If so what is it, an idea, a place, a country, commitment or an argument perhaps?
I used to claim that Temple of Doom was the best Indy movie. But I capitulated, signed the peace treaty and paid war indemnities years ago.
Right now I'm heavily fortifying my "Succession isn't that good" hill, though. I'm expecting heavy assaults.
I'm not at liberty to say, but it involves phone call etiquette.
Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2021, 09:32:09 AM
I'm not at liberty to say, but it involves phone call etiquette.
:mad:
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/1hM7SKynfIzqtqXTNR/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ih8de69u0cj217u3s61jr4cz62qekgbbqi0eo6qc&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Blueberry.
The correct use of the word "performative". Sadly probably a lost cause :weep:
No french language improvement/change from metropolitan France populace is legitimate.
Probably the Oxford comma.
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2021, 09:18:13 AM
If so what is it, an idea, a place, a country, commitment or an argument perhaps?
Anywhere. Just shoot me.
I'm probably going to regret saying this, mine is driving a car with only me in it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 06, 2021, 09:45:45 AM
No french language improvement/change from metropolitan France populace is legitimate.
Fine, the Académie would probably agree with you. :P
Quote from: Tamas on December 06, 2021, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2021, 09:32:09 AM
I'm not at liberty to say, but it involves phone call etiquette.
:mad:
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/1hM7SKynfIzqtqXTNR/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ih8de69u0cj217u3s61jr4cz62qekgbbqi0eo6qc&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Have at it, knave! :angry:
Did Tamas text first to ask if he could point his sword at you?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2021, 10:52:17 AM
Did Tamas text first to ask if he could point his sword at you?
Haha, ok, boomer.
That question just highlights the extent to which you fail to grasp modern communications.
No need to mock the elderly, Tamas.
Quote from: Tamas on December 06, 2021, 11:04:29 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2021, 10:52:17 AM
Did Tamas text first to ask if he could point his sword at you?
Haha, ok, boomer.
That question just highlights the extent to which you fail to grasp modern communications.
Or perhaps you fail to grasp duel etiquette.
We don't duel anymore either, granpa, we just exchange mean tweets these days.
Quote from: DGuller on December 06, 2021, 11:11:11 AM
No need to mock the elderly, Tamas.
C'mon. Snowflakes mocking the elderly IS modern communications.
Having lots of books in your home, read or unread, is a good thing.
Quote from: Maladict on December 06, 2021, 12:31:03 PM
Having lots of books in your home, read or unread, is a good thing.
People who sleep in public libraries are the worst.
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2021, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: Maladict on December 06, 2021, 12:31:03 PM
Having lots of books in your home, read or unread, is a good thing.
People who sleep in public libraries are the worst.
:D
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
Glances at Barrister on his hill of refuse and stiking trash and decides I cannot possibly be bothered to fight anyone willing to fight over THAT!
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
I tried to attack your position from outer space from my bomb bay but they won't drop. Damn you Newton's laws.
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
Absolutely agree. I'd go further - I think it's great :ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 06, 2021, 01:02:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
I tried to attack your position from outer space from my bomb bay but they won't drop. Damn you Newton's laws.
And there's no sound in outer space, and ships don't move like WWII-era planes. Star Wars has never worried about obeying the laws of physics - and that's before you get to hyperspace and laser-swords (and by the way, that was one more reason TLJ was good - Luke called them "laser swords").
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2021, 01:16:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
Absolutely agree. I'd go further - I think it's great :ph34r:
I typed great, but changed it to good.
Obviously it loses something in comparison to Star Wars and ESB, plus how can something you come to as an adult compare to something you fondly remember as a kid?
While I think many of the complaints against TLJ to be utterly without merit (that it was unrealistic, that it was too SJW/"woke", they they didn't like how Luke's character was portrayed, amongst others), there were some annoying plot-holes in it. Not to mention that as much as I loved the ending about how it's not about bloodlines and the Force can reside in anyone, the fact they went back on all of it in Rise of Skywalker cheapens it.
the sequels made the prequels seem better, at least
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 01:29:34 PM
While I think many of the complaints against TLJ to be utterly without merit (that it was unrealistic, that it was too SJW/"woke", they they didn't like how Luke's character was portrayed, amongst others), there were some annoying plot-holes in it. Not to mention that as much as I loved the ending about how it's not about bloodlines and the Force can reside in anyone, the fact they went back on all of it in Rise of Skywalker cheapens it.
That they went back on all of it - and went back to Palpatine - made me very angry. Because I really loved the whole Rey from nowhere thing and the final scene clicked in of the casino that these had become myths that was inspiring a new revolt, new generation etc. I really liked all of that and I felt it was a film with multiple protagonists, while the next one basically just dumped Poe and Finn (and Rose), which I think was a real shame because that was a strength.
I wanted to see the sequel to that film because I think it was going somewhere new and interesting. But no <_< :(
I think if Rey had ended up being a Skywalker, that would be boring but fine. Tie it all back in to the overall story of the Skywalkers.
I think if Rey had ended up being "nobody" that would be great. Being a Jedi is not about your lineage, it is about what is inside you!
Rey ending up being Palpatines kid combines the worst aspects of the first while getting none of the second.
That ending tainted everything that came before it. And it wasn't that good to begin with, given how good it could have been.
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 01:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 06, 2021, 01:02:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 06, 2021, 12:45:28 PM
The Last Jedi is a good movie. Come fight me.
I tried to attack your position from outer space from my bomb bay but they won't drop. Damn you Newton's laws.
And there's no sound in outer space, and ships don't move like WWII-era planes.
The Falcon does, because it's a modified B-29.
TLJ had lots of good ideas but the execution was horribly flawed. Especially the main plot line from beginning to end of the Resistance attack and the slow motion chase through space, full of silliness from scene 1 to the very end.
And yes SW is full of handwavey science fails but TLJ was unique in hinging key plot moments on logical inanities. It's not just the WWII style bomb dropping in space, it's the fact that the critical moment of the entire opening scene revolves around opening the bomb bay doors. It's the heroic sacrifice of Holdo because a civilization capable of FtL travel and planet killing weapons can't rig a simple remote control to activate a hyperdrive on another ship. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, repeatedly hitting the audience in the face with an iron anvil of disbelief is another.
Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2021, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: Maladict on December 06, 2021, 12:31:03 PM
Having lots of books in your home, read or unread, is a good thing.
People who sleep in public libraries are the worst.
Someone here recommended Uniforms and Flags of the Imperial Austrian Army 1683-1720. :sleep:
:lmfao:
I was okay with it. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan so that might have made a difference. I didn't care for the Rise of Skywalker one though. Last quarter of the movie was filmed in the dark or something and I couldn't tell what was going on.
Quote from: Maladict on December 06, 2021, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2021, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: Maladict on December 06, 2021, 12:31:03 PM
Having lots of books in your home, read or unread, is a good thing.
People who sleep in public libraries are the worst.
Someone here recommended Uniforms and Flags of the Imperial Austrian Army 1683-1720. :sleep:
Well you're a poopypants.
Marvin Gaye's album "What's Going On" is overrated. All the songs, except "Inner City Blues" are variations on the title track. It's a good album, and a fine last hurrah for The Funk Brothers before Motown's move to LA, but it is not the greatest album ever made (as Rolling Stone rated it on their latest version of Greatest Albums of all time) or in the top ten (as they had it on previous lists.)
Does it have to be a hill? Most of the hills in my area have crappy names.
"Here lies Raz, buried where he fell on Hobo Hill."
I guess that is better than "Hog Alley"
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2021, 05:03:47 PM
Does it have to be a hill? Most of the hills in my area have crappy names.
"Here lies Raz, buried where he fell on Hobo Hill."
I guess that is better than "Hog Alley"
Better than the Netherlands, which only has one hill worth dying on.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2021, 04:56:31 PM
Marvin Gaye's album "What's Going On" is overrated. All the songs, except "Inner City Blues" are variations on the title track. It's a good album, and a fine last hurrah for The Funk Brothers before Motown's move to LA, but it is not the greatest album ever made (as Rolling Stone rated it on their latest version of Greatest Albums of all time) or in the top ten (as they had it on previous lists.)
Christ :o :blink:
Quote from: mongers on December 08, 2021, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2021, 05:03:47 PM
Does it have to be a hill? Most of the hills in my area have crappy names.
"Here lies Raz, buried where he fell on Hobo Hill."
I guess that is better than "Hog Alley"
Better than the Netherlands, which only has one hill worth dying on.
In my case "buried where he fell" sounds more noble than the reality: "Dammit, If Raz falls in another hole he's too fat to get out of we are not digging him out. We are just going to toss dirt on him. Godamnit, there he goes again! Get a shovel"
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2021, 05:03:47 PM
Does it have to be a hill? Most of the hills in my area have crappy names.
"Here lies Raz, buried where he fell on Hobo Hill."
I guess that is better than "Hog Alley"
If you're mortally wounded on a hill but die in the hospital, or die in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, does that still count as dying on a hill?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2021, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2021, 04:56:31 PM
Marvin Gaye's album "What's Going On" is overrated. All the songs, except "Inner City Blues" are variations on the title track. It's a good album, and a fine last hurrah for The Funk Brothers before Motown's move to LA, but it is not the greatest album ever made (as Rolling Stone rated it on their latest version of Greatest Albums of all time) or in the top ten (as they had it on previous lists.)
Christ :o :blink:
It's Rolling Stone, what do you expect?
Quote from: mongers on December 08, 2021, 05:36:56 PM
Better than the Netherlands, which only has one hill worth dying on.
I do intend to be buried on one, although technically it's a moraine rather than a hill.
Although the thought of a lowland cemetery, to be submerged by the sea, is not entirely unappealing either. Plus, more land for the living.
Cars.
Seriously fuck cars.
They destroyed society and are destroying the planet.
Well, it was no Toy Story, but not planet-killer bad... :P
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2021, 04:27:16 AM
Cars.
Seriously fuck cars.
They destroyed society and are destroying the planet.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/ee84ed19d5f1b1cbdecd05fde38f99aa/tumblr_mgztqjkqsm1qh2o7zo1_r1_500.gifv)
Quote from: Maladict on December 09, 2021, 04:25:27 AM
Quote from: mongers on December 08, 2021, 05:36:56 PM
Better than the Netherlands, which only has one hill worth dying on.
I do intend to be buried on one, although technically it's a moraine rather than a hill.
Although the thought of a lowland cemetery, to be submerged by the sea, is not entirely unappealing either. Plus, more land for the living.
:)
Mal, I was trying to refer 'dying' on the race up that 983ft or so hill in the far south, isn't it called Limburg or similar??
Don't know the name of the race up it either.
Quote from: mongers on December 09, 2021, 08:32:11 AM
Mal, I was trying to refer 'dying' on the race up that 983ft or so hill in the far south, isn't it called Limburg or similar??
Don't know the name of the race up it either.
The famous one is where the Amstel Gold Race ends, on top of the Cauberg (450 ft). But it's only 230 ft of altitude gain.
There are tougher hills, none of them worth dying on though.
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2021, 08:17:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2021, 04:27:16 AM
Cars.
Seriously fuck cars.
They destroyed society and are destroying the planet.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/ee84ed19d5f1b1cbdecd05fde38f99aa/tumblr_mgztqjkqsm1qh2o7zo1_r1_500.gifv)
Just because you don't think of the big picture and only consider yourself in the car centric world :p
I agree. Bring back the horse and cart!
Quote from: HVC on December 09, 2021, 05:33:59 PM
I agree. Bring back the horse and cart!
(https://f.thumbs.redditmedia.com/nTCirb7EP-bB25xG.jpg)
Easier to get around the city or bring groceries home in a horse and buggy :P
Quote from: HVC on December 09, 2021, 05:49:57 PM
Easier to get around the city or bring groceries home in a horse and buggy :P
Easier to live in a city when the focus was on living on them - not cars. An extreme example, but 50s Cincinnati v now with City Hall as a reference. As I say this was a choice shaped by policy decisions - at least in Europe we normally have the excuse of carpet bombing:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEGNHn7XsAA0QE1?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEGNKp2X0Ac8aYV?format=jpg&name=small)
I live downtown so get by without driving just fine. But I recognize not everyone can. Especially outside of major cities or super dense European countries. Should public transportation be taken more seriously? Sure. But are the destroying society? Come on. For someone who hates london tyr has a very big city attitude lol.
