• argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    if you are for using technology to mitigate climate change, being against expanding public transportation can really only come from ignorance of the harms done by car infrastructure in urban environments, or some sort of bias against city dwelling people.

    Or an awareness that public transportation is too slow to be useful. Life is short these days, and sleep is scarce.

    like 80% of all people in the US live in urban areas, at least according to US Census data.

    And not in suburbs? I find that difficult to believe.

    they can be dirty and expensive (though that isn’t an inherent property of urban areas, just a failure of policy)

    I’ll believe that when there are urban areas that aren’t dirty and expensive, and no sooner.

    the thing about them being dangerous, or at least significantly more dangerous than rural areas, is just not factual.

    They are significantly more dangerous than suburban areas. I cannot speak for rural.

    i don’t mean to be hostile, just check yourself a little bit.

    …says the one who’s advocating for something that would ruin my entire family’s lives.

    for the majority of americans [access to public transportation] is an important climate justice and civil rights issue

    For those who have cars, it is equally important to not lose them, because losing them means losing a significant fraction of their lives and incomes to time spent in transit. The boss doesn’t pay you to sit on a bus; he pays you to work, so the faster you can get to and from work, the less impoverished and sleep-deprived you are.

    the immense burdens placed on urban working class people by the ownership of cars

    Nonsense. Most car owners are working-class, and if car ownership were more burden than benefit to them, it wouldn’t exist.

    our current legislation about who can build what where has led to suburban sprawl, vast, “”bleak”” wastelands of energy-sucking McMansions

    At least they have enough space to keep their possessions, and their pets can freely wander around outside. A McMansion would be a major improvement over the tiny apartment I live in.

    connected by acres upon acres of heat-absorbing asphalt road (i’m joking, kind of), miles from the nearest grocery store

    My parents live in a house 3 miles from a grocery store. They never walk there, because they’re old and groceries are heavy. Your expecting them to walk or ride a bus with a full grocery load is ableist as hell.

    I live next door to a grocery store. I walk there for small purchases, but drive to a more distant grocery store for most shopping, because the nearby store is overpriced, groceries are heavy even for me, and there isn’t enough space in my tiny apartment to store a cart capable of carrying larger loads.

    Keep in mind that, thanks to America’s famously unhealthy tap water, bottled water is part of a typical grocery run. That stuff is heavy—10 gallons of water weigh 83 pounds. You’re not going to carry that on a bus and you’ll be hard-pressed to carry that on foot even with a cart, especially if the walk home involves climbing any hills.

    Mixed zoning does absolutely nothing to make it faster to commute to work. You still have to take a bus and it’s still glacially slow and life is still far too short for that.

    Even with mixed zoning, cars are still necessary. That is why car infrastructure is a thing, not some conspiracy.

    so many cities had robust networks of electric cable cars and other forms of public transit back before the car was a thing

    And people stopped using them because they’re slow and impractical, and cars aren’t.

    for urban living, the material realities of car ownership are miserable, dangerous, slow, and cause significant financial burden.

    Urban living in general is miserable, dangerous, slow, and significantly financially burdensome.

    in an equitable society, freedom of movement should be just that, freedom. it should not be locked behind financial barriers, or behind private ownership

    Public transportation does not give you freedom of movement. You can only move to places along a public-transportation route. If you need to leave the city, you’re going to be riding a privately-owned vehicle—either your own car or someone else’s privately-owned vehicle (airplane, Greyhound bus, passenger train, etc)—not public transportation.

    for those reasons, the idea of car ownership as a tool for freedom of movement is kinda laughable to me. what kind of freedom needs a down payment? why should that freedom be in the hands of auto companies?

    Why should it be in the hands of Uber, Lyft, Greyhound, Amtrak, and the airlines? At least the car is yours to keep, and doesn’t take you on a sub-optimal route to artificially cost you more money.

    how in the fuck is rush hour traffic, claustrophobic strips of sidewalk, and barren paved over earth freedom?

    Crowded buses and trains are not an improvement. Especially not when somebody picks your pockets and disappears into the crowd before you even realize your wallet, keys, and phone are gone. Doubly especially not when there’s a deadly airborne plague going around.

