It's a dead-simple concept that can be applied to everything: public money should only be used for public services. If the private sector is viable, it shouldn't need public money to prop it up.
Public money should fund public transit. No public money for private transport infrastructure.
Public money should fund public schools. No public subsidies for charter and private schools.
Public money should fund public health care. No public funding should be wasted on propping up a wasteful private healthcare industry. ACA wastes so much money buying insurance for people when we could just build public hospitals and public clinics.
It's not that private industry shouldn't exist. It's just that private industry, conceptually, shouldn't need to be propped up by social funding. But currently it is. And it's a tremendous waste of money. Public money should only fund public programs. So simple.
Shared-use paths work best when they’re low use and low-speed. Ergo why people will walk, bike and drive in the road on a cul de sac but not on a main stroad.
It’s common to have separate sidewalks and bike paths on faster, more commonly used routes, because bikes don’t actually mix all that well with pedestrians. It’s the same reason we don’t make sidewalks wide enough to drive a bus down.
By your logic, public car roads are fine so long as there’s a bus that drives down them. Even if 99% of the people on them are in a privately-owned bike or car.
Fair enough, it was an unthought retort to “bikes are private, cars are private, same thing.”
I’m against building roads for personal vehicles because it is very expensive. Sidewalks and bike paths are cheap to build, cost nothing to maintain (other than SNIC) and last 30+ years.
I’m also not opposed to building roads for the transport of goods and services, that’s why humans have built them for recorded history. I’ve got nothing against personal vehicles using roads built for trucks anyways (the maintenance cost of one truck on a road is equivalent to a lot of cars); so long as the cars don’t impede trucks.
My bigger issue the the building of roads specifically for personal vehicles and the building of free (or under market value) parking alongside roads, increasing their cost.
Also, why wouldn’t build bike paths the same width as a bus road? It lets you use the same SNIC fleet on paths and sidewalks as roads, allows emergency vehicles to pass, and provides easier access to path amenity maintenance.
This is awesome because the point of this meme template is that Patrick has bad ideas, just like how divesting totally from cars in the US is a bad idea.
Yeah, try living in an impoverished town, where it’s the housing on the right, spread out like the housing on the left. There are, like, no jobs (none that are actually sustainable long-term for living in this economy), but they just leveled a huge area of forest for more low-income housing (AKA Projects)
Isn’t the point of a 15 minute city that you can get anywhere within 15 minutes without a car?
(By the way, from a European standpoint it sounds really funny that 15 minute cities are not a reality for you. Like, why would you ever build a city differently in the first place?)
It’s pretty disingenuous to claim that your city founded in 1300 has tight streets and isn’t car-friendly because people in 1300 were really big on public transport.
And the answer is that cities grow descriptively rather than prescriptively. They generally add what is in demand/what they need piecemeal, and most US cities really grew in the 20th century.
That’s why NYC, for example, has significantly better public transport than most of the nation - it’s one of the oldest cities
This is also why moving to mass transit is a hard sell. It’s expensive and there is less demonstrated need and more forethought behind the switchover.
There’s an few distinctions about American culture as it relates to car culture.
America had/has a lot of land
Much of this is/was vastly underdeveloped right outside of urban hubs, unlike Europe/related which benefits from a tighter interconnected network of cities that more immediately benefit from mass transit systems
In the US post-WWII middle class and privileged were often sold an idea of peaceful suburban lifestyles away from urbanized areas
Car manufacturers marketed this successfully as a way to encourage families away from city life and thus build a more solid reliance on their vehicles
City planning was therefore often built around a suburban-city sprawl rather than a cohesive urban community designed around efficiency
Like, why would you ever build a city differently in the first place?
Exactly. Unfortunately, in Australia, we tend to borrow stupid ideas from the US to make money and have sprawling suburbs with zero amenity.
For instance, we had a new suburbian development within 20km from the CBD with the promise of schools, community centres etc. in the early 2000s. When all the houses were bought and built, suddenly there’s no money for amenities so they just sold the land to developers who then put more houses in. Now the only way to get anything you need is by car because there’s no train or buses because it was supposed to be accessible by bike/walking but now isn’t. And not to mention gridlock of vehicles looking to get out of the suburbs for food etc. out of the one intersection provided.
I would love 15min cities without cars for my country but the attitude to cars here is similar to the attitude about guns in the US.