Quote from: HVC on December 09, 2021, 05:58:35 PM
I live downtown so get by without driving just fine. But I recognize not everyone can. Especially outside of major cities or super dense European countries. Should public transportation be taken more seriously? Sure. But are the destroying society? Come on. For someone who hates london tyr has a very big city attitude lol.
You've got things backwards there.
That so many are obliged to own a car just to live their lives is the fundamental problem to be tackled, not some uncomfortable "but what about..." side issue that I didn't think about.
I grew up in the sort of place where you have no choice but to drive. It sucks. I really do believe it's a key factor in the downfall of community cohesion and people fundamentally giving a shit. Not to mention a massive driver of inequality.
And as shielbhs post shows this is a very modern and very intentional development. Not the natural state of things.
And disagree it's a big city attitude. I've seen plenty of smaller towns and cities that manage to avoid being car centric.
I love driving. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2021, 05:53:43 PM
...at least in Europe we normally have the excuse of carpet bombing:
:lol:
In the 70s a Vancouver city council voted in favour of building a freeway through the city, much like what happened in the US city you posted. Part of the work started, but then an incoming council reversed the decision and to this day there is no freeway running through the city core, making it much more livable. The on ramps to what was to have been the freeway have been a constant source of debate - but finally those have been repurposed and largely removed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2021, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2021, 05:53:43 PM
...at least in Europe we normally have the excuse of carpet bombing:
:lol:
In the 70s a Vancouver city council voted in favour of building a freeway through the city, much like what happened in the US city you posted. Part of the work started, but then an incoming council reversed the decision and to this day there is no freeway running through the city core, making it much more livable. The on ramps to what was to have been the freeway have been a constant source of debate - but finally those have been repurposed and largely removed.
Similar story in Newcastle only we got further ahead with our "the future is in cars" plans before the council realised induced demand would kill them.
As a result today we have a weird highway that runs for less than a mile before dumping all its cars on a busy road just before a major bridge, a small stretch of motorway that cuts the east of the city centre off and you can only go 50mph...another stretch of motorway with limited speed limits around a shopping street, dumping its traffic on either side onto two very dangerous roundabouts, and all sorts of other terrible half arsed concoctions.
For many years on the main shopping street it was notable that one of the main banks was on the second floor and you had to use an escalator to access it-the original plan was for the entire city centre to be on raised walk ways with cars dominating the ground level. They're starting to be demolished this past decade or two but there's a lot of remnants of this project to be seen.
One "nice" thing in Newcastle that runs contrary to the stereotypical american example is it was largely up market posh neighbourhoods that got fucked over by this
Edit - the gateshead highway, what I find the worst part of it...
https://www.roads.org.uk/photo/gateshead-highway
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2021, 06:22:43 PM
:lol:
In the 70s a Vancouver city council voted in favour of building a freeway through the city, much like what happened in the US city you posted. Part of the work started, but then an incoming council reversed the decision and to this day there is no freeway running through the city core, making it much more livable. The on ramps to what was to have been the freeway have been a constant source of debate - but finally those have been repurposed and largely removed.
It almost happened in London in the 60s and 70s too huge elevated ring road in the middle of the city as part of four concentric ring motorways:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEL7Bq1WYAc8jWY?format=jpg&name=medium)
Only parts of it were built in the end and it was cancelled due to strong local opposition (this is like NIMBYs as good guys before their downfall in the villain origin story). It's the moment that London diverged from many American cities, I think there's similar in New York with Moses's plans eventually running into the ground.
Most super-dense European cities had plans like this in the 60s and 70s at exactly the same time they were being built in the US and generally they were avoided. But that's just another reason it was a political choice - at the same moment - rather than something in the water.
Euro-centric elitism :rolleyes:
You "live your life via train and bus" guys conveniently ignore a lot of factors which (at least yet) have not entered your life. Just a couple of these:
- Not everyone lives, or wants to live in an urban sprawl
- If you don't live in an urban sprawl you can't just go around the corner to get what you need
- If you don't live in an urban sprawl you may need things which can't just be put in a bag in your hand and walk around with
- People don't stay young and healthy forever. Skipping an hour of walking and instead just rolling up next to where you need to be may seem like irresponsible planet-destroying now, but I guarantee you it will look mighty tempting sooner than you think
etc.
Quote from: Tamas on December 10, 2021, 05:54:34 AMYou "live your life via train and bus" guys conveniently ignore a lot of factors which (at least yet) have not entered your life. Just a couple of these:
- Not everyone lives, or wants to live in an urban sprawl
- If you don't live in an urban sprawl you can't just go around the corner to get what you need
- If you don't live in an urban sprawl you may need things which can't just be put in a bag in your hand and walk around with
- People don't stay young and healthy forever. Skipping an hour of walking and instead just rolling up next to where you need to be may seem like irresponsible planet-destroying now, but I guarantee you it will look mighty tempting sooner than you think
etc.
My point isn't necessarily live via train and bus - but that it should be possible for everyone to live their life via train and bus. If that's the case my suspicion is most people will do it.
Urban sprawl happened because of cars and decisions to move to a car-centric system - look at the density in that photo v Google earth. The sprawl is because of the need for lots of space for cars, whether through big highway or parking space. Even in the UK there is not a single local authority in England where housing takes up more land area spaces for cars (roads - excluding bike lanes and bus lanes - plus parking areas). So much space and sprawl is necessitated by a preference for cars.
I'd also add that that photo is Cincinnati - it's not a huge city. But I'd argue (I believe the stats back this up) that the cities that managed to avoid the car-ification in the 50s-70s are now doing far better economically - that might go back, but I'm not sure it will. The other point is that, of course, this has a huge issue in terms of property values/assets and that disproportionately affected Black Americans. So I think the set of decisions that get you to the modern picture of Cincinnati is environmentally bad but also economically and socially bad. I can't think of an area where you could say, in the long run, this policy worked especially because as the infrastructure the number of cars tends to grow - because that's the favoured method of transport - until you have those initial highways snarled up as well.
My point isn't that this some type of mortal sin by car users, but rather that it isn't just the operation of some natural market choice and that it doesn't reflect some uniquely North American problems of scale. Every city in America in 1950 was like New York or San Francisco or the model "European" city. It was decisions after that that transformed them (I also fully buy into the General Motors streetcars conspiracy theory and if nothing else it was probably a really bad thing in terms of developing electric vehicles) and the choices are shaped by what's available - so if you tear up every streetcar in the country, barely fund buses, stop building metros and replace entire blocks of downtown cities with highways people will "naturally" choose cars.
Also just to point out on walking an hour - my view is that in the UK the goal of government in planning policy should be that everyone is within 30 minutes to 1 hour by walking, cycling or regular public transport to the essentials (shops, pubs, GP and a train station etc) and if you have that chances are most jobs will also be within that "commuteable" time.
Thank hod you aren't in charge. Oh yes I love an hour walking in the rain to work.
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2021, 07:43:54 AM
Thank hod you aren't in charge. Oh yes I love an hour walking in the rain to work.
Fair and it should be "and" regular public transport. No-one should feel like they need a car. We should be working to make them redundant, luxurious frivolities like open fires in homes.
But most people live within an hour's journey by whatever method to work - that seems to me to be the outer limit of a dailiy commute for most people (and that may shift as for many, middle class, workers it becomes less than a daily commute). My point is just we should be working for people to have access within that time frame to essentials without having to use a car. Even if you love cars I don't really understand how that can be an objectionable goal :mellow:
QuoteAlso just to point out on walking an hour - my view is that in the UK the goal of government in planning policy should be that everyone is within 30 minutes to 1 hour by walking, cycling or regular public transport to the essentials (shops, pubs, GP and a train station etc) and if you have that chances are most jobs will also be within that "commuteable" time.
The 15 minute city is what I normally hear mentioned. Is this 30 minute thing stretched out to the country?
And yeah, agreed with your post. Its weird that Tamas is using urban sprawl, which he recognises as bad, as an argument FOR car-based urban design. My time living in Japan really showed as bad as the UK is it could be far worse on this front...
Everyone should watch the youtube channel not just bikes, he has a very nice way of putting all this as a suburban Canadian (from 'Fake London' as he puts it ) who moved to Holland.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2021, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2021, 05:53:43 PM
...at least in Europe we normally have the excuse of carpet bombing:
:lol:
In the 70s a Vancouver city council voted in favour of building a freeway through the city, much like what happened in the US city you posted. Part of the work started, but then an incoming council reversed the decision and to this day there is no freeway running through the city core, making it much more livable. The on ramps to what was to have been the freeway have been a constant source of debate - but finally those have been repurposed and largely removed.
Same in my hometown, an entrance ramp to the region's main highway was built in the very center of the city in the late 70s, but after it was built and before it was inaugurated the project was modified to avoid it and in 1986 the massive elevated ramp was demolished. It was never used.
(https://amovida.gal/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/scalextric.jpg)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 09, 2021, 06:33:08 PM
It almost happened in London in the 60s and 70s too huge elevated ring road in the middle of the city as part of four concentric ring motorways:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEL7Bq1WYAc8jWY?format=jpg&name=medium)
Only parts of it were built in the end and it was cancelled due to strong local opposition (this is like NIMBYs as good guys before their downfall in the villain origin story). It's the moment that London diverged from many American cities, I think there's similar in New York with Moses's plans eventually running into the ground.
Mandatory Jay Foreman plug!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2021, 07:43:54 AM
Thank hod you aren't in charge. Oh yes I love an hour walking in the rain to work.
Fair and it should be "and" regular public transport. No-one should feel like they need a car. We should be working to make them redundant, luxurious frivolities like open fires in homes.
But most people live within an hour's journey by whatever method to work - that seems to me to be the outer limit of a dailiy commute for most people (and that may shift as for many, middle class, workers it becomes less than a daily commute). My point is just we should be working for people to have access within that time frame to essentials without having to use a car. Even if you love cars I don't really understand how that can be an objectionable goal :mellow:
Resources could be better use than managing commutes. :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2021, 07:43:54 AM
Thank hod you aren't in charge. Oh yes I love an hour walking in the rain to work.
Fair and it should be "and" regular public transport. No-one should feel like they need a car. We should be working to make them redundant, luxurious frivolities like open fires in homes.
But most people live within an hour's journey by whatever method to work - that seems to me to be the outer limit of a dailiy commute for most people (and that may shift as for many, middle class, workers it becomes less than a daily commute). My point is just we should be working for people to have access within that time frame to essentials without having to use a car. Even if you love cars I don't really understand how that can be an objectionable goal :mellow:
So what about the mundane like doing groceries for a bigger family, obtaining anything that doesn't fit on your back or your hands on a bus?
What about the not so mundane non-essentials? Let's say you need outpatient treatments in a hospital? When my wife needed that for a while in this country, it would have been almost two hours of walking and hopping around buses because they come every 30 minutes. Double the number of buses and that's still one hour of standing and walking for somebody who needs medical attention (would not have been a concern in my wife's case luckily but what about others?). It was 40 minutes drive door to door both ways.
Are those people supposed to hire a taxi for each trip or keep a horse and carriage?
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2021, 08:09:32 AM
Resources could be better use than managing commutes. :mellow:
Cars are responsible for about 20% of global emissions, it's not really shrinking yet and I think it's good public policy to make sure people have other options so no-one is in a position where they need a car. I'd also promote more densification which I think is better in terms of the carbon impact of housing but also economic output - and would allow more young people to buy, build up their own assets for their lifetime without just building on "green" land.
The alternative, it seems to me, given that we have a growing population is to lean more into car-centric sprawling development. We will be building something and allocating resources in some way - we already in terms of maintenance, space, new road-building etc. My view is that just the focus should be on trying to transition from the failed car-centric model of 70 years ago.