    Public transportation is dangerous. People just don’t think about dangers that don’t immediately and spectacularly kill you like a car crash does.

    federal and local public transportation policy allows everybody to access transportation, rather than just those who are wealthy enough or rural enough to benefit despite the costs imposed by car-centered infrastructure on urban environments.

    The buses around here are mostly empty most of the time, and you want to send them on interstate routes at my expense? No thanks. Oregon already spends more than enough tax money on stuff nobody uses.

    in an equitable society, freedom of movement should be just that, freedom. it should not be locked behind financial barriers, or behind private ownership

    Then you’d best hurry and invent practical fusion power, because as long as energy remains scarce, so will transportation.

    when you’re out in a rural area, storing cars is not a big issue, because there is an abundance of land to put cars on.

    Precisely. City living creates artificial land scarcity. This is an extremely bad idea, especially during a housing crisis, because it robs the common people of both money and space.

    part of the reason why state level anti-trans and anti-abortion rules will negatively impact so many people when access is just a state away is exactly because the US as it exists currently has a pretty big problem with freedom of movement.

    Indeed. Those people need cars too, with which to escape from their oppressors and find someplace safe to live.

    You realize that no tyrannical regime in its right mind is going to just give its own victims an easy and affordable way to leave, right? Hitler did not put the Jews on trains out of Germany; he put them on trains to concentration camps. If you’re in a state where they’re rounding up and executing trans people, and you’re trans, then trying to leave the state on a publicly-owned vehicle is suicide.

    we currently live in a dystopian state of affairs

    Yes, and depriving people of their cars and houses would make it even worse.

    Your proposal is an example of crab mentality: you don’t have a car or a house, and instead of demanding those things for yourself so that your life can be as good as those who do have those things, you demand that those things be taken away from others so that their lives will be just as miserable as yours.

    • adderaline@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if you’re gonna make bad faith arguments about me wanting to take cars away or whatever, even when i explicitly talked about the inclusion of car based transportation in equitable future transport solutions for non-urban areas, don’t bother to respond at all. if you want to continue to insist that cities are yucky and bad, and intimate that not having cities is somehow a more equitable and realistic solution to the problems cities face than actually ameliorating the issues real people have right now, you can do that i guess.

      And not in suburbs? I find that difficult to believe.

      i looked at the breakdown. suburbs do constitute around half of the population, with urban at 31%. the census includes suburban populations as extensions of densely populated urban cores. so i was wrong about that. it still leaves like a third of all people in urban areas, which are still people who deserve equitable transport.

      …says the one who’s advocating for something that would ruin my entire family’s lives.

      what the fuck? like, forreal, under what circumstances is improving public transit supposed to impact your life negatively at all? again, never once advocated for the removal of all cars forever in perpetuity. i, and basically everybody else who wants better public transit, wants a larger diversity of transport solutions, to mitigate the energy costs and provide more people with more options for getting around. having strong public transit just by consequence of its utility makes less people need cars. you may genuinely believe public transit is slow, useless, and inferior to cars in some objective way. as somebody who has lived in cities for my whole life, i’m telling you that these sorts of resources are extremely valuable for people, especially people living with disabilities, people who cannot drive, people who are poor, and people who are unhoused. given that you’ve accused me of ableism for pointing out in passing that food deserts exist, i’ll just throw it back at you. what if you can’t drive? what if you don’t have a car? paratransit is public transit, and allows disabled people to live more full, independent lives. making public transit more accessible to more people can do nothing but improve the standards of living for people who need it or can benefit from it, and will do basically nothing if you decide you’re too good for it, as you obviously have.

      Why should it be in the hands of Uber, Lyft, Greyhound, Amtrak, and the airlines? At least the car is yours to keep, and doesn’t take you on a sub-optimal route to artificially cost you more money.

      public transit isn’t those things? like, how am i supposed to take this as a serious argument? i’m not advocating for private services, i’m advocating for public transportation resources. there are actually pilot programs for public services like Uber and Lyft, fleets of cars that can transport people cheaply from place to place if they don’t have a vehicle in the city. as for Amtrak or airlines, well, the initial thrust of my whole deal was that commercial airlines are kinda shit, and i agree with the stance of a number of railway unions, which is that railway services should be made public, rather than held by irresponsible, exploitative corporate middlemen.

