has succeeded in making the car more than a mode of transportation, but an ironclad symbol of middle-class aspirations. For many people, I get the distinct impression that the logistical arguments are less about actual logistics, but rather serve as garnish for what is actually a deep-seated repugnance towards the very idea, not to mention, the use, of public transportation.

I have no problem with the idea of public transportation. The more people use it the less cars are clogging the roads in front of my car. But yes, I do much prefer sitting on my own or with family/friends in a car to being cramped up with a bunch of strangers. It's not a class thing, it's a not wanting to deal with people thing.

[Oexmelin]

I gathered that, but that's the sort of idea that was made possible by the association of autonomy and individuality in transportation, with middle class aspirations. The perverse thing is: the more congestion and traffic, the more people want to be alone, because being stuck in traffic for two hours is no fun when you're in a cramped bus. So, rather than push for more public transportation or more urban density, we prefer investing individually in increasingly comfortable cars, where we can watch TV, listen to music or angry trash radio, eat, and feel in control as we all struggle to get to the same places. Even carpooling is at astonishingly low levels.

But buses don't have to be cramped, and that is increasingly true as more and more people have flexible schedules, and service can be frequent enough so that it's actually faster. But rather than push for that world, we have people trying to imagine a world which salvages the car, not so much for its practicality, but for what it represents, in spite of its wastefulness and obvious gigantic costs for the planet. It's the great triumph of the car industry to have made lobbyists out of its customers.

Also, it's definitely a class thing, too - at least for many. Because in many parts of the world, it's not so much to be with people than with *those* people.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So you should force them to live elsewhere?

No, so you should in good public transport and public services.

At what cost?

the cost of a decent re-education camp.

[Barrister]

The car industry indeed has succeeded in making the car more than a mode of transportation, but an ironclad symbol of middle-class aspirations. For many people, I get the distinct impression that the logistical arguments are less about actual logistics, but rather serve as garnish for what is actually a deep-seated repugnance towards the very idea, not to mention, the use, of public transportation.

Oex, I love ya man, but I really think you're locked in the ivory tower on this one.

I was proudly taking public transit for many years.  I stopped because of the pandemic (though last month I did take it again for one day).  I hate rush-hour driving, and much preferred just sitting back and listening to a podcast (or just sleeping) while someone else drove me to and from work.

But a car-free existence is a pretty narrow way to live.  There is absolutely now ay we could do it as a family of 5 - between having to do grocery shops for far more than you could take on public transit, to trips to far-flung hockey arenas, to visiting family who live out of town, we (and lots of other families) could not possibly survive without a private automobile.

I fully support expanding our use of public transit - as part of an overall transportation strategy that also includes private vehicles.

[garbon]

I'm not sure what this world is where the bus (or public transport) isn't cramped. I took the subway regularly in NYC and the bus + tube regularly in London. Cramped is very much the name of the game unless you can manage to travel outside of rush hour (and thus be early or late to your place of employment).  Transport comes pretty frequently so I'm not sure speeding that up would change much.  Really the only places I could imagine public transport not being cramped is where there is low ridership.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure what this world is where the bus (or public transport) isn't cramped. I took the subway regularly in NYC and the bus + tube regularly in London. Cramped is very much the name of the game unless you can manage to travel outside of rush hour (and thus be early or late to your place of employment).  Transport comes pretty frequently so I'm not sure speeding that up would change much.  Really the only places I could imagine public transport not being cramped is where there is low ridership.

The whole point of public transit is to be efficient - to carry the most passengers for the least cost.  That pretty much inevitably means being crowded.

[Oexmelin]

Oex, I love ya man, but I really think you're locked in the ivory tower on this one.

With respect, I don't think so (obviously).

I don't drive - but my sister is a bus driver AND a car nut; my father was a truck driver after having spent his first 20 years repairing metros; my uncle was a car salesman. I have lived in cities with good public transportation, with mediocre public transportation, with de-funded public transportation. I have lived in small suburban towns in the US, and in rural villages in France. I now live in a small regional town. I have had the "transportation conversation" a million times over the years.

I know people who, like you, would much prefer to use public transportation to get to work. In Montreal, the suburban trains are packed - a sure sign that people would really use the service if it was better funded, and more frequent. Of course, none of these people would get rid of their cars: the suburbs they live in have zero proximity infrastructures. Schools are too far. Groceries are too far. Daycare are in a different location. There are no sidewalks. Municipal infrastructure (arena, pool), if they exist at all, have gigantic parkings lots, but no bus circuit. These towns were all built after the car had become such a core part of middle-class life. Suburban towns have no time for developing around proximity, and when they are concerned with public transportation, it's designed to get to metropolitan areas.

My point isn't that lacking a car is a disadvantage. I know first hand it is. It's that it has become more than a simple tool. Even more than a necessary evil, it's become the unifying principle of urban design, a symbol of one's autonomy, a core value to be protected. So, you not only have to fight the inherited decades of urban design around the car, but the emotional opposition of people for whom the car has been a way of life - because it could barely be lived otherwise. The world without car has become unthinkable, but even the suggestion of it is met with an anger that other mentions of necessary evils rarely elicit.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure what this world is where the bus (or public transport) isn't cramped. I took the subway regularly in NYC and the bus + tube regularly in London. Cramped is very much the name of the game unless you can manage to travel outside of rush hour (and thus be early or late to your place of employment).  Transport comes pretty frequently so I'm not sure speeding that up would change much.  Really the only places I could imagine public transport not being cramped is where there is low ridership.

