Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday February 13 2018, @11:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the right-tool-for-the-job dept.

An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.

Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].

It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.

[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.

Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:21PM (2 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:21PM (#637568)

    That sounds like a very inefficient way to structure a country. Why did they do it that way?

    I mean, sure, you don't want heavy industry/commerce right next to your home, but it is perfectly feasible to have light commerce/industrial and residential together. Light residential and recreational even makes more sense to have nearby.

    Unless you are a developing country, heavy manufacturing is going to be a small percentage of your economy. The bulk of it would be services and light manufacture/commercial, which (with prudent planning) can be near residential places.

    Seems nothing sillier than forcing the entire working populace through the transport system twice a day. Waste of man hours, energy and resources.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:20PM (#637614) Journal

    Historical context is important. Most UK cities, for example, began as clusters of towns or villages that gradually expanded until they were overlapping. All of the component parts were largely self contained, because most people got around them by walking. Most of the roads were initially developed to support a horse and cart. During the industrial revolution, factories had to be built within walking distance of wherever the workforce lived, and the same applied to shops.

    In contrast, most US cities experienced their big expansion at around the time that cars became cheap enough to own, and back when fuel was very cheap. As such, they're designed around the idea that you drive pretty much anywhere. This is particularly visible somewhere like San Diego, where six-lane highways run through the middle of the city and residents expect to drive anywhere more than a block away.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:07AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:07AM (#638020) Homepage Journal

      In contrast, most US cities experienced their big expansion at around the time that cars became cheap enough to own, and back when fuel was very cheap. As such, they're designed around the idea that you drive pretty much anywhere. This is particularly visible somewhere like San Diego, where six-lane highways run through the middle of the city and residents expect to drive anywhere more than a block away.

      That's mostly because one of the most influential planners [wikipedia.org] of the 20th century absolutely *hated* cities.

      He pushed hard to make life completely automobile-based, rather than walking, bicycling or using public transit. If he'd had his way, he would have devastated significant portions of New York City with highways across major thoroughfares [wikipedia.org]:

      Robert Moses planned to build other expressways through Manhattan, most of which were never constructed as planned. The Mid-Manhattan Expressway [wikipedia.org] would have been an elevated highway running above 30th Street. The Cross Harlem Expressway [wikipedia.org] would have run at ground level at 125th Street. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway [wikipedia.org], the only one of Moses' planned Manhattan expressways ever constructed, connected the George Washington Bridge [wikipedia.org] with Moses' Cross Bronx Expressway [wikipedia.org] and was completed in 1962.

      The most famous of these failed plans was the Lower Manhattan Expressway [curbed.com], which would have razed what is now some of the most expensive real estate in NYC, as well as several very crowded neighborhoods.

      Sadly, Moses' disciples didn't have the sort of opposition that he did, and you can see it in cities all over the US.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr