Car Haters: StreetsBlog
by Judd WileyMay 21st, 2008, 10:03 pm
As you might already know, there’s another side to this whole debate.
Walkers. Bicyclists. Mass transit fanatics. Urban dwellers. Radical environmentalists. Global warming extremists. Redistributionists. Regulators.
The weenies.
They hate cars. They hate people who drive cars. They hate people who make cars. Their mission in life is to wipe the car off the road. They have a particularly special hatred for the SUV. Their favorite instrument is the government. They passionately support higher taxes, congestion pricing, car pool lanes, bus-only lanes, toll hikes, new fees, fines, gas surcharges, red-light cameras, and all the rest.
A perfect example of the do-gooder weenie crowd is StreetsBlog.
Go to their website. Read their posts. Look at their topics. Check out the comments.
It’s really quite amazing. The entire purpose of StreetsBlog and their readership is to deprive you of your freedom to drive your car as you please. They want to tax and regulate your car away, and force you to walk, bike, or take mass transit to work.
StreetsBlog is part of something called The Open Planning Project, which is dedicated to radical anti-car activism.
New York City is defined by its vibrant and diverse streets and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, our neighborhoods and business districts are buckling under increasing amounts of dangerous car and truck traffic. Children can no longer play on their own blocks, while parents worry about turning cars smashing into baby carriages. Senior citizens are losing their independence, shut up in their homes for fear of crossing the street. And shoppers and investors are being turned away by chaotic, traffic-choked avenues.
In other words, the whole city of New York is disintegrating because of you and your car.
No room for doubt. No room for compromise. No recognition that the car is and will always be the only mode of transportation for many Americans. No respect for the rights of individuals who disagree with their socio-politico-economic philosophy and lifestyle.
Just a raw, seething hatred of the internal combustion engine and everything related to it.
The Streetsblog Truth Squad
- Part 1: Car Haters: Streetsblog
- Part 2: Pete at Streetsblog: “Few Ideas” at Commuter Outrage
- Part 3: Who Is Mark Gorton?
- Part 4: StreetsBlog: StreetCritiques
- Part 5: Pick Your Poison - Gas, Guns, or Elitism
- Part 6: Streetsblog’s Comment Moderation Policy: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
- Part 7: A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words
- Part 8: Bike Box?
Related Posts
- Bloomberg Wants Surveillance Cameras in Bus-Only Lanes
- Higher Taxes for SUV Owners?
- Stupid Commute Week
- Car Free Day
- Start Drilling Now
Posted in Uncategorized Rage |
yeah streetblog is all about taxing the crap out of people who drive cars.
where does this hatred of the car come from?
i would guess that it dates back to the 60s, when there was a huge hippie backlash against upwardly mobile suburban life
the car was a symbol of everything the radical leftists the the 60s hated.
throw in some environmentalism, add 40 years of population growth
and here we are today…..
Right-o Bill.
I had a Yukon Denali in NYC for 7 years.
I must of killed thousands of chinese food delivery men.
It was awesome.
G-d Bless.
SEE YOU AT IHOP!
Mr. Kaag.
Judd,
It’s not that we hate cars. It’s that, at a certain point, they just don’t work very well in a crowded, dense city.
Nice to see the mugheaded yard apes out there have there own site to blow their own suv horns on.
I refer you back to your own site, to your “Car Culture” category
Read some of your titles. Read some of your posts.
You’re not writing just about cars in crowded, dense cities. You’re covering this topic from a national perspective.
For instance, your mocking analysis of Phyllis Berry, a 31-year-old factory worker for General Motors in Cleveland, who is having a hard time paying for gas: “Working for a failing automaker to make enough money to keep your beat-up, failing mini van rolling through your sprawled-out, failing city.”
You’re delving into issues such as the sociology, psychology, and even body weight of American car owners.
You’re writing a dissertation on how and why you hate the American automobile and the people who drive it.
yard ape! could this be the first instance of racism in the comments section of commuteroutrage?
from urban dictionary:
“The term ‘yard ape’ refers to a black person. It’s derivation is from the lawn ornaments of black coachmen holding lanterns, or black children fishing, or many of the other lawn ornaments of that type. It has devolved into a perjorative term for blacks.”
and from an environmentalist too!
judd, please regulate
Yes, “yard ape” is the first official racial slur in the comments section!
I’m going to leave it up. I want everyone to know the utter stupidity of this person.
To the comment:
“It’s not that we hate cars. It’s that, at a certain point, they just don’t work very well in a crowded, dense city.”
I think it’s fair to say that cars make some aspects of city life difficult.
However, I think that you need to acknowledge that without cars, your city would be impossible to support - as would all modern cities.
For starters, how would you get the food you need to feed the eight million people in New York? You aren’t going to grow that stuff in Central Park, and you can’t grow enough food close enough to the city to get it there before it spoils without using vehicles.