      Public transportation is dangerous. People just don’t think about dangers that don’t immediately and spectacularly kill you like a car crash does.

      i’ve lived in cities all my life. never ever been pickpocketed. legit don’t know anybody who’s had an experience like that, don’t know where you got the idea that that’s some sort of common city living experience, other than by watching movies or something? and pandemic notwithstanding (busses kept going during the pandemic because people needed them), cars are just more dangerous overall, and are extra more dangerous when lots of people are driving all at once, and where people walking on the street are common casualties of vehicle accidents. now, you could take that as an argument that everybody should drive everywhere to protect themselves against the constant threat of fast moving metal boxes, but i think its frankly an unacceptable state of affairs. if people want to walk, or cycle, or whatever else, the infrastructure of their community should make that a viable option for them. right now, with the exclusive focus on car-based infrastructure? it isn’t.

      Then you’d best hurry and invent practical fusion power, because as long as energy remains scarce, so will transportation.

      this one’s just obtuse. we can take incremental steps towards our ideals. public transportation objectively costs less energy to transport more people than cars do. that’s one of the reasons why a lot of climate policy groups advocate for its expansion. scarcity should not stop us from attempting to provide the most resources we can to the most people possible, especially people in disadvantaged circumstances. like, you seem at least vaguely left leaning, why is this a point of contention? are you just quipping or something?

      Yes, and depriving people of their cars and houses would make it even worse. Your proposal is an example of crab mentality: you don’t have a car or a house, and instead of demanding those things for yourself so that your life can be as good as those who do have those things, you demand that those things be taken away from others so that their lives will be just as miserable as yours.

      full stop, never fucking said that. never said anything about taking people’s cars away, and never said anything about taking people’s houses away. i even made explicit mentions of car based infrastructure as part of future transport solutions in rural areas (or i guess suburban areas), but our current infrastructure is inefficient for the way that people in cities live. and great job assuming my current living conditions because i find advocacy for transportation rights important.

      i can’t take the rest of your obvious disdain for urban communities seriously. people live in cities. lots of people. lots of them love it there, and do not want to leave the communities in which they have built their lives. given that there are obvious problems with transportation in these places, problems i think i’ve enumerated clearly, including a number of ecological consequences which will worsen with climate change (that you basically didn’t mention at all in your response, other than to continue dunking on how icky and gross and morally unscrupulous our homes apparently are), your unwillingness to support a pretty important solution to at least some of these problems is disappointing to me. i’m sorry, but when your only response to the problems facing urban communities is “well that’s true but urban communities are bad”, i really don’t know what to say to that. yes? these are problems? better public transportation could fix some of them? we should use the technology we have to improve public transit significantly, as has been successfully implemented in a great number of other countries, and as you have advocated for plane travel? a modern high speed rail system could make interstate travel cheaper than a car or a plane and way faster than a car.

      and finally, because this one really pissed me off:

      You realize that no tyrannical regime in its right mind is going to just give its own victims an easy and affordable way to leave, right? Hitler did not put the Jews on trains out of Germany; he put them on trains to concentration camps. If you’re in a state where they’re rounding up and executing trans people, and you’re trans, then trying to leave the state on a publicly-owned vehicle is suicide.

      I am a Jew. I am also trans. Expulsion was a big part of the Jewish experience in the ramp up to the Holocaust, and over half of all Jews in Germany fled their homes to escape what they saw as escalating rhetoric before the start of the war, and before the Holocaust began in earnest. Many were forced to leave their belongings behind. Eventually, as part of the escalating laws restricting the lives and livelihoods of Jewish people, in September 1941, the remaining Jews inside Germany were prohibited from using Germany’s public transportation. That same month, they started putting the Star of David on their clothes. They were forced to live in designated regions of German cities called Judenhäuser. We can talk all we want about the utility and value of public transit, but the Nazis didn’t want their victims to have it for whatever reason.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you’re gonna make bad faith arguments about me wanting to take cars away or whatever, even when i explicitly talked about the inclusion of car based transportation in equitable future transport solutions for non-urban areas

        You also talked about how great it would be if car infrastructure didn’t exist. Cars would be unusable without car infrastructure, so it follows that you want cars to stop being a thing entirely.

        if you want to continue to insist that cities are yucky and bad, and intimate that not having cities is somehow a more equitable and realistic solution to the problems cities face than actually ameliorating the issues real people have right now, you can do that i guess.