QuoteSo what about the mundane like doing groceries for a bigger family, obtaining anything that doesn't fit on your back or your hands on a bus?
What about the not so mundane non-essentials? Let's say you need outpatient treatments in a hospital? When my wife needed that for a while in this country, it would have been almost two hours of walking and hopping around buses because they come every 30 minutes. Double the number of buses and that's still one hour of standing and walking for somebody who needs medical attention (would not have been a concern in my wife's case luckily but what about others?). It was 40 minutes drive door to door both ways.
Are those people supposed to hire a taxi for each trip or keep a horse and carriage?
So in part that's why I said more regular public transport too - it's a huge issue outside of London and a few other cities. And of course that is reality for many people who can't afford cars, can't drive or haven't re-certified their licence - so particularly the elderly. At the moment our entire public transport network (outside of London etc) is designed around school children getting to class and the elderly being able to get to the local town etc. My point is simply that it should be for everyone and we should be trying to make it a viable, practical and useful alternative for everyone.
In terms of the big shop - again we had cities and towns without cars before the days of the big shop (and they relied far more on deliveries which is interesting because that may be where we're going back to). I think we should be trying to encourage deliveries, from electric vehicles. But there is absolutely stuff where people may in some way need a car my preference would be a focus on (personally I'd like this to be owned by local authorities) networks of rideshare vehicles and charging points - so that is another part of general public transport infrastructure.
It's all good and fun for inhabitants of densely populated areas like England, the Netherlands and Belgium to talk big about everyone not needing a car.
For me, if there was a gigantic hugely expensive buildup of public transport, I would have to do a 20-30 min bus ride into the nearest town, then 30-40 min train to the city where I work and then 15 min bus to my work place with waiting time added to that. And that's without talking about how I'd solve daycare for the kids.
And that is in a magical future where we have ten times as many buses as now, nowadays I have to walk 4 km to even get to a bus stop.
I have exactly 45 min door to door now with my own car. Daycare is easily solved on the way.
I do agree that cities should be built in a way that makes it easy to live there without car. Self driving rentable cars and Amazon style logistics will probably solve all of the weekly shopping stuff in a decade or so and it would be opportune for city planners to plan for this already now. It will probably be very advantageous for old style dense citys when it comes to attracting highly educated populations in the future. Cincinnati might as well pave over the city center and start again.
I live in a mid sized city (~700k) and my employer provides a free bus service. Even so, I would lose 30% of the time I have left ( after work and sleep) every weekday, using it instead of my car.
No thanks.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/dec/11/south-western-left-my-16-year-old-son-stranded-at-a-locked-unstaffed-station
These examples are evidence in favour of what we are saying. Not points against.
Trains in the UK are an awful ran for profit mess ? Yes. This is a prime motivator in my beliefs having experienced better in a variety of other countries.
Where you live and work now you would lose out taking the bus? Exactly. You shouldnt. You should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
It is now clear: We must kill Tyr on a hill.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2021, 03:09:22 PM
It is now clear: We must kill Tyr on a hill.
On a hill overlooking the M25?
Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2021, 03:13:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2021, 03:09:22 PM
It is now clear: We must kill Tyr on a hill.
On a hill overlooking the M25?
I'm thinking we kill him on a hill sacred to Tiw, the English equivalent of the Norse god Tyr.
Tyr's the brexiter of cars. He want the outcome he wants regardless of the realities :P
Quote from: HVC on December 11, 2021, 04:34:57 PM
Tyr's the brexiter of cars. He want the outcome he wants regardless of the realities :P
:unsure:
Changing the reality is the entire point?
The Brexiters only want to turn the clock back 70 years instead of 100+.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 11, 2021, 05:51:00 PM
The Brexiters only want to turn the clock back 70 years instead of 100+.
I want to take it forward 20 :)
This afternoon I did 150 miles on public transport, that's tw0 long bus trips and a 90 mile train ride, plus 4 miles by car (my brother/sister in law, often insisting on picking me for the last 4-5 miles rather than let me walk in the dark) so not ideal but certainly doable; talking the talk and walking the walk? :unsure:
Also I did the same journey the other way yesterday afternoon.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2021, 11:18:49 AM
You should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
I have all that. It's a Subaru.
It's all good and fun to believe in magical fairytale solutions, but it does make you seem a bit silly.
Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2021, 02:52:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2021, 11:18:49 AM
You should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
I have all that. It's a Subaru.
It's all good and fun to believe in magical fairytale solutions, but it does make you seem a bit silly.
In other words you don't have that at all since you need a car to get by.
Do you really think you're paying even a fraction of what having that car really costs? - do your taxes cover all the road maintaince needed?
What would happen if you were blind?
There's no magical fairytale about this. Many cities around the world manage to do it. There's solid research behind it and lots of solid actions that can be taken ranging from the small and simple through the more grandiose and expensive.
It's not even a question of how I wish thing should be. It's increasingly how things have to be. Climate change is beginning to really bite and the American style city ponzi scheme is collapsing.
I don't even have a driver's license (even in LA I moved by using public transport :lol:) and I feel fine without a car, but my lifestyle (I work from home 90% of the time, and live in the metro area of a large European capital) is fairly accommodating.
I agree with Sheilbh that we should move towards making cars less essential and the rest will follow.
Quote from: celedhring on December 12, 2021, 05:36:26 AM
I don't even have a driver's license (even in LA I moved by using public transport :lol:) and I feel fine without a car, but my lifestyle (I work from home 90% of the time, and live in the metro area of a large European capital) is fairly accommodating.
I agree with Sheilbh that we should move towards making cars less essential and the rest will follow.
It really depends on what kind of job you (and your partner) do.
When I was thinking about moving to Barcelona with my then gf, I worked out that even living in St Joan Despi I was probably going to spend at least a couple hours on a car every day on my rush hour commute to and from Martorell/Abrera.
My brother works IT in Berlin. His longest commute (pre-covid) was 30 minutes roundtrip on a bike.
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2021, 04:39:27 AM
Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2021, 02:52:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2021, 11:18:49 AM
You should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
I have all that. It's a Subaru.
It's all good and fun to believe in magical fairytale solutions, but it does make you seem a bit silly.
In other words you don't have that at all since you need a car to get by.
Do you really think you're paying even a fraction of what having that car really costs? - do your taxes cover all the road maintaince needed?
What would happen if you were blind?
There's no magical fairytale about this. Many cities around the world manage to do it. There's solid research behind it and lots of solid actions that can be taken ranging from the small and simple through the more grandiose and expensive.
It's not even a question of how I wish thing should be. It's increasingly how things have to be. Climate change is beginning to really bite and the American style city ponzi scheme is collapsing.
We're fully in agreement when it comes to cities and densely populated areas, but there needs to be a battery of solutions to be able to handle everything from Shanghai to Sahara. In my location I need independent transport and good public transport around here would be a waste of resources. In other locations other solutions will be needed.
The one size fits all solutions where everyone should have a subway around the corner is ridiculous and a magical fairy tale exposing the proponents ignorance.
Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2021, 08:38:37 AM
We're fully in agreement when it comes to cities and densely populated areas, but there needs to be a battery of solutions to be able to handle everything from Shanghai to Sahara. In my location I need independent transport and good public transport around here would be a waste of resources. In other locations other solutions will be needed.
The one size fits all solutions where everyone should have a subway around the corner is ridiculous and a magical fairy tale exposing the proponents ignorance.
And who thinks there's a one size fits all lets build metro stations even in the Highlands solution?
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2021, 09:51:02 AM
And who thinks there's a one size fits all lets build metro stations even in the Highlands solution?
QuoteYou should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
Implies that you do since you don't equate that with a car in rural locations.
Quote from: Threviel on December 13, 2021, 04:37:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2021, 09:51:02 AM
And who thinks there's a one size fits all lets build metro stations even in the Highlands solution?
QuoteYou should be able to afford to live in an accessible place and have access to efficient transport to get you anywhere sensible in the area for a reasonable time and cost.
Implies that you do since you don't equate that with a car in rural locations.
1: I have no idea where you were live. That you were arguing against this suggested a city area. It goes without saying if your house is the only one for miles around then your particular house will never be viable without a car. Which is a difficult challenge to tackle.
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.
So you should force them to live elsewhere?
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 05:04:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2021, 07:34:17 AM
So you should force them to live elsewhere?
No, so you should in good public transport and public services.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2021, 07:34:17 AM
So you should force them to live elsewhere?
No, so you should in good public transport and public services.
At what cost?
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.
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 10:31:57 AM
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. :P 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.
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 10:31:57 AM
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.
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. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2021, 11:41:24 AM
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. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 11:38:05 AMOex, 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.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2021, 11:41:24 AM
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. :hmm:
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:
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/220329/original/file-20180524-51091-63ponz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip)
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 11:58:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 11:38:05 AMOex, 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.
I personally didn't have a car until I was 26, and I was the first driver in my family. Is it possible to live without a car? It definitely was in all the places I lived in, hence why we didn't have a car. It is, however, very limiting, and dense living isn't all it's cracked up to be. Your quality of life is definitely lower without personal transportation even in a place with very functional public transportation. I don't think it has anything to do with brainwashing, it's just a reality.
I did not have a car for most of my adult life, only briefly when I lived in the US (not possible with public transport to get from where I lived to where I worked) and once briefly in Germany. In other places and countries I lived, I did not need a car and relied on public transport. Even once in the US, when I lived near Manhattan.
Then I was promoted and got a company car. Was nice, but not really necessary. A toy of sorts.
The Covid came and I did not like public transport anymore, even drove to other countries for vacation where I would have used air travel in the past. Driving to Italy is actually quite nice.
Then I got a child and feel like a car is an utter necessity to drive to daycare, buy groceries or travel to family and friends, which I would earlier have done by train or so.
So I think it is highly situational whether you "need" a car or not.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 12:51:38 PM
The Covid came and I did not like public transport anymore, even drove to other countries for vacation where I would have used air travel in the past. Driving to Italy is actually quite nice.
Then I got a child and feel like a car is an utter necessity to drive to daycare, buy groceries or travel to family and friends, which I would earlier have done by train or so.
So I think it is highly situational whether you "need" a car or not.
One of the many costs of Covid-19 has been the terrible toll it has done on public transit. I know Edmonton's ridership is way, way down. I mentioned it took the train one day a couple weeks ago - the number of people on the train were well down from the pre-pandemic levels. Whether this is due to increased working from hom, or more people taking private vehicles, I can't say.
This is an aside but me and Mrs B have taken four trips to Europe. On each trip we rented a car and drove around. On each trip various Euros expressed shock and surprise that we'd do so. But each time I found it was a very nice way to see the countries we visited. If we went to an urban area we'd promptly just park the car for the duration and take public transit around, but it's a great way to travel between cities.
Absolutely - I give examples of why I need a car. I'm not saying we need to run around and force people at gunpoint to buy cars whether they want to or not. But in some (many?) situations private ownership of cars is needed.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 11:06:45 AM
It's the great triumph of the car industry to have made lobbyists out of its customers.
I think that suggests too much agency of the car companies. Customers love cars because they fulfill some deep seated human desires, namely having personal space, being very convenient,very often still being the fastest or most versatile mode of transport, etc.
That's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
My family (as in, my grandparents and father at least), switched from horse, ox, and the carriages/tools drawn by them straight to cars and combustion/electricity operated agricultural machinery. There was no phase of bringing produce in from their fields to home via bus.
There was no middle class aspiration in play, but rather the desire to greatly improve the efficiency of their existing way of life. To think it's some sort of aspirational choice not to organise your life around public transport seems to me a view point stuck smack in the middle of the city centre like in case of Sheilbh and Tyr.