That is exactly the point of this meme. The resource allocation for building car infrastructure has been massive since the '60s while transit has been left behind as it is way less of a oppurtunity for car manufacturers and oil companies to profit from it and yeah, they do have a saying bigger than yours when it comes to deciding your country’s politics. (See corruptionlobbying)
But it means rebuilding cities. We should absolutely do it, but entirely reworking how everyone gets around is gonna take a while even best case scenario. But that’s why we should get started now!
We already bulldozed and rebuilt our cities for the car, so there’s certainly no reason we can’t do it again. It should be easier this time, though, as the main things we have to demolish are parking lots and stroads, not entire city blocks of dense housing. See Cincinnati below:
From my interpretation, this meme suggests we should just stop building cars. The fact we are buying so many cars is just a testament on how bad public transportation is. Even with traffic I still manage to get 1 hour and half faster than public transportation by train + subway.
I wish the solution was as simples as a resource redirection, but unfortunately it would require some city planning and possibly rebuilding around public transportation. Not gonna happen, I guess.
In an alternate world you’d complain cars can never work because there isn’t enough space for them on roads, and there’s never any parking when you arrive. (Oh, and accidents)
I got an ebike and rode 130 miles (note my ebike is 250w and geared) on the trail that I live near. Haven't taken it out since last month because they started construction (resurfacing+replacing 2 bridges) that will last until next year.
I'm in a small town and the construction blocks both ways (meanwhile, the road alternative is often unshaded with grass/ditches on the sides, with at least one last-section I was on a few times before to get to another house having 40mph (though sparse) traffic). The trail made further journeys possible without complex navigation (and I'm not aware of many closer destinations due to the rurality).
Also my town has a railroad but no train-station (so no passenger rail) so I guess it's rather fitting. Although at least the trail is getting fixed (also the trail used to be a rail).
This is a perfectly fitting example if you think what would instead happen if instead there were needed to be done construction on the road (they would do half lane at the time to allow traffic, or they would only work at night and reopen the road for the day, ft. Your tax money going to construction workers night shifts). As long as car drivers are seen as special requirements kids its always going to be made artificially easier to drive rather than commuting in other ways.
Just to be clear, my point (aside from that being rural sucks for transportation+there was only 1 option in this situation) is that the problem is infrastructure and planning rather than the vehicles themselves.
EDIT: And yeah, I don't know why they didn't split the job up into at least 2. [A to B] and [B to C] rather than [A-C] (and more sections could've probably been done when it comes to the resurfacing). Seems as if this were a sudden change after delays too.
Because planned economies are a terrible idea. We would be doing this efficiently and organically if the demand for bikes and public transportation was higher and the demand for cars was lower.
Why don’t we uproot all our vegetable crops and grow cherry trees? Cherries are delicious so this is obviously a great idea!
The only reason you have food on your plate is because economies adjust incrementally from the ground up, not all at once from the top down.
If you uproot an old failing oak without plans to plant something in its absence, you’ll be left with a big hole and no shade.
Edit: Maybe I’m agreeing with some of what was said and I’m misunderstood. Either way, I agree with understanding demand as it relates to a planned economy.
This is a problem with some poorly executed pedestrianisation/walkable area conversions IMO.
I like it since it means more car free spaces for me and my 🚲, but those without a bike aren’t going to wait around a hour for a bus, they’ll hop in their car and drive to an alternative location. They might not even be familiar with bike paths and routes to get there, especially if they’re not comfortable riding on the road.
When car-first infrastructure is ripped out, people need to be introduced to alternatives and the alternatives need to be attractive, otherwise the status-quo will shift elsewhere
Here comes the guy with the degree in economics and a lot of free time lmfao. It must be really difficult to misunderstand such a simple meme but here, I will help you out: MAYBE the spendings our governements “plan” (uuuh scary buzz word) on: car infrastructure (go check how much your country spends on it), gas tax cuts, road maintenance, healthcare costs related to car accidents (you don’t obviously “plan” those but they are nonetheless a cost for a society), just MAYBE, they could be decresed in favor of public transportation? Cycling infrastructure?
“BuT tHe dEmAnD fOr CarS iS sO hIgh!!1!1 LeT tHe fReE mArKet ChOoSe wHaT pEoPlE wAnT.”
Nice free market you got there when outside its all roads and parking lots (tax-paid), with no sidewalks/cycleways, and the only bus/train going to where you need to has a ride every 6 hours. Im sure people will buy a car to get around because they love it so much.