        Grossly inadequate and overpriced living space is an issue real people have right now. It’s an issue that I myself have right now. Why do you think I’m complaining so much?

        it still leaves like a third of all people in urban areas, which are still people who deserve equitable transport.

        My idea of equitable transport is everyone getting paid enough to have a car, and no one living in a place so densely packed that there’s not enough room to park it.

        having strong public transit just by consequence of its utility makes less people need cars.

        No, it doesn’t, because public transit is useless outside of densely packed cities, and no one should be forced to live in a densely packed city.

        these sorts of resources are extremely valuable for people, especially people living with disabilities, people who cannot drive, people who are poor, and people who are unhoused.

        No doubt. You’ll note that I never advocated that public transit be abolished, and that is the reason why. Ideally, no one would need it—no one would be poor or unhoused, and cars would be self-driving—but we don’t live in that ideal world just yet.

        given that you’ve accused me of ableism for pointing out in passing that food deserts exist

        No, I accused you of ableism for expecting people to walk or ride public transit with heavy grocery loads. Like I said, I live next door to a grocery store, and even that is too far to walk with 100+ pounds of groceries.

        i’ll just throw it back at you. what if you can’t drive? what if you don’t have a car?

        Then you have a big problem, and public transit will only mitigate it somewhat, not actually solve it.

        paratransit is public transit

        I hadn’t heard of that, but according to Wikipedia, it doesn’t seem to work very well in practice. At any rate, I don’t see how it’s any more environmentally-friendly or space-saving than cars.

        Why should it be in the hands of Uber, Lyft, Greyhound, Amtrak, and the airlines?

        public transit isn’t those things?

        You were talking about freedom of movement. Neither public transit nor transit-as-a-service gives you freedom of movement; only your own vehicle does.

        there are actually pilot programs for public services like Uber and Lyft, fleets of cars that can transport people cheaply from place to place if they don’t have a vehicle in the city.

        You have an interesting definition of “cheap”…

        i’ve lived in cities all my life. never ever been pickpocketed. legit don’t know anybody who’s had an experience like that, don’t know where you got the idea that that’s some sort of common city living experience, other than by watching movies or something?

        Simple logic. Wherever it’s easy to pick someone’s pocket and get away with it, there will be pickpockets, and where is it easier than a crowded public transit terminal where you can walk anywhere without being noticed?

        busses kept going during the pandemic because people needed them

        Yes, and it wouldn’t have spread so quickly if not for that. The fact that people need buses is a problem.

        cars are just more dangerous overall, and are extra more dangerous when lots of people are driving all at once, and where people walking on the street are common casualties of vehicle accidents. now, you could take that as an argument that everybody should drive everywhere to protect themselves against the constant threat of fast moving metal boxes

        Actually, I take that as an argument that people and workplaces should be more spread out, and work hours should be staggered, so that there aren’t so many cars on the road all at once.

        public transportation objectively costs less energy to transport more people than cars do. that’s one of the reasons why a lot of climate policy groups advocate for its expansion.

        You’re contradicting yourself again. That only applies to mass transit, not paratransit. It’s only true if everyone, or at least almost everyone, uses mass transit and neither paratransit nor personal vehicles. The only way people are actually going to use mass transit is if they have no other choice, yet you claim you’re not advocating for taking that choice away. So, which is it?

        people live in cities. lots of people. lots of them love it there, and do not want to leave the communities in which they have built their lives.

        I can’t imagine that. I can’t imagine living in a city unless there’s no other choice. That’s like telling me that prisoners would rather live in their cells than be released. It’s patently absurd.

        And that’s why I interpret your advocacy for city living as a threat to take that choice away.

        this one really pissed me off

        Then you know how I feel about people trying to take away my family’s means of getting to work in a reasonable time, and living in some semblance of dignity and comfort.

        We can talk all we want about the utility and value of public transit, but the Nazis didn’t want their victims to have it for whatever reason.

        Indeed. Public transit did not grant them freedom of movement, contrary to your earlier claims. That’s the point I was trying to make.