WASHINGTON—In a trend that is reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels by curtailing the total number of cars on the road, a study released Thursday by the Transportation Department found that more Americans than ever are commuting to work splattered on the grill of a Ford F-150. “Increasingly, U.S.…
Car dependency punishes poor people. The solution is viable alternatives, for which having fewer cars is often very beneficial.
Yes, but that alternative infrastructure needs to be in place before you can start really discouraging cars with, for example, high gas prices. Raising gas prices to that extent right now in most places outside of a few major cities would just cause people not to be able to get to work.
In my Australian city they keep restricting more and more free parking areas near town, pushing the problem out into nearby residential areas when it’s still free, merely a few more minutes walk away.
All the while, not improving any bus services.
The cognitive disconnection is amazing.
Then again, the people running the city council will all have dedicated parking spaces just outside their offices.
So…
@heatofignition @mondoman712
Nah. Public policy isn’t a neat project plan you can accomplish in chronological order. The measurement of good policy isn’t whether or not there are zero negative impacts on lower income folks.
The status quo is bad. Do what’s possible. If you can raise gas prices do it. If you can increase transit do it. Each improvement will virtuously reinforce other improvements.
#transit
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Put enough good quality alternatives in, and you can get modal shift without resorting to punative measures.
If walking, cycling, or catching a train to a given destination is faster and easier than driving, then that’s what many people will do.
But those alternatives — fast metro systems, frequent busses, light rail, barrier-protected and off-street cycling paths — need to be in place first.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
You can obviously do whatever policy advocacy you want. IMO it’s not actually possible to make walking, biking and transit more convenient and less costly than driving without increasing the cost of driving. Higher gas prices and better transit reinforces each other.
Meanwhile the existing pollution and car dependency creates real harm every day it persists.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
It seems pretty obvious to me that we’re not mitigating harm to low income or marginalized folks by making it cheap for middle class folks to pollute and cause traffic violence, despite whatever benefits people might get from low gas prices.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
I can’t speak to Australian demographics but in the US the lowest decile of income is 9 times more likely to not own a car. So they don’t get any benefits from low gas prices but they still have to pay the costs of pollution, traffic violence and a political economy that hates transit because driving is so cheap and easy for the middle class.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here’s the timetable for the Sydney Northwest Metro: https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/93-M-Sydney-Metro-North-West-20230929.pdf
It has a service every four minutes during the morning and evening peak.
I’ve attached a screenshot from Google Maps showing what’s typical 8am morning commute would look like from Rouse Hill to Macquarie University and the Macquarie Park business precinct.
It’s typically 40 minutes by car. You have to have your hands on the wheel. You’re stuck in traffic. That’s if you pay $9.56 or $14.13 for a toll road, which is a bit quicker.
Or you can take the Metro.
Trains run every four minutes during the morning peak, so you can turn up and go. It’s a modern service with driverless trains and platform-screen doors.
It takes 32 minutes — so it’s the faster option. And you can do other things during your commute.
(I’ve attached a screenshot, please note you might need to see the original post to view it.)
The train is the faster and more convenient option.
Why wouldn’t you take the Metro?
This isn’t because the state government has done anything to hobble road driving.
It’s because the NSW State Government has invested in building a good quality, frequent Metro service to the northwestern suburbs.
The Metro has been a catalyst for building a number of transit-oriented developments at each of the stations. For the people living in those apartments, there’s a clear winner.
The problem is that for around 70 years after WW2, governments have zoned whole suburbs for low-density residential.
These car-dependent suburbs, cars were the only viable option for getting to work, school, or shopping. By design.
At best, there’s an often unreliable bus that runs every 20 minutes during the peak. And that’s it.
At least in Australia, they tend to be on the outer fringes of the major metropolitan areas. Wealthier people with a choice tend to prefer inner-urban areas with better public transport.
If you just hit people in these areas with taxes and fines without a compelling alternative, and you’re effectively levelling a poor tax.
Give people access to good quality public transport — and yes it can be faster than being stuck in traffic — and they’ll choose it.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Everyone understands that transit is terrible in car dependent suburbs. Low gas prices are a direct cause of that. Yes, if you leave from a station and go to another station, it might be faster than driving.
It’s a choice to focus on how high gas prices might negatively impact suburban commuters – who largely own their homes and can afford to operate a private vehicle – rather people who can’t own a car and are negatively impacted by low gas prices.
deleted by creator
Raising the gas prices 10x overnight won’t create those alternatives overnight, nor will it put petrol companies out of business because they pass the cost on to consumers who are mostly forced to buy gas at whatever the current price is with no other viable transportation method.
Infrastructure takes time. Sadly the US govt isn’t even at the starting line for any meaningful public transit system in most cities.
If gas prices went up 10x overnight, some higher earners could switch to working from home (a positive result), but other industries such as retail don’t really get that luxury… Contributing to more wealth inequality
You do realize the post here said gradually, right? Why are you strawmaning them and saying overnight?
No shit, I’m not saying that.
So because you think alternatives that don’t exist should you would raise gas prices and obscene amount and put people on the streets?
I live in a small rural town where everybody commutes to their factory job and is already barely scraping by. What do you think all those people should do to stave off being homeless when they can’t afford to drive?
I think the alternatives should be good enough that raising gas prices isn’t a problem.
Please tell me your plan to collect all of the people spread across half of a state who commute to a central location.
Mobility enables poor people. Not all poor people live in an idealistic 15-minute city.
I don’t think rural living makes sense if you’re also commuting. Small towns can have good transport links to other nearby towns but I don’t think it makes sense to support those who decide they want to live beyond the practical reach of public services just for the sake of it.
I understand that you’re doing a thought experiment about futuristic utopias but I am talking about the current situation right now and a comment that started this chain.
People live in rural areas whether you think they should or not and raising gas prices to reduce car travel disproportionately affects those people.
Now, if there was some way for poor people to get fuel credits or something so that they’re empowered with mobility maybe that would work.
We also should probably not make farming any harder than it already is.
It’s not a utopia, it’s perfectly possible if we work towards it.
And I said
Specifically to exclude farmers
In 2020 according to statistics 82.66% of all americans lived in cities, not spread across half the state. Urban areas and country side should be developed differently of course.
And as everyone knows, all those 82% are commuting to the same place
TIL cities cant have central mass transport
We’re talking about rural areas.
There are other places in the world who do this much better than the US. How about instead of assuming it’s impossible because you haven’t seen it you consider that it is, in fact, possible but the image has been designed to make it appear impossible by those benefiting from it not being done.
Also, choosing to live away from work is a choice. Suburbia is a choice, and actually one that costs more money in taxes than it makes over time, requiring it to continue to expand or admit it doesn’t work. You can choose to live closer, or even choose to bike to a bus stop/train station/whatever that is positioned reasonably if things weren’t designed around making car and gas company executives rich.
Suburbia? Thanks for showing you have no idea what I’m talking about.