In my country, there was no campaign by Lada or Zaporozhets to turn drivers into lobbyists either. They had 10 year wait lists to fulfill as it is, and the state would've probably preferred to direct more steel to missiles rather than personal automobiles. Strangely enough, people still wanted to own cars. :hmm:
Apparently I was the first to decline a company car, they're still scratching their heads over it and periodically ask if I've reconsidered. :lol:
I'll take the longer bike-train-bike option, even with the goddamn freezing exposed platforms. I should not have considered that town as a place to work for that reason alone, lesson learned.
Yeah of course there are many cases where a car are orders of magnitude more convenient than public transit (or biking or walking), especially, of course, where public transit is shitty or underdeveloped.
Given that, it seems pretty logical to me to put resources into making public transit and other car alternatives more convenient. The smaller the delta, the more people will use non-car transit and the better for the environment.
Sure, some folks are never going to be in a situation where they'll give up their car - maybe because it doesn't make sense to develop sufficient alternative (f.x. because they live in a low density area and need to get around a lot) or because they just love cars and loathe the alternatives. That's fine, IMO. But it still makes sense to make car alternatives as accessible and convenient as possible. What any given individual does doesn't really matter - Tamas can drive to the big box store or whatever - but if we can shift and additional 10% or 25% or whatever % of trips from cars to car alternatives that's a significant improvement and one we should try to achieve.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 12:32:43 PM-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.
I never said they could be solely met by public transportation. Obviously, any transition away from what has been a core feature of living in the industrialized world is going to be difficult, and require multiple steps, and will never get entirely rid of motor transportation. But I do think this sort of argument by caricature ("you want to get rid of all the cars!") would never be brought up so quickly, and so vehemently, if it didn't touch something more than simply "getting from point A to point B".
And while I don't think a single comprehensive plan developped by one guy at Languish is feasible, it doesn't mean there aren't any elsewhere. I am not an urbanist, but I do know it would require quite a bit of urban redesign, more flexible public transportation (smaller buses, public taxis, urban trams, regional trams) a change in zoning laws to allow proximity commerce. Incentives to have daycares in close proximity to workplaces (or even within workplaces). Shopping malls have developped alongside suburbs, but there is nothing preventing their existence in cities (Toronto's Eaton Center, Montreal's subterranean city, or Le Caroussel du Louvre, for instance). Even more suburban ones often have bus transportation in the US, because that's how many of the shop employees get to their place of work...
Some changes would certainly require a change of disposition: a willingness to defer gratification in favor of delivery, for instance. It's nice to go to IKEA, but a small truck delivering goods to multiple houses is still going to be more ecologically efficient than a dozen individual families coming to IKEA in a dozen cars. But then you meet the other side of the coin: people will still desire their suburban homes, and many would rather have a distant supercenter, than a small proximity greengrocer.
And *because* of the car, acceptable distances have become much further. Having a hockey tournament an hour away may not have happened before; now, it's seen as ordinary, perhaps even necessary. But even then, my vague impression, as I said, is that even carpooling has become foreign to our practices. Obviously, going to Legal with a lot of hockey stuff was going to be difficult. Did you not know any other families going to Legal?
Quote from: Maladict on December 13, 2021, 01:11:06 PM
Apparently I was the first to decline a company car, they're still scratching their heads over it and periodically ask if I've reconsidered. :lol:
I'll take the longer bike-train-bike option, even with the goddamn freezing exposed platforms. I should not have considered that town as a place to work for that reason alone, lesson learned.
I get a virtually free underground parking spot as a perk of my job (although it does count as a taxable benefit so I have to pay tax on it).
When I voluntarily gave up that spot (so I didn't have to pay the tax) they similarly were scratching their heads about it - are you SURE you want to give it up?
But now I'm stuck, after a few months of Covid when it obviously wasn't going away I asked for a new parking spot, and received one. But it's the sweetest spot imaginable, right by the parkade door. If I give it up I'll never in my career get such a good parking spot again. :hmm:
A few recentish developments have made life without car ownership more convenient in a lot of places, and addresses a number of the use-cases advanced in favour of car ownership
- The rise of car sharing companies / short term rental companies. If you can - reliably and cheaply - get access to a car when you need it, then the need for owning your own vehicle decreases.
- The rise of ride-shares like Uber and Lyft can similarly takes care of a number of use-cases for car ownership.
- The recent massive increase in delivery services for all kinds of shopping.
If neighbourhoods and residential areas are designed such that there are a number of amenities easily and safely accessible by bike / walk / local public transit, where most of bulky/inconvenient purchases can be delivered in a reasonable timeframe, and where car-shares and ride-shares are readily available for situations where using a car is significantly more convenient - that seems like a pretty good strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from cars.
That scenario is obviously not one that's going to happen with a snap of the fingers, nor is it going to roll out uniformly, and neither is it going to be equally applicable in every single part of the world. But it seems worthwhile to pursue to me.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 12:37:00 PM
I personally didn't have a car until I was 26, and I was the first driver in my family. Is it possible to live without a car? It definitely was in all the places I lived in, hence why we didn't have a car. It is, however, very limiting, and dense living isn't all it's cracked up to be. Your quality of life is definitely lower without personal transportation even in a place with very functional public transportation. I don't think it has anything to do with brainwashing, it's just a reality.
Yeah, but that's the point a lot of people aren't getting.
This is the case purely because cities are designed for this to be the case. Maximise accessibility for drivers at the expense of non drivers. With the end result that everyone is more unhappy.
People aren't saying take away cars with things as they are and it'll magically be OK.
It's the fundamental situation where you do need a car to live life that has to be challenged. Not having a car shouldn't be massively damaging to your quality of life.
Quote from: Tamas on December 13, 2021, 09:43:23 AM
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.
I've heard this one from the pro car lobbyists before. Praga u did one of their rants about the war on cars (I watched a sensible person's breakdown of this).
It strikes me as particularly odd as the way I see things is completely the opposite. I love having the ability to do things and go places under my own power. Walking and cycling give this. Good reliable public transport gives this. Cars... Do not. They're a shackle which severely limit what you can do, for how long, and the ease and cost. And that's even providing you have a car. When you're young and most wanting this freedom you very often don't.
On pleasantness too I find a train journey when I can relax and do what I want infinitely more pleasurable than the stress of playing chauffeur, having to be hyper vigilant, not knowing when you will be able to stop driving (finding parking can be a nightmare), etc...
As to electric cars... It just isn't physically possible to keep our car based society as it is but swapping out petrol cars for electric cars. There aren't enough resources available on earth to economically build that many electric cars.
Agreed that rental cars is an industry that really needs a massive shakeup. It just makes so much more sense to get a car on demand than to have one sitting around waiting 99% of the time.
QuoteThere was no middle class aspiration in play, but rather the desire to greatly improve the efficiency of their existing way of life. To think it's some sort of aspirational choice not to organise your life around public transport seems to me a view point stuck smack in the middle of the city centre like in case of Sheilbh and Tyr.
I don't live in a city centre nor do I come from one. A fact, coming from the car-centred wastes, which heavily built my views of cars as the devil.
I don't blame people in the 50s and 60s for seeing cars as aspirational. They were.
However times change and governments should know better and seek to support those who are moving away from this.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
I think that suggests too much agency of the car companies. Customers love cars because they fulfill some deep seated human desires, namely having personal space, being very convenient,very often still being the fastest or most versatile mode of transport, etc.
That's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
I guess it depends on what you consider "nefarious", but the car industry has absolutely taken an active hand in shaping the infrastructure, urban planning, and so in in North America (at the very least) to drive up dependence on cars.
National City Lines (a consortium operated by General Motors, Mac Trucks, Firestone Tyres, Standard Oil of California, and Phillips Oil) purchased 45 electric street car companies in US cities with the express motive to shut them down (which they did), for the explicit goal of undermining public transit and driving up car usage (which it did).
Car industry lobbying (primarily driven by the National Highway Users Conference) were very active in getting the National Highway Fund established. Between 1952 to 1970, the US government invested $1,845 million in highway infrastructure compared to $232 million for railways in the same period.
It is not a case of "all things being equal, cars just were more attractive and here we are". A number of very specific political decisions were taken over a period of time to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy, and many other areas of public policy to support the rise of cars.
Which is fine. But it means that "cars are just inherently so great" is not, IMO, a particularly compelling argument to stop us from making a new set of political decisions to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy and so on to lessen our dependence on cars if that is necessary to lower the risks from global warming.
Quote from: Tamas on December 13, 2021, 01:03:09 PMTo think it's some sort of aspirational choice not to organise your life around public transport seems to me a view point stuck smack in the middle of the city centre like in case of Sheilbh and Tyr.
I think our choices are broadly shaped by society - which includes soft things of the aspirational-ness of cars but also the appeal of modernity for planners which shaped the physical environment in which people are making choices. Cars were the future once. My point is we can make different politicy decisions.
I'd say my views on this are more shaped by growing up in the Highlands and suburban England where there is no alternative.
Even the most rural counties in the UK have around 15% of households who don't have access to a car (age, poverty etc) - and at the minute they are wildly under-served and should have good alternatives. My view is if we do that we'll find other househods who actually decide they don't "need" their car.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 01:01:57 PMThat's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
I don't know why people automatically resort to "brainwashing" or "nefarious schemes". Publicity is all about transforming the act of purchasing into some profoundly meaningful act of personal accomplishment, collective and individual identity. It's about creating wants, and then transforming wants into needs. The fact that most people lived perfectly well, with a much higher proximity, with a lot less intimacy, for thousands of years, suggests very strongly to me that this isn't some "human nature" expressing itself (a highly dubious proposal whenever it's trotted out), but rather, precisely, the sort of desire that inserted itself in the aspirations of a growing middle class, given astonishing force by the post war industrial prosperity.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 01:18:48 PM
And *because* of the car, acceptable distances have become much further. Having a hockey tournament an hour away may not have happened before; now, it's seen as ordinary, perhaps even necessary. But even then, my vague impression, as I said, is that even carpooling has become foreign to our practices. Obviously, going to Legal with a lot of hockey stuff was going to be difficult. Did you not know any other families going to Legal?
Okay, so we're actually getting closer. I don't really disagree with many of the policy suggestions you make.
But I wanted to talk about hockey.
Obviously in the City of Edmonton there are more than enough hockey teams that my kid could find plenty of opponents within city limits. But instead my kid (who is 8) has had games in Legal, Stony Plain, Beaumont, Spruce Grove... So why? I think it comes to fairness to the out-of-town kids. They all live close-ish to Edmonton. But if they're not allowed to compete against the Edmonton teams, suddenly they have to travel 2+ hours for all of their games.
I did think about offering to car-pool to Legal, but too late in the day, and I don't know any of the parents on this team very well.
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 01:58:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 12:37:00 PM
I personally didn't have a car until I was 26, and I was the first driver in my family. Is it possible to live without a car? It definitely was in all the places I lived in, hence why we didn't have a car. It is, however, very limiting, and dense living isn't all it's cracked up to be. Your quality of life is definitely lower without personal transportation even in a place with very functional public transportation. I don't think it has anything to do with brainwashing, it's just a reality.
Yeah, but that's the point a lot of people aren't getting.
This is the case purely because cities are designed for this to be the case.
Maybe people aren't getting that point because it's not a good one? You're making it sound like the existence of personal cars is some conspiracy imposed upon the public, which involves city planners cunningly designing the cities to create demand for personal transportation. I think the fact that people everywhere in the world seem to desire owning automobiles should indicate that they fulfill some purpose or enable better lifestyles even in places not run by the city planners in the pockets of the auto industry.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 02:16:24 PMBut I wanted to talk about hockey.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/jUwpNzg9IcyrK/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 01:01:57 PMThat's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
I don't know why people automatically resort to "brainwashing" or "nefarious schemes". Publicity is all about transforming the act of purchasing into some profoundly meaningful act of personal accomplishment, collective and individual identity. It's about creating wants, and then transforming wants into needs. The fact that most people lived perfectly well, with a much higher proximity, with a lot less intimacy, for thousands of years, suggests very strongly to me that this isn't some "human nature" expressing itself (a highly dubious proposal whenever it's trotted out), but rather, precisely, the sort of desire that inserted itself in the aspirations of a growing middle class, given astonishing force by the post war industrial prosperity.
