@orionkidder and since the gains of mass transit are really dependent on development patterns, and since development patterns are hugely skewed by automobile subsidies, at some point this loops back around to being about housing.
@FransVeldman mmmaybe, though my particular issue that spawned this is more of Marin and Sonoma County lobbying for more highway lanes while fighting like hell any attempts to build dense walkable housing that might make those areas affordable.
It's pretty much explicitly a "keep the poors out" set of policies, designed to make service workers commute.
Maybe the/some poor have some other preferences than living close to their jobs?
The next thing we would be hearing is that the poor remain in an unfavorable/bad paying job, because otherwise they have to relocate once again, which would upset the social life of their family.
The solution to the car problem is not to dictate where people have to live, but to facilitate more and better public transport.
@danlyke@FransVeldman A friend of mine pointed out that commuting from bedroom communities in Sonoma to get to Marin and the City for work wouldn’t be a problem if we simply decentralized big business and had them spread out to places like Sonoma, Napa and what not rather than having them concentrated in one area.
@samhainnight yep. Adding lanes to 101 so people can commute in from Ukiah vs adding housing in Petaluma should be a no brainier, but here we are, making it all worse.
@danlyke@FransVeldman True. It needs to be addressed on both ends. I know of people who live in Ukiah (more affordable housing but few jobs) who commute to the mall in Petaluma because that’s where the jobs are. Ukiah could really use business investments, too.
@samhainnight@FransVeldman yep. Although, Petaluma has 20k people commute out every day, and 20k people commute in. I believe that most of those are income and skills mismatches, and if we had more lower income housing here we could have a lot fewer commuting in.
@danlyke Agreed, having the ability and agency for WFH is incredibly middle class.
I'm a strong believer that anyone who wishes should be able to walk or cycle to work in a reasonable amount of time. In Ireland, at least, this would mean a lot more building up instead of out. We seem to have an aversion to anything over 4 stories tall.
@devxvda telecommuting is great for that class of jobs, but if we continue housing and mobility policies which deepen isolation by class, it becomes just a symptom of further segregation by class.
@danlyke Or why they can't telecommute? Or why there isn't decent public transport? Or why the employer does not subsidize public transport or a bike / scooter? Or why they can't live within a 30 minute walk to the office?
Because it does not "bring shareholders value", and let's the "minions know their place"
@Urban_Hermit As long as we're subsidizing automobile-focused roads to the tune of subsidies that run over half a buck a mile, probably over a buck, much of that subsidy in negative health impacts, the demands for roads will remain insatiable and unsustainable.
A developed country is one in which the rich use public transit too.
@danlyke You see I, and millions of other poor and poorish people make the best choices we can, and we know our situation better than anyone. If you want fewer cars, you need to change the underlying economics. Road building follows road demand, you need to address the demand first, then road expansion will stop. Otherwise you are just making things harder for poor people who have to live where they can save $200-$400/month on rent.
@danlyke You see, I was basically a wage slave, trapped in the city with no where to go except work, supplies, and home. And because busses stop every 2 blocks they take an enormous amount of time to go anywhere, which comes out of my personal time. Now with a car I pay for insurance whether I use it or not, which means it does not make economic sense to ever use the bus. Also with a car I can transport groceries, healthier raw foods, and bulk quantities.
@danlyke I have read this entire thread, I would like people like you to get the underlying problem fixed first before refusing to build anymore roads. I was poor enough that I could not afford to buy a car until I was 26, I took the bus everywhere in Portland, OR, and I would not willingly go back. My wages went up $2/hr almost immediately, my commute to Community College went to 30min from 2hr, and I had the immediate freedom to go to the coast, forests, and rivers.
@danlyke I agree and where I live, Lisbon Portugal, we have invested so much and well that I don't have a car because I don't need one. I live in a city that gives me access for 40 euros per month to every bus, train and metro I want ?♀️. That's not the point I was making. People who need a car to work should be able to own one. They are not being paid enough at said work if they don't.
@NataliaArmyOf1 cars have huge negative external impacts. From collision deaths to tire dust pollution to the space needed to park and drive them, we as a society pay at least half a buck to subsidize every mile driven, probably over a buck, all so we can hide behind large angry grills.
We should be pursuing fiscally sustainable mobility policies that make us happier rather than angrier.
@NataliaArmyOf1 100% agreed. And if we stop subsidizing automobiles so heavily and lay that cost back on those benefiting from the imposition of the automobile on the public space, we all win.
@LGmedia Yeah, the particular examples that I'm looking at are things like retail and personal services jobs, and things like poultry processing (from my town). We've got 20k people leaving town every day (probably mostly for jobs that could be telecommuted) and 20k people coming in (probably for jobs which can't so.much), and the solution seems to be more highway miles. Not walkable bikable housing.