I think your comment is actually backwards - your city wouldn’t work very well without cars.
you guys are ridiculous. why wouldn’t you want higher taxes and fees to pay for mass transit and get cars off the road. what could make more sense than that???!!!
environmentalism is cool. you are not cool.
Lewis:
You are using a straw man argument there. Streetsbloggers (of whom I am one) don’t oppose the use of all forms of motorized transport — so delivery trucks are just fine by us. What we oppose is the fact that enormous percentages of New York City’s land are given over to the movement and storage of private automobiles, whose owners don’t pay the full societal costs of their car usage.
New York is quite easy to imagine with drastically fewer (say, 75% fewer) private cars: it would look a lot like many European cities, with open space, parks, bike paths, bus lanes, tree-lined boulevards, sidewalk cafes, and other civilized amenities.
Lewis,
I think you’re confusing automobiles as a form of personal transportation with trucks as a form of goods transportation. In New York City, the former is a lot less defensible than the latter. Obviously it’s a lot easier for someone to switch their commute to the subway than for a freight forwarder to move their goods by subway. That said, it makes a lot of sense to bring some of those goods into the city by rail, and it doesn’t make any sense at all to bring big tractor-trailers onto most big city streets.
It should be clear to anyone who thinks about it that any city is dependent on the countryside for resources, but in America, city dwellers actually use fewer natural resources than their suburban and exurban counterparts. Why? Because we travel smaller distances, because a big apartment building is cheaper to heat (per person) than a standalone house, and because the density of cities enables the widespread use of public transportation. That’s why New York City is the only place in America that most people don’t own a car, and it’s no accident that New Yorkers have a carbon footprint that is only 25% of the national average.
Streetsblog is a community, and like any community, there are a variety of viewpoints. I think the main issue that ties together people on streetsblog is a common belief that New York City is a place designed around public transit and pedestrianism and where most people do not even own a car, let alone commute to work, and yet the vast majority of public space and transportation consideration is given to a tiny minority of drivers. Beyond that, opinions differ, though certainly many readers would also agree that the suburban and exurban development models are unsustainable, and that people who have chosen to live in those areas will sooner or later feel the pain of that unsustainable choice.
Judd,
That’s just a re-blog of a New York Times story. Hardly an “analysis.” Still, I read it as being either neutral or sympathetic to Phyllis and critical of automobile dependence — as any good American would be. Right? I mean, who wants to be dependent on foreign oil, 2 hour commutes and massive federal highway programs. I can’t think of anything less American than that.
How sad and pathetic was it to see our president running over to Saudi Arabia last week to beg for more oil output? Doesn’t that bug you guys at all? Or are you too busy hanging out in the Chevy Avalanche Fan Club over at Yahoo Groups to even notice?
Oil just hit $136 a barrel overseas. It’s over car drivers! Today on CNN two analysts said $5 or $6 a gallon is certain sometime this summer before prices ease back to around the current $4 by Labor Day. Stop driving!!! Driving is the end of the world….
*********
Okay, those above sentences are partly meant as a joke, though those are true facts from today. The words above are probably what you’d like to see some of us to angrily post up on your blog.
Judd, I think you would be surprised how many people that comment on streetsblog actually own cars! I don’t have a driver’s license, but know many commenters on sblog that do own a car. So it is nice to know when I see these names chiming in, they are people using their cars responsibly, using them for grocery shopping, or to carpool, or maybe to escape the city periodically. But they are also using mass transit and walking and bicycling and carpooling and would like to see a world for their kids to grow up in.
Calling sblog “car haters” is actually pretty funny. And using “seething hatred” is even more comical. Heck, even me - “Mr. Ride My Bike All I Can” - doesn’t HATE cars. My girlfriend owns one and I went to wedding in it this weekend and I loved every moment being in it (except getting stuck in traffic on the LIE). But again, if she is coming to visit me, she might drive, she might take the subway, she might bike. She knows there are alternatives and even though it is 8 miles to bike, it is a good workout, and it is fun. If more car owners were as multi-modal as her and like many of the Streetsblog commenters we’d have a much easier commute for all.
I agree with some of the points expressed so far, but let me clarify a few things:
First, I’m not trying to narrowly focus the discussion on automobiles for the movement of goods - that overlooks many advantages of the automobile - one being the movement of the people who make up the workforce.
I’ll admit that for those who can afford to live in New York, or near any downtown metropolis for that matter (like me), things are easier and probably less wasteful. But the problem is that this lifestyle isn’t a choice that everyone has.
Most of New York’s population doesn’t live in the city confines on Manhattan - a large portion of the workforce lives outside, and there simply isn’t room to accommodate them all within the city.
Second, I’m not in favor of the automobile above all else. If you read the content of this site, you’ll discover that I actually rarely ever drive. I ride the Metro almost everywhere I go, and in the summer I bike to work frequently. I don’t own an SUV, instead I own a Toyota Corolla.