People lived without indoor plumbing, electric lights, television, the internet, refrigeration, and so many other conveniences for about as long as we've also had automobiles. Our desire for such items can I guess be called "wants" in that we won't automatically die without these things, but our want for such items seems pretty deeply ingrained.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 02:16:24 PMBut I wanted to talk about hockey.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/jUwpNzg9IcyrK/giphy.gif)
And you call yourself a Quebecker! :blurgh:
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 02:14:49 PM
The fact that most people lived perfectly well, with a much higher proximity, with a lot less intimacy, for thousands of years, suggests very strongly to me that this isn't some "human nature" expressing itself (a highly dubious proposal whenever it's trotted out), but rather, precisely, the sort of desire that inserted itself in the aspirations of a growing middle class, given astonishing force by the post war industrial prosperity.
I wouldn't describe the living standards before 20th century as "perfectly well" kind of living. Obviously the conditions were survivable for some, or we wouldn't be here talking about it in the 21st century, but perfectly well?
I think part of the reason the standards of the 19th century seem to imperfect to most of us is because inventions like personal automobile (but obviously not just that) made higher living standards a new normal. It's possible that human nature may desire things that are not practically possible to get. Just because people lived as hunter gatherers some time ago doesn't mean that every invention after that period can't possibly be due to human desires expressing themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 02:45:40 PM
I wouldn't describe the living standards before 20th century as "perfectly well" kind of living. Obviously the conditions were survivable for some, or we wouldn't be here talking about it in the 21st century, but perfectly well?
I think part of the reason the standards of the 19th century seem to imperfect to most of us is because inventions like personal automobile (but obviously not just that) made higher living standards a new normal. It's possible that human nature may desire things that are not practically possible to get. Just because people lived as hunter gatherers some time ago doesn't mean that every invention after that period can't possibly be due to human desires expressing themselves.
You think it's the automobile that makes the difference between "perfectly well" today and "not perfectly well" before the 20th century?
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 02:45:40 PM
I wouldn't describe the living standards before 20th century as "perfectly well" kind of living. Obviously the conditions were survivable for some, or we wouldn't be here talking about it in the 21st century, but perfectly well?
I think part of the reason the standards of the 19th century seem to imperfect to most of us is because inventions like personal automobile (but obviously not just that) made higher living standards a new normal. It's possible that human nature may desire things that are not practically possible to get. Just because people lived as hunter gatherers some time ago doesn't mean that every invention after that period can't possibly be due to human desires expressing themselves.
You think it's the automobile that makes the difference between "perfectly well" today and "not perfectly well" before the 20th century?
Well before automobiles came along people around here were just obsessed with horses. It seems like for precisely the same reason. I don't think there was some big conspiracy and lobbying by the horse breeders that made everybody love horses and horse riding so much.
But even if it is the case that people would rather take their little children in their car to daycare instead of into a crowded train full of strangers to daycare and back because they are brainwashed by car companies...well you still have to deal with the reality that people have been brainwashed by car companies. That is just a thing that happened that cannot be hand waived away and just something that shouldn't be. How do we unbrainwash them?
Personally I stopped taking the bus once I had kids because if something happened I wanted to be able to rush to wherever I needed to be quickly if something happened and not be at the mercy of the bus schedule.
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 02:45:40 PM
I wouldn't describe the living standards before 20th century as "perfectly well" kind of living. Obviously the conditions were survivable for some, or we wouldn't be here talking about it in the 21st century, but perfectly well?
I think part of the reason the standards of the 19th century seem to imperfect to most of us is because inventions like personal automobile (but obviously not just that) made higher living standards a new normal. It's possible that human nature may desire things that are not practically possible to get. Just because people lived as hunter gatherers some time ago doesn't mean that every invention after that period can't possibly be due to human desires expressing themselves.
You think it's the automobile that makes the difference between "perfectly well" today and "not perfectly well" before the 20th century?
As I said, it makes up for part of the difference.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 01:09:41 PM
In my country, there was no campaign by Lada or Zaporozhets to turn drivers into lobbyists either. They had 10 year wait lists to fulfill as it is, and the state would've probably preferred to direct more steel to missiles rather than personal automobiles. Strangely enough, people still wanted to own cars. :hmm:
I was kind of wondering about the situation of you and Tamas in this car conversation. The Eastern Bloc was pretty big on public transport and cars were hard to get. I don't know if the situation was similar in other communist countries. The desire for cars predates their existence as a status symbol because they are very useful tools.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 01:58:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2021, 12:37:00 PM
I personally didn't have a car until I was 26, and I was the first driver in my family. Is it possible to live without a car? It definitely was in all the places I lived in, hence why we didn't have a car. It is, however, very limiting, and dense living isn't all it's cracked up to be. Your quality of life is definitely lower without personal transportation even in a place with very functional public transportation. I don't think it has anything to do with brainwashing, it's just a reality.
Yeah, but that's the point a lot of people aren't getting.
This is the case purely because cities are designed for this to be the case.
Maybe people aren't getting that point because it's not a good one? You're making it sound like the existence of personal cars is some conspiracy imposed upon the public, which involves city planners cunningly designing the cities to create demand for personal transportation. I think the fact that people everywhere in the world seem to desire owning automobiles should indicate that they fulfill some purpose or enable better lifestyles even in places not run by the city planners in the pockets of the auto industry.
What sort of a conspiracy are you suggesting here?
Who is running it? What are their goals? What are they doing?
I don't see the need for a conspiracy. Everything we are talking about is easily explainable by well recorded historic fact and its inertia across a variety of fields.
Urban planners in the mid 20th century were missing a lot of knowledge that we have today. The concept of induced demand was alien to them. They just didn't follow the in hindsight obvious drawbacks that their car focused thinking would lead to. They merely followed the trend of "modernity", yes with the eager help of equally ignorant central governments and businesses that had a vested interest in putting more cars on the road (that somebody else would pay for), but it's weird to think this was the only factor at play.
In America in particular with the way local government works this model is now looking extremely shaky. The ponzi of necessary eternal growth is wobbling. Its simply unsustainable in a country which is no longer developing.
It's simply wrong to suggest the inherent superiority of cars is to thank for their dominance. Its a fact that this model of development is heavily and unsustainably subsidised.
And I haven't even touched on the sociological downsides....
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 03:39:20 PM
The ponzi of necessary eternal growth is wobbling.
The day that growth (economically) is no longer needed and comes to end is not close at all. Global population is still growing, a lot of world's population is still objectively poor and forcing the well-off part of the world to become poorer is going to result in the use of guillotines. So growth it is.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2021, 04:05:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 03:39:20 PM
The ponzi of necessary eternal growth is wobbling.
The day that growth (economically) is no longer needed and comes to end is not close at all. Global population is still growing, a lot of world's population is still objectively poor and forcing the well-off part of the world to become poorer is going to result in the use of guillotines. So growth it is.
The world as a whole sure.
Individual cities in the US?
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 02:43:17 PMPeople lived without indoor plumbing, electric lights, television, the internet, refrigeration, and so many other conveniences for about as long as we've also had automobiles. Our desire for such items can I guess be called "wants" in that we won't automatically die without these things, but our want for such items seems pretty deeply ingrained.
My point is simply that there is nothing inherently natural about defining the family as a small group of 3 or 4, or wanting to be alone in a car stuck in traffic for three hours a day, or to want a suburban house with an individual pool. We live in a world that has promoted relentlessly these things as tokens of success, as things people ought to want. The rest of the world, which has longed for industrialized prosperity for quite some time, has understandably adopted many aspirations. And for people who grew up in the suburbs, and who have a lot of nice memories of it, or have had great experiences road-tripping, or whose models are other successful suburban people, often their parents, yes - that desire has been inculcated from a young age.
It is the fear of being deprived of those things that scare people. For many people who grow up with multiple generations in a single household, the emptiness of our own homes is often jarring. For people who just couldn't wait to get out of their parents' house (or parents' who couldn't wait to send kids away), the single-family house is an aspiration. Single-family house with backyards in a suburban community is a recent aspiration; an over-abundance of cheap consumer goods, three cars per family, an individual pool for every household... these things may indeed manifest an aspiration to material luxury that has deep roots, but it's only the contemporary shape of that aspiration, not the answer to some deep-seated human desire.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2021, 04:05:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2021, 03:39:20 PM
The ponzi of necessary eternal growth is wobbling.
The day that growth (economically) is no longer needed and comes to end is not close at all. Global population is still growing, a lot of world's population is still objectively poor and forcing the well-off part of the world to become poorer is going to result in the use of guillotines. So growth it is.
Growth in population is one of the two ways in which economic growth is created. It is not a question of whether economic growth is "needed" because of population growth.
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2021, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
I think that suggests too much agency of the car companies. Customers love cars because they fulfill some deep seated human desires, namely having personal space, being very convenient,very often still being the fastest or most versatile mode of transport, etc.
That's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
I guess it depends on what you consider "nefarious", but the car industry has absolutely taken an active hand in shaping the infrastructure, urban planning, and so in in North America (at the very least) to drive up dependence on cars.
National City Lines (a consortium operated by General Motors, Mac Trucks, Firestone Tyres, Standard Oil of California, and Phillips Oil) purchased 45 electric street car companies in US cities with the express motive to shut them down (which they did), for the explicit goal of undermining public transit and driving up car usage (which it did).
Car industry lobbying (primarily driven by the National Highway Users Conference) were very active in getting the National Highway Fund established. Between 1952 to 1970, the US government invested $1,845 million in highway infrastructure compared to $232 million for railways in the same period.
It is not a case of "all things being equal, cars just were more attractive and here we are". A number of very specific political decisions were taken over a period of time to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy, and many other areas of public policy to support the rise of cars.
Which is fine. But it means that "cars are just inherently so great" is not, IMO, a particularly compelling argument to stop us from making a new set of political decisions to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy and so on to lessen our dependence on cars if that is necessary to lower the risks from global warming.
Sure, in North America and surely some other places that's the case. I think the unique combination of unrestrained capitalist lobbying and a disdain for "socialist" public services made it especially wrong in the US. But you also see it in other countries. Even in Western Europe where governments still overspend on car infrastructure (except charging point :mad:). I guess in some places in Europe and East Asia it might tilt towards public transport, which as you can see from my first post in the thread is something I totally favor.
But while the auto industry surely lobbied on its interests and maybe even actively destroyed competition in North America, the needs of the customers were beyond its agency. Yes, you can create demand with the right marketing etc.
But in the end, what drives automobiles is that humans want individual transport and so far the car was the best way to fulfill this need. That's why it is globally successful, regardless of culture, political system, even wealth.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2021, 01:01:57 PMThat's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.
I don't know why people automatically resort to "brainwashing" or "nefarious schemes". Publicity is all about transforming the act of purchasing into some profoundly meaningful act of personal accomplishment, collective and individual identity. It's about creating wants, and then transforming wants into needs. The fact that most people lived perfectly well, with a much higher proximity, with a lot less intimacy, for thousands of years, suggests very strongly to me that this isn't some "human nature" expressing itself (a highly dubious proposal whenever it's trotted out), but rather, precisely, the sort of desire that inserted itself in the aspirations of a growing middle class, given astonishing force by the post war industrial prosperity.
Throughout those thousands of years, the richest parts of societies lived in palaces often with lavish grounds and used stuff like palanquins for individual transport. This was only possible for the very top due to lack of economic productivity. The explosive economic growth of the 20th century changed that and now more people desire what was limited to the few before. That suggests that they did not "live perfectly well" before and that the higher proximity and intimacy were not desired, but rather forced by circumstances.
PS: Saw that you already answered similar posts by others before, so I don't expect an answer.
By the way, I work in the automotive industry and they expect demand to grow for at least one more decade, maybe longer in the luxury segment.
This is an interesting discussion.