But this is part of my "if you build it they will come" view - just to look at London and the Tube usage massively increases when New Labour take over. They invest in TfL they create the Mayor with devolved power over transport:


And it's grown ever since because money is regularly re-invested. The more capacity we build the more popular it will be and maybe more crowded. You're far less likely to get those slightly terrifying empty tube carriages that were a thing in the 70s or 80s when it was run down and the car was the priority. Which it might go back to if the government and TfL can't agree a new funding round.

The same goes for buses - Ken Livingstone more or less increased the number of buses running by about 20% and they're now very busy, something similar is happening in Manchester with Andy Burnham's reforms. It's the same as any other bit of the welfare state if you create public transport for the poor you will have poor public transport - which is what happened in the 70s and 80s and is still the case outside of London across the country (except for railways which are used by business people and middle class). Also before then it was possible and you only get over 50% of households in the UK having access to a car in the 70s, we now have more and more cars even while households are actually shrinking which I don't think is entirely driven by necessity.

It's the same as always happens with roads and highways - if you build the space and the infrastructure it will fill up very quickly and you need to expand it again. My view is that after a long time of emphasising the car in infrastructure spending and plans we emphasise the alternatives.

[Barrister]

Oex, I love ya man, but I really think you're locked in the ivory tower on this one.

With respect, I don't think so (obviously).

I don't drive - but my sister is a bus driver AND a car nut; my father was a truck driver after having spent his first 20 years repairing metros; my uncle was a car salesman. I have lived in cities with good public transportation, with mediocre public transportation, with de-funded public transportation. I have lived in small suburban towns in the US, and in rural villages in France. I now live in a small regional town. I have had the "transportation conversation" a million times over the years.

I know people who, like you, would much prefer to use public transportation to get to work. In Montreal, the suburban trains are packed - a sure sign that people would really use the service if it was better funded, and more frequent. Of course, none of these people would get rid of their cars: the suburbs they live in have zero proximity infrastructures. Schools are too far. Groceries are too far. Daycare are in a different location. There are no sidewalks. Municipal infrastructure (arena, pool), if they exist at all, have gigantic parkings lots, but no bus circuit. These towns were all built after the car had become such a core part of middle-class life. Suburban towns have no time for developing around proximity, and when they are concerned with public transportation, it's designed to get to metropolitan areas.

My point isn't that lacking a car is a disadvantage. I know first hand it is. It's that it has become more than a simple tool. Even more than a necessary evil, it's become the unifying principle of urban design, a symbol of one's autonomy, a core value to be protected. So, you not only have to fight the inherited decades of urban design around the car, but the emotional opposition of people for whom the car has been a way of life - because it could barely be lived otherwise. The world without car has become unthinkable, but even the suggestion of it is met with an anger that other mentions of necessary evils rarely elicit.

Lots of different thoughts.  And because I should be working I'll just put them down in disjointed, point form rather than spending the time for a really well-written thesis:

-I feel like I get this attitude frequently from progressive academics - that you're just not willing to be creative enough, and not that you actually have any answers (this comes up during, say, 'defund the police' type arguments).  I have specific transportation needs that I do not see how they could be met solely by public transportation, and just to be told that "The world without car has become unthinkable" doesn't actually answer any questions.

-we discovered the lovely town of Legal, Alberta this weekend (historically a French town, pronounced in the French manner, with "arrêt" signs on the street corners).  We had to go there twice, on Saturday and on Sunday, because two of my boys had hockey games there.  It was also a solid hour of driving out of town to get to each way.  There was no way public transit was ever going to cut it, no matter how well funded.

-my suburb was built in the mid-90s.  It has exactly 2 commercial spaces: an Esso/7-11 and a small pharmacy.  I do prefer urban designs that are a little more mixed between residential and commercial, with more amenities.  Heck even the neighbourhood in Whitehorse, Yukon I lived in had more commercial activity going on.  But even when I was a single guy, living in downtown Calgary, I still needed a car, because no matter how dense you get you'll never have a shopping mall or IKEA store within walking distance of everyone

-I also hated living in downtown Calgary - way too noisy and dirty.  I like my suburb.  I like the greenspace.  My neighbourhood, whle being fully within the City of Edmonton. is bounded on two sides by major roads, and on the other two sides by deep ravines/green spaces.  I can walk from my house and in 5 minutes almost forget I'm even living in a city (other than the distant hum of traffic).  I like that I can send my three kids out to walk the dog, alone and unescorted, or that they can walk home from school by themselves.

-I'll admit when I bought my first or second car in my 20s they were symbols of freedom and autonomy.  I would go driving just to go driving - to see what I could see.  I'm long past that point now.  Between my wife and I we now own very boring utility vehicles (a Honda Odyssey minivan, and a Toyota RAV4 crossover).  I need vehicles to get from point A to point B.  But that's the point - I need them to get from point A to point B.

-who knows, maybe with widespread and cheap autonomous vehicles the idea of private ownership of vehicles will become obsolete.  But right now the cost of human labour makes taking ubiquitous use of taxis/rideshares prohibitively expensive.