My position is that I don’t favor any form of transportation over another provided that we are using the most efficient one - and that is normally determined by the individual commuter. Now whether more or less people should drive is debatable, but I think we should remember, most people choose the form of transportation they take for their own individual reasons. The government exists to provide us the infrastructure to allow us to make the most efficient choices for ourselves. The government should not engage in social engineering that it honestly isn’t good at.
Third, I acknowledge that we need taxes to pay for this infrastructure, and you will never hear me say that we shouldn’t have to pay any taxes. But, I don’t favor higher taxes, tolls, fees or anything else unless we have cut all of the waste out of the current budget.
I saw a funny little anecdote in the news the other day - the Maine legislature approved a measure to continue to pay their nuclear safety advisor $71,000 per year - one problem, there haven’t been any nuclear power plants in Maine for almost ten years. This is the kind of waste that I want to see cut from the budget before I give one penny more to wasteful politicians.
Fourth, I’ll admit that some of my posts are over the top - but the name of the site is Commuter Outrage. Part of this is about standing up for the little guy and creating an outlet for the way that a lot of average people feel.
I disagree with you guys on a lot of issues - for instance, I think Mike’s above comment about how New York could be like European cities is unrealistic - even if we got rid of cars. A lot more plays into the development of our cities than the cars on the road. Where are we going to put these tree lined avenues, open spaces, parks and bike paths? And how are we going to find the space for those things if everyone moves back in toward the city so they can use bikes.
At least you guys care enough to put some thought into the subject. Some of our comments come from people who are obviously too obsessed with Dancing with the Stars to be trifled with little things like what the government is doing with nearly one third of your paycheck.
That said, if I am outraged about something in the news, in my personal experience, or on your site, I reserve the right to be completely belligerent and insane.
(Part of this is about standing up for the little guy and creating an outlet for the way that a lot of average people feel.)
Demanding to keep America’s SUV’s humming along on unclogged highways for no increased cost isn’t the way to help the little guy. We’re moving into an era of permanently expensive gasoline and personal mobility problems that we can’t build our way out of by adding another lane on the freeway. If you really want to help the little guy then you’ve got to help him understand that America needs to be moving in the direction of walkable and bikeable communities, a functional national rail system and far better intra-city mass transit. Expressing outrage over expensive gas, demanding the Saudis pump more oil for us and acting like mass transit is a Communist plot isn’t helpful. In fact, the “little guy” seems to have an inkling of this already. Hillary’s gas tax scam pretty much went nowhere as a campaign issue. The problem is really a small but vocal group of radical conservative ideologues who seem to have somehow attached the idea of freedom to the automobile. This is the idea that needs to change.
“The government exists to provide us the infrastructure to allow us to make the most efficient choices for ourselves. The government should not engage in social engineering that it honestly isn’t good at.”
How do you suppose we got so many roads and highways to drive on then?
First of all, who say’s I’m a “radical conservative ideologue”? In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not exactly fans of the current administration here - see our various posts about DoT and TSA. I happen to have voted for members of every party - republican, democrat and independent - in national elections. I don’t tow party lines, I think for myself and support ideas that I think are most effective.
Second, point to one post on this site that expresses outrage over expensive gas. We’ve expressed outrage over SUV taxes, and increases in gas taxes, but that’s not outrage about gas prices - that’s outrage over the government finding new ways to nickel and dime you out of money that they will waste. Gas is expensive because supply isn’t keeping up with demand - not because there is some conspiracy against the working man.
Third, point to any post on this site that demands the Saudis pump more oil or that mass transit is a communist plot - did you happen to miss the part of my comment above that mentions that I almost exclusively use mass transit and don’t own an SUV, or are you incapable of reading words that aren’t some part of a save the earth bumper sticker?
Fourth, who says that just because gasoline is getting expensive the automible is going away? In case you haven’t noticed, there is a frantic search for alternative fuels - for automobiles - currently underway. People are trying to figure out how to make cars run on biofuels (bad idea), hydrogen cells (not workable yet), solar power (not workable yet), electricity (presumably good depending on how you produce the electricity) and more.
You’ll notice people aren’t working to build a better bicycle, and developing countries (China) that do use bicycles extensively are abandoning them in droves to take up automobiles because automobiles are more efficient - that’s what’s driving the price of gas up.
You can lament the culture of the automobile all you want, but it’s here to stay, and that’s not my choice - in fact, some of your fellow commenters seem to agree with that.
You also seem to have overlooked the part of my comment where I say that I don’t favor one form of transportation over another. I think they should all be funded to the extent that it makes sense. We should have mass transit, a better rail system, better planned communities, and … better highways. Each one of those options has its advantages and disadvantages - and no one is the magic bullet that will solve it all.