When I went to school a decade ago Volvo came to the campus sometimes and talked about the future. They talked then about self driving cars and how that would change the automotive industry. Going from lots of rather cheap cars standing still some 95% of the time to fewer, far more expensive, self driving cars always on the move and shared like a taxi almost.
It's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.
Quote from: Threviel on December 14, 2021, 01:58:10 AM
This is an interesting discussion.
When I went to school a decade ago Volvo came to the campus sometimes and talked about the future. They talked then about self driving cars and how that would change the automotive industry. Going from lots of rather cheap cars standing still some 95% of the time to fewer, far more expensive, self driving cars always on the move and shared like a taxi almost.
It's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.
I still hope we'll move to a "electric self driving car on demand" kind of setup. It would probably also be more economical, considering that cars usually sit idle for much of their life. Of course it would require a huge network where you can call a car to you quickly from many locations, not to mention the logistics of inter-city and international travel (though I'm hoping that medium distances at least could be covered with properly funded and managed rail networks). Mind you, this would be in addition to bus, tram, an subway services in metropolitan areas.
Quote from: Zanza on December 14, 2021, 12:46:32 AM
By the way, I work in the automotive industry and they expect demand to grow for at least one more decade, maybe longer in the luxury segment.
Why do they think demand would stop growing after a decade or so? Surely the global middle class is still likely to grow at a huge pace that more than outweighs any demand in Europe or North America?
QuoteI still hope we'll move to a "electric self driving car on demand" kind of setup. It would probably also be more economical, considering that cars usually sit idle for much of their life. Of course it would require a huge network where you can call a car to you quickly from many locations, not to mention the logistics of inter-city and international travel (though I'm hoping that medium distances at least could be covered with properly funded and managed rail networks). Mind you, this would be in addition to bus, tram, an subway services in metropolitan areas.
Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.
QuoteIt's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.
Incidentally the other thing for Western governments is going to be pluggng the budget hole left by petrol taxes as we shift to electronic vehicles. In the UK it's not been raised in years because it's become so politically difficult but it's still a pretty sizeable chunk of revenue every year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 05:55:08 AM
Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.
What's the problem with them then? :unsure:
So far the experiments with floating car sharing were not very successful. The missing ingredient might be self-driving cars to balance the network.
However, usage of cars is not constant as the existence of rush hour demonstrates. People will only be willing to give up their own car when access to shared cars is similarly good as your own car.
That's why a reduction to 10% or so of the current volume will not be feasible. That would leave too few cars during rush hour. On the other hand, keeping a sizeable fleet that idles outside rush hour is not as attractive, but probably still pays off.
Furthermore, car sharing is also a bit of a surprise sometimes as the cars might be dirty, smelly or broken without this being reported. That's why even with much better car sharing options than now, people will not fully give up on car ownership. Especially if you either want a particularly comfortable or luxurious car, a bigger car for more persons or cargo or something else that is not offered by the fleet cars.
By the way, a fleet of autonomous electric cars means unemployed Taxi/Uber drivers and ownership by a few capitalists. Something society should be considering.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 13, 2021, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2021, 02:43:17 PMPeople lived without indoor plumbing, electric lights, television, the internet, refrigeration, and so many other conveniences for about as long as we've also had automobiles. Our desire for such items can I guess be called "wants" in that we won't automatically die without these things, but our want for such items seems pretty deeply ingrained.
My point is simply that there is nothing inherently natural about defining the family as a small group of 3 or 4, or wanting to be alone in a car stuck in traffic for three hours a day, or to want a suburban house with an individual pool. We live in a world that has promoted relentlessly these things as tokens of success, as things people ought to want. The rest of the world, which has longed for industrialized prosperity for quite some time, has understandably adopted many aspirations. And for people who grew up in the suburbs, and who have a lot of nice memories of it, or have had great experiences road-tripping, or whose models are other successful suburban people, often their parents, yes - that desire has been inculcated from a young age.
It is the fear of being deprived of those things that scare people. For many people who grow up with multiple generations in a single household, the emptiness of our own homes is often jarring. For people who just couldn't wait to get out of their parents' house (or parents' who couldn't wait to send kids away), the single-family house is an aspiration. Single-family house with backyards in a suburban community is a recent aspiration; an over-abundance of cheap consumer goods, three cars per family, an individual pool for every household... these things may indeed manifest an aspiration to material luxury that has deep roots, but it's only the contemporary shape of that aspiration, not the answer to some deep-seated human desire.
That feels like a much wider discussion then as that involves not only how we travel but how we arrange a very personal part of our lives - our home lives.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2021, 06:17:14 AM
What's the problem with them then? :unsure:
This is where it links into density, space and cost of infrastructure which is a slightly different narrower point that is just about cities.
There's a side effect to car culture that I believe has not been mentioned yet, and it is that once you reach a certain age in which you're not suitable to drive anymore you're basically locked out of lots of stuff that up to that moment were routine parts of your life.
It's a conversation I've had a couple of times already with my parents, about the possibility of them, at some point, giving up on driving due to not being suitable for it anymore. My mom, who is the main driver (my dad doesn't like driving and has already messed up the family car a couple of times in the past due to easily preventable driving mishaps) has just turned 74 and is not as sharp on the wheel as she used to be (a couple of times in which I've been on the passenger's seat with her I've had to scream to her to brake because she was almost going to run over a pedestrian crossing the street, and this sunday she got crossly beeped by a motorbike because she invaded its lane when overtaking a stopped car). Some modern car complements have eased up some parts of the driving experience (assisted parking is a particular godsend), but at some point it doesn't matter how many gizmos a car has if the driver is just not suitable anymore.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2021, 06:17:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 05:55:08 AM
Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.
What's the problem with them then? :unsure:
Don't you see a problem with that?
For instance, I do own a car and a parking spot in my building, while I barely use it anymore. Back in the day I'd drive plenty for work, but it's been years since I've had to use it more than once or twice per month. On a pure money basis, I'd be better off renting a car a couple of days per month rather than owning one, with all its associated expenses (fuel, taxes, insurance...).
The age topic will be solved in the next years as the assistance systems will just completely take over.
Quote from: Zanza on December 14, 2021, 07:24:55 AM
The age topic will be solved in the next years as the assistance systems will just completely take over.
But it will still take a while for those models to completely enter the system. I doubt my parents will ever get another car after their current one.
QuoteThroughout those thousands of years, the richest parts of societies lived in palaces often with lavish grounds and used stuff like palanquins for individual transport. This was only possible for the very top due to lack of economic productivity. The explosive economic growth of the 20th century changed that and now more people desire what was limited to the few before. That suggests that they did not "live perfectly well" before and that the higher proximity and intimacy were not desired, but rather forced by circumstances.
PS: Saw that you already answered similar posts by others before, so I don't expect an answer.
One could also argue that technological growth in the 19th and 20th centuries eliminated the need for personal transport thus opening up transport for the masses, as shown by the dramatic growth in city sizes at the time.
It was purely circumstances of the time which forced the rich in the days of old to keep a carriage on hand.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2021, 06:17:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 05:55:08 AM
Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.
What's the problem with them then? :unsure:
A bunch of things.
1: Useless items that cost a lot in terms of resources and greenhouses gasses to produce sitting around rusting.
2: Something like 3/4+ of the street locked off for exclusive use of these items. Often just sitting there and not doing anything. In city centres this waste of space is particularly dumb.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dyJG1fkMgGCTizmz0j740nNVegQ=/0x0:600x815/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:600x815):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2466040/3206.0.jpg)
3: When holiday time does come it eliminates the sense of travel and results in kids growing up only seeing the destinations of their life.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 07:05:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2021, 06:17:14 AM
What's the problem with them then? :unsure:
This is where it links into density, space and cost of infrastructure which is a slightly different narrower point that is just about cities.
Yes, there is an issue about where cars are stored - though in case of where I currently living and the garage is in the basement, probably limited extra space needed. Also, I'm not sure that many would be happy about increasing population density which is what would happen if say the block of flats across the street from me was extended as its car park no longer seen as necessary. Then getting more like packed in like sardines both in the neighbourhood and also added pressure on public transport options.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:19:43 AM
Don't you see a problem with that?
For instance, I do own a car and a parking spot in my building, while I barely use it anymore. Back in the day I'd drive plenty for work, but it's been years since I've had to use it more than once or twice per month. On a pure money basis, I'd be better off renting a car a couple of days per month rather than owning one, with all its associated expenses (fuel, taxes, insurance...).
No, but I'm not interested in policing what people want to do with their possessions. If they want to spend extra money to keep onto something they barely use, that's their business. What's next people demonised for having dogs as those are an unnecessary expense?
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2021, 07:58:01 AM
A bunch of things.
1: Useless items that cost a lot in terms of resources and greenhouses gasses to produce sitting around rusting.
There are many things we buy that are not simply utilitarian. Are you also gunning for people's rarely used hot tubs?
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2021, 07:58:01 AM2: Something like 3/4+ of the street locked off for exclusive use of these items. Often just sitting there and not doing anything. In city centres this waste of space is particularly dumb.
Okay so design a better system where they can be stored in underground car parks. Note, the people rarely using them probably are doing some variation of off-street parking anyway as not worth the hassle and expense of regularly needing to move your car to avoid tickets.
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2021, 07:58:01 AM3: When holiday time does come it eliminates the sense of travel and results in kids growing up only seeing the destinations of their life.
I've absoulately no idea what you are talking about here. As a child in the US, one of my formative experiences of travel was my family traveling by car to see sights many states away and the flexibility we had to 'go off the beaten' track. Not sure how a roadtrip is more limiting than a train/bus/plane that go from point a to point b on a set route. I'm also not sure how a family having a car means that is the only way you can then travel. We still took commuter rail options when heading into the city.
@Tyr - Looking more at your image, is your complaint that roads exist? What then will public transit options like busses travel on?
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:19:43 AM
There's a side effect to car culture that I believe has not been mentioned yet, and it is that once you reach a certain age in which you're not suitable to drive anymore you're basically locked out of lots of stuff that up to that moment were routine parts of your life.
Yeah my dad can't drive any more. My mum is a lot younger so it doesn't necessarily have a huge impact, but she works so she isn't always there - so it has had a big impact on him getting a vaccine shot for example.
And the public transport network in Dorset is very poor.
QuoteYes, there is an issue about where cars are stored - though in case of where I currently living and the garage is in the basement, probably limited extra space needed. Also, I'm not sure that many would be happy about increasing population density which is what would happen if say the block of flats across the street from me was extended as its car park no longer seen as necessary. Then getting more like packed in like sardines both in the neighbourhood and also added pressure on public transport options.
The population is increasing. We already don't build enough homes to keep up with population growth. So we need to build somewhere - my view is that we should be emphasising increasing density wherever possible and obviously increasing capacity in public service including transport, rather than sprawling and going for low density developments that rely on cars.
I would say it should be easier to increase density because areas are already built up so less likely to have trouble getting approved or impinge on genuine countryside, but given that I've seen recent campaigns to stop a car park or Tesco being developed for lots of housing (including more than 33% social housing) sadly I think that's probably not true :bleeding:
QuoteThere's a side effect to car culture that I believe has not been mentioned yet, and it is that once you reach a certain age in which you're not suitable to drive anymore you're basically locked out of lots of stuff that up to that moment were routine parts of your life.
Yep. My mam can drive but she's scared to do anything more than her usual drives to work and to the supermarket. As a result she basically can't come visit me unless she's with my dad. Which...really sucks now we have a kid. Thats a lot of the school holidays when she could be helping out but isn't. Because of crappy public transport.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2021, 08:12:46 AM
There are many things we buy that are not simply utilitarian. Are you also gunning for people's rarely used hot tubs?
As part of a different issue yes. People should stop buying so much useless shit.
With cars however there's a particular issue in that if you have a hot tub and leave it in front of your house you'd get in big trouble for blocking the street. With a car this would be allowed.
Quote
Okay so design a better system where they can be stored in underground car parks. Note, the people rarely using them probably are doing some variation of off-street parking anyway as not worth the hassle and expense of regularly needing to move your car to avoid tickets.
More underground parking sounds nice. I'm definitely all for this.
