Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The past generation's love of automobiles resulted in nearly all of our infrastructure to be designed around the car. Today, people's reliance on automobiles isn't even about culture but more out of necessity; in most places, you simply need a car in order to function. Recent trends in many U.S. cities are turning this around, but surely most Americans are living in spaces where they rely on their cars.
So what if the author clearly doesn't like cars? And there's a lot of numbers in there the author uses to support that feeling.
Look, what frustrates me in these conversations is that, when this should be a pure value proposition, we bring in all these emotions about cars, about associated lifestyles (eg, urban vs. suburban), and about alternative modes of transportation. In the process we get stuck because, while we can pick apart statistics, feelings can't be debated.
Here in Santa Clara County, our county transit operator can hardly have a factual discussion about El Camino Real BRT without folks raising pitchforks because of how they feel about the project, numbers be damned. The single most popular line the VTA operates on a congested and fully built-out thoroughfare, and we can't even have a factual discussion about how to improve the situation for commuters.
Yes, it's enduring because it's convenient and worth while. It touches briefly upon that before launching into the external costs which it probably figures are too abstract. The meat and potatoes is that mostly it sits around and mostly sits around and costs a lot of money. Of course it endures beyond that because we don't really have a better alternative. For most people, the car is the best alternative and now that we have them and prosperity to afford them it's stuck around and will continue to stick around until another better alternative comes around for most people or we don't have the prosperity anymore to afford them any longer.
But then it gets some things wrong as well. Compared with the alternative, which is really public transportation, it's not expensive at all. For example in my town a monthly pass will run you $50/month and just on a farebox recovery basis, which understates the cost as people buy passes when it will cost less than the fares, the tax payer is paying another $200/mo on each fare. That's direct operating costs. Now, it's still cheaper than the average driver probably pays but then you don't get very much for it either. It doesn't run very many places at all and the service sucks. For an infrequent user such as myself, it's just expensive. A single ride costs $1.50, another $5.00 in taxpayer funding. $6.50 for a one-way local in-town trip. Average transit trip is pretty short, maybe four miles excluding commuter wouldn't be covered by that fare. Using the IRS mileage rate that's about three times as expensive as the same trip would cost in a car. That's a rate designed to capture all costs which is much more accurate than just gas.
Dependence on foreign oil. The average car is already more energy efficient and thus makes us less dependent on foreign oil than the average bus. Of course, bus service sucks so people relying on buses or prublic transportation in general consume much less transit. There's no real reason you have to use a bus to have a lower quality of life though. If you're really that concerned about it, just get a fuel efficient car and make the trips you would be bus. Higher quality of life for most people and less dependency on foreign oil than the bus. Of course, people won't do that willingly. It's not any different than any other areas. By and large people aren't willing to sacrifice quality of life all that much. They won't do without a cell phone or a computer or electricity or become vegetarians either. Everyone I know has a ridiculous amount of clothes and consumer goods. All this gluttony is what keeps the global economy chugging along. If we lived like Tibetan monks and threw away almost all our worldly attachments it'd all come crashing down. The rest of us maybe make small sacrifices. We think twice about if we really need another pair of shoes but I still have a lot of shoes (three pairs of dress shoes, half a dozen sneakers, hiking boots, pair of work boots, three pairs of motorcycle boots, two pairs of cycling shoes)... and that's just shoes. I also have three laptops, two tablets, cellphonse, a desktop, two TVs, two motorcycles, a closest full of clothing, a house that's way bigger than I need although small by American standards.
I make some small sacrifices. I bike the farmer's market when the weather is nice, drive a fuel efficient car. I'm no Tibetan monk though. I'm still going to fly to Hawaii for vacation, take road trips, eat meat, own TVs, cell phones, computers, and keep my overly large home air-conditioned. Right now I'm using about 10% of my house while my car sits in the driveway. I like it there for when I want to use it. I don't want someone using my kitchen or sleeping in my bed or watching my TV or driving my car just because I'm not using any of them at the moment. I think the idea of the sharing economy is great (things like AirBNB or Zipcars). There was a time I didn't own a car and used Zipcars occasionally. For people that want to live in cities close to work, great. It works for who it works for but let's not get too excited about it being the end of the car ownership. I'm a big proponent of autonomous cars as well. That's also not going to be the end of car ownership. It's a technology I'll be adopting as soon as I can afford to buy one.
So what if the author clearly doesn't like cars? And there's a lot of numbers in there the author uses to support that feeling.
Because nobody likes a Carcist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
, what frustrates me in these conversations is that, when this should be a pure value proposition, we bring in all these emotions about cars, about associated lifestyles (eg, urban vs. suburban), and about alternative modes of transportation. In the process we get stuck because, while we can pick apart statistics, feelings can't be debated.
I take your point, but if we made decisions strictly on a "true value basis":
We wouldn't manufacture or consume alcohol or cigarettes.
We wouldn't raise cattle or eat meat.
We certainly wouldn't allow for cancer patients to be charged 20K a pop for a single chemo treatment.
I think it's obvious that car ownership is cultural and far more than the sum of it's parts. However, it does seem there's a bit of paranoia brewing with car owners, much like when gun enthusiasts believe every new law is aimed at taking away their guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
in Santa Clara County, our county transit operator can hardly have a factual discussion about El Camino Real BRT without folks raising pitchforks because of how they feel about the project, numbers be damned. The single most popular line the VTA operates on a congested and fully built-out thoroughfare, and we can't even have a factual discussion about how to improve the situation for commuters.
I'm not familiar with this line, but I empathize with your frustration. It will be interesting to see how some of these projects get resolved.
Look, what frustrates me in these conversations is that, when this should be a pure value proposition, we bring in all these emotions about cars, about associated lifestyles (eg, urban vs. suburban), and about alternative modes of transportation. In the process we get stuck because, while we can pick apart statistics, feelings can't be debated.
Being able to control your environment(i.e. driving) has an lot of value. The problem with BRT is that is does nothing for people who don't need that particular line.
Quote:
Here in Santa Clara County, our county transit operator can hardly have a factual discussion about El Camino Real BRT without folks raising pitchforks because of how they feel about the project, numbers be damned. The single most popular line the VTA operates on a congested and fully built-out thoroughfare, and we can't even have a factual discussion about how to improve the situation for commuters.
Because the project takes away lanes from other vehicles.
The problem is basically that the car is wonderful. Less polluting and lower maintenance than a horse, faster and more comfortable than walking or a bicycle, much faster than a bus, far cheaper than grade-separated rail transit, and more flexible than any public transit at all. It can carry all the stuff we need. It can take us on trips long or short, without advance planning. The biggest problem, really, is that it takes up space. In terms of energy it's more efficient than buses on a per-passenger-mile basis, and that's before accounting for circuity of the bus routes.
The problem is basically that the car is wonderful. Less polluting and lower maintenance than a horse, faster and more comfortable than walking or a bicycle, much faster than a bus, far cheaper than grade-separated rail transit, and more flexible than any public transit at all. It can carry all the stuff we need. It can take us on trips long or short, without advance planning. The biggest problem, really, is that it takes up space. In terms of energy it's more efficient than buses on a per-passenger-mile basis, and that's before accounting for circuity of the bus routes.
Amen
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