Like it or not, economics governs most of the possibilites in this area. It simply is not possible for everyone to bike and walk everywhere. The automobile - whatever its strengths and weaknesses - is the reason that this country is so prosperous. Take a look at countries that are dependant on bicycles and walking, and compare the quality of life with what you have. You’re looking at the third world. Europe is also dependant on the car. They have a good balance - admittedly better than ours in some respects - but you can’t take the car out of the equation over there either.
You’re talking about changing ideas, but ideas change when it becomes both possible and reasonable for people to change them - not when you hammer them over the head with it - see Marxism and the history of any country that has adopted it.
To J Mork - I don’t know if I understand what you’re asking but I’ll clarify my point.
There were already highways in this country before Eisenhower enacted the interstate system. The roads that were there already there were state highways that were built over heavily trafficed local roads that were built over heavily used roads made mostly by private citizens who in many cases were following old indian trails. The government didn’t engage in an untested social engineering experiment, they saw a demand and they increased supply to deal with it.
It wasn’t like they built the interstate not knowing whether anyone would drive on it. And they didn’t build the interstate with the explicit intent of killing the railroads (which almost happened). People chose to use cars because it worked better, recently more people have been switching back to railroads - so it turns out that it was a good thing that the government kept investing in those too. At the same time, the government was expanding our airports and mass transit systems.
Again, this isn’t a winner take all approach. They all have advantages and disadvantages. The government needs to supply the infrastructure that allows us to make the choice about what mode of transportation works best to move goods or people for whatever purpose we need to move them.
I ask all “streetsblog” folk this one question:
If you got cars to run on a completely renewable resource tomorrow, would your position still be the same?
That’s the problem! It wouldn’t change. Entropy increases. No matter what we do, we’ll have to consume some form of fuel to move ourselves around. Ethanol, apple juice, diesel.
Thanks to the radical environmentalist push towards ethanol, corn prices have doubled in 18 months. Take that starving people of the world! You can eat the oil stockpiles we’ll have. We won’t be able to use them for anything else.
You guys just want cars off the road. Even an all electric EV-1 probably pisses you off.
BTW, if life is so grand in European cities, you can move there. Why not Paris, which “streetsblog” folks seem to love so much. I personally love the 70% upper income bracket and the anti-entrepreneurial culture.
Not to mention the open and rampant racism towards immigrants and a general refusal to integrate people of a different skin color. Unlike the losers on streetsblog who visit Pairs for a week and claim to know everything about it, I lived there for 3 years.
Every 2 months, the entire country would collapse under a transit strike. France has a net business migration, and a majority of people under 30 said they want to leave the country to look for work according to the French-Irish Chamber of Commerce.
Read about the Paris riots last year if you can’t connect the dots.
Here is the best part about “streetsblog”. Mark Gorton, who runs the open planning project and sponsors the stupidity of “streetsblog” is a hedge fund millionaire, disconnected from the average guy. You can go green real easy with tons of cash.
I’d love to know how many “streetsblog” contributors have to actually struggle to make ends meet.
Maybe Mark Gorton can pick up and move his ass to Paris.
Couldn’t resist posting one more thing on Mark Gorton.
Did you know he’s a criminal?
Gorton is the crook behind “Limewire”, the popular choice of intellectual property thieves who like to steal music and movies.
Nice to see that Mr. Gorton comes by it honestly.
Good for you, supporters of “Streetsblog”. When I see you on the street, blogging on your iPhone, listening to your stolen music from Limewire, I’ll steal your wallet and we can call it even.
G-d bless.
SEE YOU AT IHOP.
Mr Kaag.
It’s really quite amazing. The entire purpose of StreetsBlog and their readership is to deprive you of your freedom to drive your car as you please. They want to tax and regulate your car away, and force you to walk, bike, or take mass transit to work.
You don’t have the freedom to drive your vehicle as you please and they’re already taxed and regulated. Besides, driving is not a right. You need a license for the privilege to drive.
Todd, are you trying to pick apart my argument through semantics and word games? Because if that’s what you’re trying to do, you lose.
You don’t have the freedom to drive your vehicle as you please …
You mean, I don’t have the freedom to drive my SUV over small babies, smash it into the side of a pretzel vendor, and park it inside your apartment?
By “freedom to drive your car as you please,” I mean my freedom to drive down a road (that I already paid for with my income taxes) without having new fees, fines, tolls, and other surcharges thrown at me that are specifically designed to make it cost prohibitive to drive (i.e. congestion pricing).
Here’s an example. In Los Angeles, the proposed High Occupancy Toll lanes are projected to cost $1 per mile at peak hours. That’s $20 for 20 miles. Your average American can’t afford to pay that. So the government takes away his ability (his former “freedom”) to drive on that road. That’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to reduce congestion through higher fees.
…they’re already taxed and regulated.
Yes, I know. I lived in Los Angeles for two years. I took my car for regular smog checks. I witnessed the tripling of the car tax. I voted in the California recall election.
But if the goal is to force cars off the road, there’s plenty of room for more taxes and regulations. How about a $1 tax per gallon of gas! How about mandating that all cars get 50 miles to the gallon! How about banning SUVs below 60th Street!