Though its very expensive and simply isn't feasible for everyone. The geology of many cities simply wouldn't allow it. Then there's all those buildings already existing without underground car parks....
Quote
I've absoulately no idea what you are talking about here. As a child in the US, one of my formative experiences of travel was my family traveling by car to see sights many states away and the flexibility we had to 'go off the beaten' track. Not sure how a roadtrip is more limiting than a train/bus/plane that go from point a to point b on a set route. I'm also not sure how a family having a car means that is the only way you can then travel. We still took commuter rail options when heading into the city.
This is where the sociological (and health) damage of cars really comes into play.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-07/kids-who-get-driven-everywhere-don-t-know-where-they-re-going
If you're taxied around between home, the park, grandma's house, the airport, then that's all you see. You have no sense of place in your town. You have vastly reduced connection and empathy for other people. People, particularly kids, don't get the exercise they should. Homes become prison cells rather than part of a community.
Quote
@Tyr - Looking more at your image, is your complaint that roads exist? What then will public transit options like busses travel on?
Its highlighting the huge amount of the street given over to cars and how restricted the space for people is.
Some roads are obviously unavoidable. But busses don't go down every street, they follow a reliable schedule, and they don't sit around in front of people's houses for days on end.
If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.
And let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 09:16:20 AM
If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.
Not in the slightest bit close to the point of the argument. That seems to be more a flipped version of your argument, that action against cars would inconvenience your routine as it stands.
For me, and seemingly for others on 'this side' too, the argument is more about the deep damage that basing society around cars brings and how much better it could be for everyone if we moved away from this.
Quote
And let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".
Yes.
But these things aren't black and white. People do need some level of fulfillment and entertainment up there on the hierarchy of needs. Mega yachts and super cars that are never used and all this sort of thing are eye rollingly dumb.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 09:16:20 AMIf you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.
How would a car inconvenience me?
I think people shouldn't have to rely on them because some people can't (the elderly, the poor, the young) and that shouldn't have an impact on the type of life you lead. I think if you do that you'll reduce the extent to which people want to use cars and reduce the numbers overall.
In addition transport's about 20% of carbon emissions (excluding the emissions in manufacture/industry which is separate) and the vast majority of that is from people using cars. It's an area that is growing as a proportion - moving to electric will help. But there is a growing global middle class, I believe have about 1.5 billion cars in the world (my understanding is there's more in Europe and North America than the ROTW combined) but more and more people will be able to afford them and I don't think we can afford for the rest of the world to be as car-reliant as the West has been while it's rich and for that number to, say, double or triple. That means that we need to look at what replaces a car-centric society and, as with energy, I think we have a bit of a moral obligation in the rich West to work out solutions - plus it would be in our own interests and address our own environmental impact.
Separately and more specific to cities I think there is evidence that cities that went for a car-centric model have done worse economically, I think the car-centric model interacts with race (especially in the US) and I think they make cities less liveable.
QuoteAnd let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".
But as I say an open wood or coal fire in your living room is useless spending. Central heating isn't.
Quote from: Zanza on December 14, 2021, 12:35:12 AM
... But in the end, what drives automobiles is that humans want individual transport and so far the car was the best way to fulfill this need. That's why it is globally successful, regardless of culture, political system, even wealth.
That's a fair point. I absolutely agree that the desire for cars is not purely the result of clever marketing but because they fulfill a range of needs ranging from the fundamnetal to the more complex.
The "cars sit idle most of the time" argument is mostly one of economic efficiency, I think. It's where things like Uber and Lyft come in in theory (though it seems their business model is less about leveraging under utilized assets and more about exploiting labour/ busting cartels/ avoiding regulation to drive up margins).
Personally I don't think efficient utilization is that relevant an argument. As garbon implies, it's up to people how effectively or ineffectively they use their assets... though I'd be willing to change my point of view if shown that underutilized cars have a massive environmental impact, for example.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 09:16:20 AM
If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.
No.
It boils down to: society and government spends MASSIVE amounts of money on subsidizing car drivers, the car industry, the oil & gas industry, and the infrastructure needed to sustain car culture. Large parts of our cultures are organized around car centred lifestyles.
Given the dangers of climate change we should examine ways to reallocate some of that support to less environmentally damaging modes of transport, and we should pursue ways of making non-car centred lifestyles more accessible to more people (and by accessible I mean practical, pleasant, and affordable).
I have a car. I drive. It's not about inconveniencing me.
I think an obvious argument why underutilization of personal cars has an environmental impact is that you need more of them. The more a single car is used, the less cars you need to satisfy the transportation requirements. The need for a driver to ferry his own car is certainly adding to the inefficiency.
Going to the "it's inefficient to have cars sitting around all the time" argument...
Automobiles are depreciating assets. The more you use them the faster they depreciate. That's why you really do want to buy the used car from 'the little old lady who only drove it on Sundays', and you absolutely want to avoid buying a used taxicab. So from that perspective alone it's not necessarily inefficient to have an asset that is only used occasionally.
Electric vehicles might change that analysis, but I don't think so. One of the advantages of electric vehicles is they have very few moving mechanic parts, which are the ones that wear out the quickest. But since battery degradation over time is also a thing I think you still have the same problem.
Now there is the cost of parking - in particular in built-up areas. So maybe it makes sense to just rent autonomous electric vehicles to go to work - but with an autonomous vehicle you own you could always go tell it to park itself at home during the day and come get you when work is over.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:36:43 PM
The "cars sit idle most of the time" argument is mostly one of economic efficiency, I think. It's where things like Uber and Lyft come in in theory (though it seems their business model is less about leveraging under utilized assets and more about exploiting labour/ busting cartels/ avoiding regulation to drive up margins).
That and using other people's assets with very questionable sustainability regarding depreciation. The drivers use up their asset, but whether their generated income is sufficient to maintain and eventually replace it is in doubt.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 12:45:27 PM
I think an obvious argument why underutilization of personal cars has an environmental impact is that you need more of them. The more a single car is used, the less cars you need to satisfy the transportation requirements. The need for a driver to ferry his own car is certainly adding to the inefficiency.
Yeah. I guess there are two components:
1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?
2) Conversely, if people used cars more efficiently for transportation (i.e. cars were used more hours a day, more people are in the cars when they're used) there could in theory be reductions in miles travelled and thus gas burned? I wonder how much of a reduction that would be?
Quote from: Zanza on December 14, 2021, 12:54:06 PM
That and using other people's assets with very questionable sustainability regarding depreciation. The drivers use up their asset, but whether their generated income is sufficient to maintain and eventually replace it is in doubt.
I don't think the inefficiency argument says anything about using other people's assets, just that the assets sit unused. But the point of whether using the assets more efficiently in terms of active time translates into economic efficiency is apt, IMO.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:44:54 PM
It boils down to: society and government spends MASSIVE amounts of money on subsidizing car drivers, the car industry, the oil & gas industry, and the infrastructure needed to sustain car culture. Large parts of our cultures are organized around car centred lifestyles.
Whoah! Slow down.
This is a line that gets thrown around a LOT but doesn't hold up nearly as well under scrutiny.
Okay the oil and gas industry I know the best. When you look at the claims of 'billions on subsidies' they invariably turn out to be tax deductions that are available to any company in any industry. Is it really a subsidy to the oil and gas industry to allow them to use past losses against future profits? Was it a subsidy to allow oil and gas companies access to the same programs during the pandemic to help avoid job layoffs that were available to every other industry?
It can also be claimed that setting royalty rates is a "subsidy" on the idea that government should charge more per barrel of oil produced, but given how there's always a balancing act between wanting to maximize production of oil (and the accompanying economic activity that comes with it) and generating government revenue I have trouble calling this a subsidy also - it's a policy decision.
When it comes to the car industry... certainly there have been one-off giant bailouts in the past of domestic manufacturers. But governments have mostly recouped those expenses, and in any event the foreign manufacturers received no such bailouts and are doing fine. There have been specific subsidies to promote specific technologies (like the rebate on purchasing an electric vehicle) but I don't think many have a problem with that idea.
Then it comes to subsidizing drivers. As I understand the argument here it is that users of the road do not pay enough through gas taxes and the like to fully pay for road construction, maintenance and repair. But roads are a public good as well as a private benefit. We all benefit when things like school buses and emergency vehicles are able to get around freely and easily.
Public transit, such as buses and LRTS, are very explicitly subsidized and nobody has a problem with that.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:54:29 PM
1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?
My understanding from this is that for an average driver it is broadly environmentally better to buy a second hand gas guzzler than to buy a new car even if it's electric. At the minute and it slightly depends where it's manufactured - and also where you use it (basically I think the issue is how much coal goes into manufacturing and charging it). It also depends on the battery lifecycle and manufacture which, again, varies hugely.
There's a carbon brief report that goes into this and it's really complicated but in the UK with our current power mix and if you were driving around 7,800 miles per year (which is a little bit more than average) then a Nissan Leaf would pay off its carbon debt after about 4 years v a second hand car (2 years v a new ICE car).
It would obviously be different for, say, an Uber driver who'll drive a lot more.
Edit: But it would be better in, say, Norway or France where they have cleaner hyrdo or nuclear energy, but take longer in, say, Poland or Australia where they still use a lot of coal. Basically you get rid of the tailpipe emissions but there's still the production of energy emissions which vary a lot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:54:29 PM
1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?
My understanding from this is that for an average driver it is broadly environmentally better to buy a second hand gas guzzler than to buy a new car even if it's electric. At the minute and it slightly depends where it's manufactured - and also where you use it (basically I think the issue is how much coal goes into manufacturing and charging it). It also depends on the battery lifecycle and manufacture which, again, varies hugely.
There's a carbon brief report that goes into this and it's really complicated but in the UK with our current power mix and if you were driving around 7,800 miles per year (which is a little bit more than average) then a Nissan Leaf would pay off its carbon debt after about 4 years v a second hand car (2 years v a new ICE car).
It would obviously be different for, say, an Uber driver who'll drive a lot more.
Edit: But it would be better in, say, Norway or France where they have cleaner hyrdo or nuclear energy, but take longer in, say, Poland or Australia where they still use a lot of coal. Basically you get rid of the tailpipe emissions but there's still the production of energy emissions which vary a lot.
I feel like that analysis might make sense for an individual, but would break down when looked at society as a whole. I mean we obviously can't all go out and purchase two year old used vehicles - somebody needs to keep making new ones. If you're only buying used vehicles you're just shifting the environmental impact onto the person who bought it new - you're not making that environmental impact go away.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:26:55 PM
That's a fair point. I absolutely agree that the desire for cars is not purely the result of clever marketing but because they fulfill a range of needs ranging from the fundamnetal to the more complex.
It's probably too late now, but again, this never was my point - just a caricature of it.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 12:45:27 PM
I think an obvious argument why underutilization of personal cars has an environmental impact is that you need more of them. The more a single car is used, the less cars you need to satisfy the transportation requirements. The need for a driver to ferry his own car is certainly adding to the inefficiency.
Yeah. I guess there are two components:
1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?
2) Conversely, if people used cars more efficiently for transportation (i.e. cars were used more hours a day, more people are in the cars when they're used) there could in theory be reductions in miles travelled and thus gas burned? I wonder how much of a reduction that would be?
On point 1, quick Google search without verification of bullshittiness states that 80%-90% of environmental impact comes from using the car, so presumably the rest comes from building it. I'd add the cost of infrustructure like garage space and street parking space to that, though, but I have no idea what it contributes. In addition to this, some maintenance is time-dependent rather than mile-dependent, and even mile-dependent maintenance can stretch more with less start-stops, but I don't know if it's more than a rounding error in the big picture.
As far as having more passengers per ride, I think the math is more clear there. Extra passengers add very little to fuel consumption, so doubling the occupancy of moving vehicles will more or less halve the total fuel consumption.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:54:29 PM
1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?