@Mallulady yes, and: public transportation is more usable when we build livable neighborhoods that people can walk in. If we're bussing in people from 20 miles away, we still have economic segregation which lets us ignore the deeper social problems.
@ssb I don't think it's that different. Every time I visit family in Ohio I observe that our transportation policy is fucked up, but theirs is fucked up worse. We, at least, are having conversations about non-car mobility. They get in the car to go around the block.
@danlyke People in California are very different from people in other parts of the country.. but I guess people who hear and regurgitate nonsense are all over... Unfortunately, most of them want to be involved in government, too. This is one of those cases where less government and less regulation would be a good thing for the governed.
@ssb I mean "rich"... It's probably more upper middle class people unaware of their privilege or the macroeconomic effects of housing and transportation policy suggesting that the solution to their area's labor problems is more highway lanes rather than letting developers build density.
Eg: north SF Bay cities lobbying for "traffic relief" while fighting walkable multifamily housing.
@danlyke Is it the rich, or is it the local governments? Zoning laws are a government thing, not really a "rich" thing (ok.. maybe, somewhat indirectly, but still, Gov't is to blame here, moreso than those with money, IMHO.)
@danlyke We have to do what we can and it isn't that I believe that I'm about to change things. I am simply trying to resist their attempts to move the Overton Window further to the hate side.
@Dave42W baby steps... Also, I can do things locally about traffic and housing development patterns, changing our entire society's fundamental understanding of economics is a little more challenging.
@kierkegaank Yeah. I like the attitude that a developed nation is one in which all social classes use public transit. Here, we'll build extra freeway miles long before we allow mixed density or social class housing.
@danlyke I do have a way more compact European outlook. Public transport was ubiquitous here until crony right wingers started outsourcing it for profit
@kierkegaank Not in my area. There isn't enough density in the regions where their jobs are to run public transit. It's a deliberate policy decision to make it more difficult for lower income people to live in rich counties.
@Ulrich_the_Elder nope, I was referring to the arguments about why we should widen 101 or save highway 37, where the argument is that the poor people won't be able to drive to their service jobs in Marin County from their homes in Solano or Lake Counties.
@Cassandra in the particular cases I'm thinking of, the rich lobby for more highway lanes so that their service workers can drive in from further and further away, and fight local housing, so that their service workers can't live locally, and have to own a car.
@danlyke I thought it was more stressful to live in a noisy city on top of and under your neighbors. I have lived in apartments, but they have been in quiet areas.
@Cassandra thanks, though part of the challenge is that there's a lot of really good really eloquent writing on the topic, getting people to seek it in out and be open to the message is... Harder. Working on it.
@danlyke If you need any help writing reports or organizing your information, let me know. I have a lot of experience in "aspirational" writing, and I would love to be part of that.
@Cassandra yeah. A few years ago I got hired to do a bunch of research on transportation technology, and that opened my eyes to it all being about land use patterns, and I accidentally co-founded a local advocacy and education organization (https://www.urbanchat.org). And that has led to a lot of discussions with a lot of really smart people about what could be, if we unshackle ourselves and let ourselves dream.
@danlyke I've been thinking about it too. I actually played a city building game with the idea of creating something more liveable. At least with the tools available in the game. I ended up figuring out a lot of things I hadn't thought of going in.
@Cassandra I think that there are a whole bunch of models for cities that are quite livable. And given the climate situation, and the general impact of personal automobiles on our health and environment even if they were all electric, we've gotta figure out how to do it anyway.
@Cassandra@danlyke the quality of the apartment construction, amenities, and general quality of society have a lot of impact on how much stress such living creates.
@LovesTha@Cassandra@danlyke The lack of traffic noise in NYC during the early COVID shutdown was a revelation. I can remember sitting on a bench in the Broadway median, drinking coffee and... listening to birds singing.
@LovesTha@Cassandra and the quality of the street life and neighborhood. If it's narrow sidewalks and 3 lanes of traffic each way that's different from very walkable and loiterable and landscaped.
@danlyke So your suggestion is an alternative where "poor" people with jobs are forced to live miserably in cities so they all conveniently murder each other from proximity when there's a pandemic. Or from suicide from having to live in a city against their will when they want freedom and land and to NOT be in a city.
@danlyke Ok but then the "poor" are stuck living in dreadful cities with air pollution, noise, forced confinement with a thousand people breathing their nasty COVID breath on them at any given moment, no ability to have nice yards with pets or animals or any space to do anything.
@chrisdemarco uh. In the Bay Area we relegate the poor to suburbs far outside the job centers, and build extra freeway lanes rather than closer in housing.
The history of humanity has been economic growth in the urban cores. The only variation from that came with three extreme subsided of automobiles and suburbs in the later half of the 20th C., And we can't afford that any more.