You need a license for the privilege to drive.
The requirements are, what, reaching 16 years of age, passing some simple tests, and refraining from vehicular manslaughter and other heinous acts? Any idiot can get a license and therefore the privilege to drive. Any idiot can keep their license and therefore the privilege to drive. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
Todd, try again.
Of course it’s Friday today, so no comments from the good people at “streetsblog”.
Too busy heading to the Hamptons on a private plane with millionaire crook Mark Gorton.
According to the FAA interactive flight log, a “Mark Gorton” of “Manhattan” is an avid user of private jet timeshares.
What an enviornmentalist!
He’s pissed away ten times the fuel of all of us combined so he can fly private! What a joke. Memo to “streetsblog”: You need to change the name of your website to Doucheblog!
Streetsblog is a joke. They must suckle the power teat of Mark Gorton to earn a living, while he flies around in a private jet spewing pollution all over the atmosphere. When is the last time you’ve looked at yourself in the mirror. It’s time for a reality check……….and here it is: Streetsblog and anyone working there have no credibility.
I’m all for the banning of SUV’s if there’s only one person driving them. Other then that, I’m not really one for pissing matches, so this will be my last visit to this site. Have fun complaining!
Todd, Thanks for your comment. I completely understand your unwillingness to engage in a debate that you started. I also see that you’re very busy writing your own blog, where you have so many interesting and enlightening things to say:
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Posted 11:49 PM by Todd
Oh baby…
I’m jacked up on Starbucks, thrilled to be done with finals, and sipping a scotch and soda. Life is good! You know the only thing that could make this any better? AN UPDATE!
Current Music: I’m rocking out to “Separate Ways (Worlds Apart)” by Journey.
Today’s Random Fact: My dad and I have the exact same opinions on domestic fiscal policy, yet up until this evening, we’ve never spoken about this topic*. Weird.
Current Weather: “Well, at least it’s not raining…”
FINALS ARE DONE! Man, it’s been a while since I’ve had to worry about finals. In the interest of full disclosure, I had never worried about a college final before this point. I did study some in nursing school, but that came really easy. A few flashcards here and there combined with me running a tutoring session or two, and it was easy, breezy, beautiful (Cover Girl).
I was about to dive into a lengthy explanation about my past educational history, but I realized it was going to be seriously and boring, so I’m steering clear. For now, let’s just say I’m extremely happy to have successfully (I think) completed my first semester of Back to School style college. I’ve got exactly 11 days of freedom before summer classes start up, and I plan on making the most of them!
Man, I’ve been trying to download stuff from iTunes (legally!) and I’m getting pretty ticked off at the lack of selection. For a couple of the songs they actually had, they’re making me buy the whole album! WTF mate?
So yeah, I’ve got a ton of blog reading** to catch up on, so I’m going to cut this update kinda short. (The coffee is wearing off and the scotch is kicking in) Don’t worry though, I’ve got lots of “oh shit, this would make a good blog post” moments saved in my brain from the past couple weeks. Why? Because I realize that my life is incredibly interesting and you’re just dying*** to hear about it.
Worry not young ones, regular posting returns now!****
Later, -T-
Audentes fortuna iuvat
Lewis–
Yes, we agree on the overarching point, which is that Americans need more transportation choices.
That said, the status quo is absolutely the result of social engineering — the sheer amount of infrastructure was influenced greatly by the automobile and petroleum industries to the point where the vast majority of Americans have absolutely zero choice in how to commute, or even how to go for a gallon of milk. That’s certainly not the freedom you see in a car commercial — it’s the exact opposite.
Hiss –
For Urbanists, the number one problem of cars is not pollution or oil wars, it’s the massive amount of public space consumed to make them possible. So, no, magic non-polluting vehicles are not a solution.
Mork!
Should the people that commute into NYC each day to feed, clean and serve you and your silly friends be forced to ride public transit? Because that’s what your saying.
Mork thinks the serfs should take a bus from Passaic to the Amtrak in Newark in the freezing cold, then hop a train to Grand Central, instead of riding in the warmth and flexibility of their own car.
Mork, we can’t afford to live in NYC!!! If we could, we would! But we can’t so we need a friggin car.
But who cares, right? Right Mork??? They’re not white, Ivy League educated elitist who couldn’t give a crap about the working man. Mork just wants fewer cars on the road to run him over after a night of drinking 25 $ martinis at Nobu.
Power to the people! Not the few!
Mork, tell Mark Gorton the good folks at Commuter Outrage say hi.
Tell him that we are outraged that a bunch of silver spoon fed jerks want to ruin the last freedom working people have.
G-d bless.
SEE YOU AT IHOP.