My understanding from this is that for an average driver it is broadly environmentally better to buy a second hand gas guzzler than to buy a new car even if it's electric. At the minute and it slightly depends where it's manufactured - and also where you use it (basically I think the issue is how much coal goes into manufacturing and charging it). It also depends on the battery lifecycle and manufacture which, again, varies hugely.
There's a carbon brief report that goes into this and it's really complicated but in the UK with our current power mix and if you were driving around 7,800 miles per year (which is a little bit more than average) then a Nissan Leaf would pay off its carbon debt after about 4 years v a second hand car (2 years v a new ICE car).
It would obviously be different for, say, an Uber driver who'll drive a lot more.
Edit: But it would be better in, say, Norway or France where they have cleaner hyrdo or nuclear energy, but take longer in, say, Poland or Australia where they still use a lot of coal. Basically you get rid of the tailpipe emissions but there's still the production of energy emissions which vary a lot.
What about a used electric car? Tons of those around now.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 01:17:32 PM
What about a used electric car? Tons of those around now.
There are?
I just looked on classified site kijiji - in the Edmonton area there are 11,607 used vehicles listed for sale. Of those 11,607 vehicles a whopping 12 of them are electric.
Ok maybe tons was a bit of an exaggeration but they are certainly around if you want one, there are well over 1,000 in the Austin area. I plan on getting a used one for my next car, as I never buy new. Besides comparing constructing a new vehicle vs. an already existing one is a bit of an odd thing to compare. Surely we should be comparing new cars or used cars to each other, right?
But also his calculation seems to be based on the idea that all electrical generation is going to be done via coal plants indefinitely into the future, and if that is the case then who gives a fuck about how we move around? We are going to be doing really terrible on CO2 emissions regardless. So we should plan around what would be marginally better in a scenario where we continue to rely on coal plants for all of our energy generation?
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 01:32:40 PM
But also his calculation seems to be based on the idea that all electrical generation is going to be done via coal plants indefinitely into the future, and if that is the case then who gives a fuck about how we move around? We are going to be doing really terrible on CO2 emissions regardless.
Not at all - I just said it varies depending on the energy mix where it's manufactured, where the battery's manufactured and where it's used (plus usage). So there is no straightforward answer the example I gave was one done by carbon brief of a specific vehicle, with a specific average use in a spectific country. If it's an electric vehicle made and the battery made in China and you live in Australia and you drive less than average then it's a obviously very diffierent calculation.
I think you're wildly over-interpreting what I said :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 01:32:40 PM
But also his calculation seems to be based on the idea that all electrical generation is going to be done via coal plants indefinitely into the future, and if that is the case then who gives a fuck about how we move around? We are going to be doing really terrible on CO2 emissions regardless.
Not at all - I just said it varies depending on the energy mix where it's manufactured, where the battery's manufactured and where it's used (plus usage). So there is no straightforward answer the example I gave was one done by carbon brief of a specific vehicle, with a specific average use in a spectific country. If it's an electric vehicle made and the battery made in China and you live in Australia and you drive less than average then it's a obviously very diffierent calculation.
I think you're wildly over-interpreting what I said :blink:
Well if I could read your mind and know exactly what you were saying I wouldn't be asking questions about it would I? I don't think I am saying anything wildly crazy one way or the other. They seem like important things to consider. But maybe that is just me.
Besides I have a personal interest in this question as I am going to be buying a used car in a few years and had planned to buy an electric one, so I wanted to make sure I properly understood the implications of what you were saying so I could make a correct choice.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 01:39:31 PM
Besides I have a personal interest in this question as I am going to be buying a used car in a few years and had planned to buy an electric one, so I wanted to make sure I properly understood the implications of what you were saying so I could make a correct choice.
The current used market for electric cars is all inferior technology with poor autonomy when the battery was new & on models that are too small for our North American taste.
Maybe in a few years it'll be better tho.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 01:32:40 PM
Ok maybe tons was a bit of an exaggeration but they are certainly around if you want one. I plan on getting a used one for my next car, as I never buy new. Besides comparing constructing a new vehicle vs. an already existing one is a bit of an odd thing to compare. Surely we should be comparing new cars or used cars to each other, right?
But also his calculation seems to be based on the idea that all electrical generation is going to be done via coal plants indefinitely into the future, and if that is the case then who gives a fuck about how we move around? We are going to be doing really terrible on CO2 emissions regardless. So we should plan around what would be marginally better in a scenario where we continue to rely on coal plants for all of our energy generation?
There might be more in Texas (electrics aren't as efficient in cold weather, plus US has more subsidies), but I think electrics are still fairly scarce on the ground. Take the Tesla Model 3 - it may have started being sold in 2017, but only started selling in any real quantities in the second half of 2018. And with the supply crunch used vehicles are selling at really high prices right now.
I'd like my next vehicle to be electric, but my next vehicle needs to be a truck also. And with the production of electric trucks just starting right now we're just at the wrong point in the production cycle to be able to buy a used electric truck any time soon.
My company is planning to introduce a "bonus" scheme where you can lease an electric car from their partner company as a salary deduction ie. you'd be paying for it by the company reducing your pre-tax salary.
I would probably consider it, because the tax on my old 2 liter petrol car is getting quite ridiculous (funnily enough if you have the money to maintain a car from 1970 or older you are tax free, never mind the environmental standards of those engines), and with the switch of regular unleaded to E10 which my engine cannot deal with, it could potentially end up not THAT more expensive than maintaining the current car.
Unfortunately, however, there are like two charging stations in a 10 minutes driving circle around us, and living on the second floor I can't just plug it in at home outside on the street.
BTW one thing about electric cars: I remember reading in passing that their batteries (like all batteries) lose efficiency over time which should be a consideration when buying used ones. Isn't that going to be a big problem once everyone driving electric though (or even when everyone will be driven around by rented robot cars)? That's going to be a lot of very environment-unfriendly batteries having to be produced constantly.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 02:22:31 PM
BTW one thing about electric cars: I remember reading in passing that their batteries (like all batteries) lose efficiency over time which should be a consideration when buying used ones. Isn't that going to be a big problem once everyone driving electric though (or even when everyone will be driven around by rented robot cars)? That's going to be a lot of very environment-unfriendly batteries having to be produced constantly.
It apparently gets worse - almost all electric vehicles were not designed to have the batteries replaced. So after 8-10 years a lot of vehicles may have to be junked that are in otherwise fine mechanical shape because the batteries are so depleted.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
It apparently gets worse - almost all electric vehicles were not designed to have the batteries replaced. So after 8-10 years a lot of vehicles may have to be junked that are in otherwise fine mechanical shape because the batteries are so depleted.
Somehow this is Apple's fault.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2021, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
It apparently gets worse - almost all electric vehicles were not designed to have the batteries replaced. So after 8-10 years a lot of vehicles may have to be junked that are in otherwise fine mechanical shape because the batteries are so depleted.
Somehow this is Apple's fault.
Lies and slander! :ultra:
You can replace the battery on your iPhone or iPad. :blurgh:
Cherry-flavored Jolly Ranchers aren't just the best Jolly Rancher flavor. They are the best hard candy period.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 02:22:31 PM
BTW one thing about electric cars: I remember reading in passing that their batteries (like all batteries) lose efficiency over time which should be a consideration when buying used ones. Isn't that going to be a big problem once everyone driving electric though (or even when everyone will be driven around by rented robot cars)? That's going to be a lot of very environment-unfriendly batteries having to be produced constantly.
It apparently gets worse - almost all electric vehicles were not designed to have the batteries replaced. So after 8-10 years a lot of vehicles may have to be junked that are in otherwise fine mechanical shape because the batteries are so depleted.
Hmmmm that seems less than ideal. It is not like people are not used to the concept that cars need to have their batteries replaced.
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 14, 2021, 02:31:02 PM
Cherry-flavored Jolly Ranchers aren't just the best Jolly Rancher flavor. They are the best hard candy period.
:o
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 02:22:31 PM
BTW one thing about electric cars: I remember reading in passing that their batteries (like all batteries) lose efficiency over time which should be a consideration when buying used ones. Isn't that going to be a big problem once everyone driving electric though (or even when everyone will be driven around by rented robot cars)? That's going to be a lot of very environment-unfriendly batteries having to be produced constantly.
It apparently gets worse - almost all electric vehicles were not designed to have the batteries replaced. So after 8-10 years a lot of vehicles may have to be junked that are in otherwise fine mechanical shape because the batteries are so depleted.
Hmmmm that seems less than ideal. It is not like people are not used to the concept that cars need to have their batteries replaced.
I think it has to do with the fact that on a lot of vehicles using the so-called "skateboard" design the batteries themselves are a major part of the vehicle structure. But I'm getting well outside my expertise here.
Well that strikes me as something pretty important I should research before I get my next car. Most the electric cars I was looking at are in the 2012 or 2013 range so :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2021, 02:50:26 PM
Well that strikes me as something pretty important I should research before I get my next car. Most the electric cars I was looking at are in the 2012 or 2013 range so :ph34r:
What's even out there on the market from that long ago? NIssan Leaf?
https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/the-big-looming-problem-with-old-evs-its-really-really-hard-to-change-the-battery
Leafs, various Teslas, and a few EV Ford Focuses and a few Toyotas.
Though the Leaf is more my price range :blush:
Saw this on Reddit. :lol:
(https://i.redd.it/ug3g2j54tsx71.jpg)
That's not photoshopped.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 14, 2021, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2021, 12:26:55 PM
That's a fair point. I absolutely agree that the desire for cars is not purely the result of clever marketing but because they fulfill a range of needs ranging from the fundamnetal to the more complex.
It's probably too late now, but again, this never was my point - just a caricature of it.
Of course that wasn't your point :hug:
... so we can all easily agree that that point is not a good one, whomsoever choses to make it.
Quote from: Zanza on December 15, 2021, 02:15:05 PM
Saw this on Reddit. :lol:
[
Not a million miles away from what 1960s urban planners would actually have done if they could just wave a magic wand and have everything be complete right away.
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2021, 03:32:16 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 15, 2021, 02:15:05 PM
Saw this on Reddit. :lol:
[
Not a million miles away from what 1960s urban planners would actually have done if they could just wave a magic wand and have everything be complete right away.
Yeah, thank goodness smarter planners prevailed before the damage was complete - at least in some cities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2021, 03:34:09 PM
Yeah, thank goodness smarter planners prevailed before the damage was complete - at least in some cities.
Or reversed. Like when, say, Lisbon's Praca de Comercio was used for parking (there's examples everywhere in Europe) :bleeding:
(https://img.hmn.com/fit-in/450x253/filters:upscale()/stories/2017/04/Lisbon1960s_1500.jpg)
To be fair to them, I think a lot of it is they just didn't have the data to show what a horrid idea it was. It took some pretty huge mistakes and time for people's habits and settlement and business patterns to change to adapt to them to fully highlight the issues of car focused urban design.
Though I've no idea how the hell they didn't consider the fact that traffic flowing freely without traffic lights is dangerous or that forcing pedestrians over bridges and underpasses would be devastating for pedestrian flow and social cohesion.
In Vienna this is what the Graben in the 1st Distrcit looked like in the 70s:
(https://keli.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Wien-Graben-70er-Keli-LKW-720x1030-1-716x1024.jpg)
Nowadays it's part of the pedestrian area form Kärntner Straße via Stephansplatz to Graben.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Wien_01_Graben_a.jpg/1200px-Wien_01_Graben_a.jpg)
Traffic and parking next to St. Stephen's in the 60s:
(https://www.wienschauen.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Stephansplatz-1965-2.jpg)
(https://www.wienschauen.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Stephansplatz-1963.jpg)
So it turns out The Hill several people here are prepared to die on is that of perpetual car ownership. :cool:
(https://i.redd.it/fuzf9nv9y3681.jpg)
Quote from: mongers on December 17, 2021, 04:59:31 PM
So it turns out The Hill several people here are prepared to die on is that of perpetual car ownership. :cool:
If I lived in rural Nebraska I guess I would get a car :cool:
But it never ceases to surprise me how many people drive the things in places like London; a ghastly experience, what are they all thinking?