Why don’t we uproot all our vegetable cropsmodes of transportation and grow car trees? Cars are delicious so this is obviously a great idea!
I also have a degree in economics (and computer science, fwiw). We agree that the incentive structures in the United States are fucked up. I was just answering the question in the meme with regards to manufacturing decisions and how/why they’re made. Discontinuing our perverse car-centric subsidy schemes would be a great way to steer demand and supply away from cars.
Under-founds public transportation until all that’s left is a old dirty bus going in along a useless route every 6 hours. Builds massive highways, parking lots and roads that make it “easy” to drive and impossible to walk or cycle, cuts gas taxes. WOAH GUYS, people are buying cars because they love them! We should give them more funding and keep de-funding transit projects
What we have is a transportation economy that’s been planned by car companies. From demonizing “Jay Walkers”, to buying trolley companies to shut them down.
Even today, where small trucks stop being produced in order to avoid emission restrictions. Along with marketing, that falsely claims improved safety of the larger, more expensive, more profitable large trucks.
Whenever a market is dominated by a small enough group of companies, they start planning how it will work.
We live in an economy that is heavily distorted by things like car centered infrastructure, price fixing, cartels, industry lobbying, corruption and advertising among other things. Considering this makes your statement naive at best.
Replace “love” with “don’t mind” and you’ve described a portion of us c/fuckcars subs in a nutshell.
I personally dislike car-dependent design, which forces the majority of people to purchase, insure, and operate an understatedly dangerous, but very convenient mode of transportation. Us as a society being numb to deaths caused by dangerous driving, but not to deaths related to motorbikes, pedestrians etc, kind of sums up how big of an exemption we’ve given these vehicles - both mentally and in infrastructure.
There’s no question that cars serve an essential mobility function in areas where public transport is an unrealistic possibility at present, but the same benefits don’t translate well to dense urban areas like cities, where entire blocks in some instances are dedicated just for accomodating vehicles, and road space is taken up by individuals in their own personal 5 seater bus (exc. Carpooling)
Urban sprawl prevents actual buses from being a viable alternative for out of city commuters, so it’s a tricky problem to solve. Trains are a nice alternative too, but most of those tracks were ripped out and the remaining ones are mostly owned by freight companies ☹️.
…although you didn’t ask for my opinion and I deviated a bit off topic here sorry 🤪
You literally didn't. You answered with a logical fallacy. I'm not even saying the conclusion is wrong or right. Just that your way to get there is brain dead. You literally argued "the most popular choice is the best choice." I weep at whatever schooling system you're a part of as you clearly are still in school based on your maturity level.
Lmao there is a certain category of people that always starts using emojis the moment they are copeing.
Trying to put up points with you looks particularly useless, like speaking to a wall, but I will say for whoever reads this that people using something doesn’t necessarily means they like it. Unless you are suggesting people like to go to the hospital or to their workplace.
Pretending they didn't respond again expanding on it is funny. Plus it was an argument against the given one. It wasn't explaining why it's not that way. It was explaining why it shouldn't. Since that's the structure of the given argument above.
When someone says we should do X and then you just respond with "no, people love y" you're explicitly arguing it's a reason against. We obviously know people have cars. There is no value add to the discussion if it's truly what you claim, that they are just pointing out the current state of affairs. That's ludicrous. You're basically saying "no, they're just stupid."
he isnt arguing that they’re not wrong for liking cars. he’s saying not enough people want this to happen to make it feasible, because people want cars. do you have a chip on your shoulder?
That's not what they said. At all. That's an entirely different argument. If you want to make that one, be my guest. Also take some lessons on reading comprehension.
What a bs take. Many people used lead but that doesnt mean lead is good. Many buildings were built with asbestos but that doesnt mean asbestos is good either.
You may be shocked to hear this, but the world is a far bigger place than inside your head.
People don’t like cars, people like freedom and convenience. The US is designed around cars, and it’s not impossible to live without a car, but very close. Your argument is like saying people like health insurance, that’s why they keep buying it. The issue is that there isn’t a different choice.
To be faaaaaair, there are certain politicians who claim that “people like health insurance”, but those ‘people’ might be politicians who get big donations from the private healthcare firms.
Because bikes are a way too efficient (on the short distances) and long lasting products to be lucrative. Public transportation as well didn’t guarantee the same annual income of fresh money that the car market do.
fuckcars
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.