Mr. Kaag.
oooooooo, looks like the streetsblog readers are under some kind of order (maybe from mark gorton or one of his weenie employees?) to not engage us here at commuteroutrage.
from a “Doc Barnett” –
I think we should do the opposite of keeping an eye on that pipsqueak weblog that is trying to bait Streetsblog into driving them some real traffic. If they want to engage in a debate over Pete’s comment, that’s what this thread is for. If they want to keep making enraged demands to the gummit while being enraged about whatever taxation the gummit requires to meet those demands, they can continue that important work for whatever readership they’ve earned.
hahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(as an aside, you HAVE to check out this loser Doc Barnett’s sad little blog - this is what happens when you don’t have a rich benefactor)
but yes, i agree that commuter outrage is a “pipsqueak weblog.” first of all, it’s only 1 month old. second it’s not a funded by a millionaire thief who created a copyright-infringing computer program which he made even more money off and was then sued by the record companies after which he tried to counter-sue them but had his countersuit thrown out of court because it was full of crap like streetsblog.
and what’s with streetsblog erasing my comments after i post them????? talk about an unsustainable lifestyle…….
KTJ, Yeah that’s unfortunate that they took your comments down.
Apparently there are others that have had the same experience. Check out Comment #3 in this article from the New York Times.
Lewis tried to leave a comment on Streetsblog the other day. It was approved electronically but then it disappeared shortly thereafter. Kind of a shame, since I didn’t get a chance to read what he had to say.
I’ll be honest - I’m new to the blogging world. Does this happen a lot? Blog administrators removing comments they don’t agree with? Seems kind of sad, and doesn’t allow for a debate of the issues when you’re just posting comments you agree with.
Lewis,
I think where you run into a lot of trouble with this “let everyone choose for themselves” idea is that all kinds of transportation — even, to a certain extent, walking — require infrastructure. And the decisions that drive those infrastructure choices will affect the choices that individual people make. It’s impossible for the government not to make choices about transportation policy — even foregoing transportation investment overall is a kind of choice.
My main complaint about the private automobile — and I suspect that a lot of other streetsbloggers would agree — is that in America driving is government-subsidized in a large number of ways. In addition, driving has a number of negative externalities that are not paid for by drivers alone. The result is that driving is both much easier and much more common than it would be otherwise.
If people want to drive, fine. And if people want to organize their communities around the car, again fine. But they should also pay for the negative costs of those decisions, including everything from infrastructure to carbon and soot emissions to the war in Iraq. Instead we have the opposite situation (driving is actually encouraged), which is just insane.
As a postscript, let me add that a lot of people might complain that other modes of transportation are also subsidized — including sidewalks, handouts to airlines, and of course national and local railways. Personally, I think there’s no reason for the government to subsidize transportation at all (instead the costs and externalities associated with a mode should be paid for by users of that mode). But if subsidies exist, then we should at least subsidize those modes that are the least harmful.
Hiss,
The thing to understand is that poor people /already/ take the train into New York. It’s simply too expensive for anyone but the elite to drive in the city. I’m not telling you how it should (or shouldn’t) be, I’m telling you how it is.
So, in point of fact, streetsbloggers are not saying that we should force the working poor to take the subway instead of driving. We’re saying that we should force the wealthy New York drivers to either get on the subway with the rest of us or else pay up for the privilege. Nothing less.
Hiss –
It’s a little cool tonight, so I really appreciate the heat from the flaming straw man you’ve provided.
Now would you like to address the space inefficiency of cars, or is that just something you’d rather not think about?
Mork -
I get the concept that a person driving a car (or riding in a taxi) takes up more public space than a person inside a fully loaded bus or subway, riding a bike, or walking on the sidewalk.
There are, however, benefits to driving a car or riding in a taxi. You can often get from point A to point B much quicker in a car or taxi than you can by riding a bus, subway, bike, or walking. This is why people drive their own cars or ride taxis. It’s human nature to take the shortest, least time-consuming route.
What’s your end state here? Do you want to ban private cars or use taxes, fees, fines, and tolls to force enough cars off the road to the point where only buses, subways, bikes, and pedestrians remain?
Let’s be honest – you really don’t stand a chance of making that happen. This whole walkable-bikeable movement is very very small and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever get anywhere with any of this. Your tactics are not good. You essentially want to jam a set of attitudes and behaviors down the throats of people who don’t want to go along willingly because it’s not in their best interests. You want to tax, toll, fine, or surcharge a large number of your own community, thus creating enemies. And as you put it, many of them are wealthy, so even if you can jam some kind of congestion pricing through the NY legislature, you won’t be able to raise the prices high enough to get enough cars off the road to make a difference. You’ll just make life miserable for a lot of drivers, thus creating even more enemies.
Also, the math is against you. There just aren’t enough people that care about your movement to ever bring about any significant change in New York. I’m not writing this in a mocking or derisive manner (as I do in my posts). This is just the cold, hard truth about the walkable-bikeable movement. It’s very small and for the most part ineffective.
But there’s another way to reduce traffic congestion that we probably both agree on. New York city government – and by this I mean the politicians, bureaucrats, and government workers – need to get their act together and modernize, expand, and clean-up the NY subway system. Right now it’s a sagging, inefficient, disgusting mess.
Incentivize people to move from cars to the subway by giving them an efficient, clean, non-threatening service. That’s how you win.
Judd–
Where I live, it’s way out of balance. A minority of the residents are given (for free) a majority of available space for the storage and operation of their own private property. So my end state is balance. Sounds awful, eh?
J. Mork
P.S. The math is getting better and better. Plug $6/gallon into your equations.
Mork -
It’s not for free. Drivers pay income taxes to the government, which uses the money for roads (as well as subways, buses, sidewalks, etc).
Have you actually calculated that private automobiles take up a majority of public space in New York City? Are you just looking at just roads, or are you adding subway and train lines, parks, etc. into the equation?
I agree with you that when gas reaches $6, $7, $8 and so forth, less people will drive. Then again, if we shift to electric cars down the road, you’re going to have the same congestion problems in NY that you currently do now.
So again, what is your end state? What exactly are you hoping to achieve? “Balance” is very vague.
Judd –
My ideal “end state” is better use of public space. To be able to walk, bike and live my life without constantly being bombarded with cars. I’ve chose an urban lifestyle, in part because it’s possible and comfortable to live without owning a car. My neighbors who own cars (a minority) depend on everyone who lives without a car to make their car possible — there physically isn’t enough space to store or operate even one car per household. My reward in return for my “gift” to my neighbors is noise, pollution, fear of being hit — even the loss of my right to travel on foot unhindered as I wait at every intersection for cars to pass. Others use of cars imposes a cost on me, monetarily, through my taxes, and through these externalities which I’ve just mentioned.
This is the beauty of congestion pricing — it discourages driving by shifting some of these costs directly to those participating, rather than forcing everyone to take part. I also support market-rate on-street parking for the same reason.
So, my ideal city is simply one with less space devoted to cars where people who choose to use one pay a fair price in exchange for the benefits they are receiving.
J Mork -
Americans don’t necessarily have a choice about their commute, but I think your argument overlooks the fact that they made other choices that affect their choice of transportation.
Mass transit won’t ever exist in rural areas - at least not under current operating models.
In cities, I agree that the automobile is omnipresent, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s government social engineering. You said it yourself, the automobile influenced the infrastructure decisions because of its utility and commonality - not because the government forced it down people’s throats.
But I totally agree that we need more transportation choices.
Ian -
I agree that the government makes choices about what transportation to subsidize, but this is based on usage data, not government social engineering. If more people want to ride subways than drive on roads, then the government should absolutely enable that, but most people don’t because it’s not as flexible.
I won’t go over all of Judd’s points again, but I also disagree with your point that automobile drivers don’t pay for their externalitites. They pay income taxes, gas taxes, sales takes on the cars, car personal property taxes, tolls, and registration and licensing fees.
That’s one perverse subsidy system.
Any other form of transportation has it’s own externalities that everyone else pays for - as you point out, all other forms of transportation are also subsidized.
It’s tempting to agree with you that the government shouldn’t be in the business of transportation at all, but I think there are bigger overarching issues here. It’s not just about the commute, it’s also about the economy, national defense, industry, etc… Now, I support efforts to cut back government spending wherever possible, but I don’t think that privatizing all of these modes of transportation is going to help the common man.
If every road suddenly has a new toll and fares on the metro double so new management can make ends meet, I don’t think that will really help the problems with congestion, and it will only force more pain onto working class Americans.
I don’t even know what an urbanist is.
But I can promise you no one in the “Urbanist club” would let me in with my minimum wage job and crappy clothes.
G-d bless.
SEE YOU AT IHOP.
Mr Kaag.
Lewis,
The idea that driving is not subsidized because drivers pay income taxes is just bunk. Do you feel that corn is not subsidized because corn farmers pay income taxes? The very definition of a subsidy is when you take from a large group (e.g., people with income) to enable or extend an activity (e.g., driving).
I don’t think that all transport should be privatized — though I think we could stand to go further in that direction. Rather, I think that the costs for auto infrastructure should come from auto users — via tolls, gas taxes, registration and licensing fees, and the like. In addition, drivers should have to pay additional fees to cover their externalities, including noise, air pollution, and in some cases even congestion. At present, only about 60% of road infrastructure costs are paid for by drivers, hence the subsidy.
The idea that infrastructure decisions are based on “usage data” doesn’t really make any sense. You could just as easily say that we should continue to subsidize corn because after all, corn is used in industrial processes all over the place. But to make such an argument is to miss the point: Corn is as prevalent as it is because of the subsidy, not the other way around. Every major city in the united states used to have a perfectly effective streetcar system. These systems weren’t demolished because nobody used them, they were demolished as a result of the very kind of social engineering you complain about.
Ian,
I didn’t say that driving isn’t subsidized at all - I’m advocating for spending on highway expansion and I acknowledge that could be the very definition of subsidy..
But, I don’t agree with your logic. I agree that the government pays subsidies to highways or corn. I don’t understand the point you’re making about paying the taxes that allow the government to give subsidies. I was making a point about income taxes in reference to your comment about externalities.
A portion of the income taxes you pay does subsidize the roads, but it also funds the EPA, so I don’t see how you don’t consider that drivers don’t have to kick in for their externalities. The EPA mandates air and emissions standards, and opposes highway projects through protected areas, just to name a couple of the ways that drivers’ income taxes address their externalities.
I agree to an extent on your privatization point, and I absolutely agree on your point that the roads should pay for themselves. But one of the big problems right now is that states like California take your gas taxes - which are supposed to do just that - and divert them to pay for pet projects.
A great example of a road (and metro line too) that paid for itself is the T-REX project in Denver. I actually just wrote a refernce to it in a post today.
Now, I do have a problem with those tolls continuing in perpetuity once the road is paid for - UNLESS - there is a solid plan for what those funds will go toward - further expansion, maintenance, other transportation projects, etc…
I think you’re mixing apples and oranges with the comparison of corn and highway subsidies. You’re not going to hear any argument from me that the corn subsidy is absolutely criminal - in fact, I support abolishing the entire Department of Agriculture (I think we’ve got a handle on the lessons from the dust bowl).
The problem with that comparison is that if the subsidy for corn goes away tomorrow, there isn’t going to be any problem. If the subsidy for transportation goes away, all forms of transportation would suffer immediately. Infrastructure decisions are exactly the kind of decisions that should be made on usage data because without using it, how would you ever decide what to spend the money on? I mean, forget for a moment that I’m even talking about the automobile, assume you want to build nothing but bike paths - you’re still going to look at usage data to determine where to build them to make them most effective.
Corn subsidies came about for complex reasons - a lot of them were complete BS in my opinion - but well meaning politicians thought they were protecting the American farmer from bankruptcy by price protecting. That’s not really the same thing as trying to provide a road or railroad or canal to move goods.
Now, on your streetcar point, I just addressed this with someone the other day. I agree that GM socially engineered people to like cars vice streetcars, and participated in dismantling the streetcar systems in most major cities. But, that is the nature of competition in a free market economy, and all businesses try to eliminate their competition.
That wasn’t the government … that was private industry. If people want to buy into the product that a company is selling, and they decide it works better than what they already have, why should the government step in to stop that? Why should the government have told people that they weren’t allowed to buy cars, and that they had to stick with streetcars? This is a government by the people for the people. If the people pay for the system, no matter what it is - streetcar, metro, bike trail or highway - why should the government care which one the people find most effective? After all, the people have the incentive to be right since their livelihoods depend on it.
If these streetcar systems are so desireable, then why aren’t we building more? OK, you’ll say well the government has engineered it to make it impossible. Fine, but then why don’t cities that still have them like San Francisco and Memphis experience record ridership on them? These things aren’t used by commuters anymore, they’re tourist attractions.
I concede people don’t always know what they want, or what’s best for them, and part of the function of an elected leader is to exercise judgment about the right path to take. But look, the highways aren’t clogged because it is impossible to unclog them, they’re jammed because we’re trying to cram 2008 traffic volumes down roads that were designed in the 50’s for 50’s populations and built in the 60’s and 70’s with 60’s and 70’s traffic. The decision to go with the automobile was very prudent, it spawned massive economic development, and spawned a great social upheaval. I mean, a lot of the economic advantages we enjoy and cultural developments we take for granted wouldn’t be possible without the automobile.
Lewis,
Please see my post to the “Who is Mark Gorton” article.
I don’t understand why you think that social engineering done by private industry is OK while social engineering done by the goverment is not OK. And I also don’t understand what you are saying about streetcarts… Fact is, we *do* have record ridership. New York’s subway system is at a high not seen since 1930. And San Francisco has had to jack up the price on cable cars up to $5 per ride because there is no way to add capacity.
Also, while it’s true that the private auto has a lot of benefits, it’s still not something that should be subsidized unless you can show that it has positive externalities. Would the “economic advantages we enjoy and cultural developments we take for granted wouldn’t be possible without the automobile” somehow disappear if drivers had to pay their way?
Also, in real terms, we are spending more on road infrastructure now than we were in the 50s. Does read spending have to forever increase in order to avoid congestion?
Commuter Outrage is the worst blog I’ve ever read.
Drew,
Trust me, we’ve only just started.
You clowns have no idea what’s coming your way.
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2007/10/beholden-doctrine.html
Who deleted the links to A Trip Within the Beltway and Cosmobile Cosmopolitan Transport?
Douglas,
My bad, I had 2 windows open last night and must have saved the wrong one. Will get both links back up very shortly. Thanks Douglas