T O P

  • By -

LegendofStubby

You're like a month behind on the Behind the Bastards episodes.


pepitaonfire

Did they do one on him?! I love that show and tweeted them in January to do one on him after I finished reading The Power Broker. I bet its amazing.


bureX

I love the premise of this podcast but the execution oftentimes falls flat… it’s like Dragon Ball Z or some shit, just endless dragging on… get to the point! I may listen to this episode, tho.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lamont-Cranston

This is like what caused Flints water woes, the government replaced the elected council with an unelected financial administrator whose job was to ram through neoliberal economic reforms. The whole thing was cooked up by the Mackinac Center, an interesting outfit to read up on.


Tavitafish

Holy shit, the main villain from unsleeping city was so cool they made him real (Robert Moses is the main villain of a new York themed DND play show called the unsleeping city, very good)


TheDanfromSpace

"You think people make choices? No. People think they make choices. They think they're gonna steer right or steer left, but they didn't build the roads. The big choices already got made for them a long time ago."


Brewmentationator

I'm watching this for the first time right now. It is so good.


[deleted]

His influence basically wrecked access to the Niagara River. Let's put an interstate right next to the river! Then the parkway named after him in Niagara Falls that basically created a no-man's-land along the river and rapids.


The_loyal_Terminator

I yearn for more trams


AchtzehnVonSchwefel

#TRÄMS *menacing close up photo of a millipede staring at the camera*


GilbertGuy2

Fuck Robert Moses. All my homes hate Robert Moses


Jimez02

American infrastructure is shithouse


The_Meme_Dealer

Also most cities "public" transportation is run by privatized companies, with no competition they have no reason to reinvest in the transportation quality.


dubspool-

But capitalism breeds innovation! /s


[deleted]

r/fuckcars refugee


lamp-town-guy

Is it really that big of deal to shit on financially unsustainable way of building cities?


Polyhedron98

its more so angry redditors whining that people dont think exactly like them


lamp-town-guy

Oh you couldn't put it better why I'm not part of that sub. I like the spirit but not execution.


hereforgwa

Same here, they act like Elon is a twist villain for stopping the hyperloop. Like gee, the car mogul who makes a fortune off electric CARS didn’t want public transportation to become a more readily available solution? You’re joking, really?


Galle_

I'm going to be honest, I don't understand what you're even trying to say here. Like, is there something ridiculous about pointing out that promising a giant infrastructure project you have zero intent to actually build solely to derail a different infrastructure project is a scumbag move?


hereforgwa

I’m saying its not a surprising move.


Galle_

Yeah, but you seem to be implying that people said otherwise.


hereforgwa

People were getting mad like he tricked them somehow.


Galle_

Not on /r/fuckcars, they weren't. The overall attitude was "yeah, Elon Musk is a scumbag like that".


BufferUnderpants

/r/fuckcars had been calling it at least all year, probably for longer, before someone confirmed the obvious. Musk comes from the tech industry, announcing vaporware to undermine commitments towards competitor initiatives is bread and butter, and actually a crime, but one that's never prosecuted.


productivestork

or…. maybe they’re mad because it was a scumbag move?


liteskindeded

Nah everybody knew the hyper loop and loop were bogus, they’re mad at him for using those ideas to halt progress in other forms of public transit. Mad at slimy business man for being slimy*^


hereforgwa

Perhaps, I would’ve made the same decision if I was him.


bob_jody

What??


DragonFire_707

Yeah that sub sucks


StankyPoopay

Car centric is financially sustainable or public transport?


lamp-town-guy

Cars are super expensive. Both in private and public money. I recommend reading about strong towns if you have no idea what I'm talking about. https://youtu.be/ztHZj6QNlkM


GrumpyMashy

Both can be but its a matter of balance, accessibility, sustainability, and productivity. A choice everyone can make on how they want to commute via bike, trains, walking, buses and cars base on how preferable, reliable, comfortable, financially and efficiently. The problem with how other cities built are solely base on those who have cars. Of course cars are a choice but its the only choice to get yourself around since the city highly focus on building roads and extending highways for cars. But if we improve and provide efficient and very easily accessible public transportation and other transportation infrastructure like bikes other than cars, then maybe all people who drives car like an idiot would probably will use it leading to less accidents and reducing traffics. Of course highway can solve traffic but never efficient in the few next month. There are things that called “bottle neck” when it comes to traveling from a massive wide highway to a sudden 2 lanes street in a downtown. So all those cars in a massive highway would still end up in a traffic on that 2 lanes street in a downtown. Yes, there are other alternatives route or you could build another highway if you want to just pass the whole city because you will go to another city but its still apply the same. Also, if they ask “what about the poor people?”, they never thought how poor people struggle in maintaining and be able to finance their car such as car insurance, health insurance(accidents and hospitals), maintenance(engines, oil change, tire thread change, gases), registration anddriver’s license. Of course, anyone could say “I don’t mind that” but for some people, especially the poor ones, struggle to meet these needs when they have their own mouths to feed. There’s a lot of things to mention in here but you can visit r/fuckcars about page to learn more. (Yeah, some redditors on that sub can be sometime conflicting and disagreeable but unfortunately that’s how some subs are when they’re gaining popularity and a lot of people.)


kabukistar

Public transport.


83athom

His pfp is a communist sickle and hammer, his name and handle are... clear, and he frequently posts on DankLeft and Tankie subs... so pretty much yeah.


SingleTrackEnthusist

Maybe that guy is a tankie but Strong Towns isn't and the creator is one of the engineers who helped build the car infested mess we have now. Only he realized how big of a problem this is and studied solutions to fixing it which led to creating Strong Towns. They have a few books and they're certainly worth reading.


OriVerda

What's a tankie?


83athom

Basically Stalin apologists.


atom786

Nonwhite communist


Infected_Poison

I thought for a sec this was r/fuckcars


DragonFire_707

Thank goodness it's not


Dizzy_Green

I’ll be honest, I only knew this guy as an evil lich in Dimemsion 20’s The Unsleeping City, and didn’t realize he was an actual historical figure.


NotSoStallionItalian

Robert Moses' suburb system is one of the most prevalent reasons I didnt make a single black friend until I moved to the South. My town in Long Island, New York maybe had 1 black family, because they won the lottery. Upper middle class suburb AT BEST, it wasn't like some super elite community thing. When I moved to the South I was amazed that there were middle class and wealthy black Americans. I didn't know that existed.


Brendroid9000

Ironic isn't it the "racists" treat people better


NotSoStallionItalian

That was the biggest shock for me coming to the South. In NY we always thought the South was this backwards and racist place. Ironically, Long Island is to date one of the most racially segregated places in the US. I still have friends come from there to visit and always ask me if I live in the hood because some of my neighbors are black. They were amazed to see mixed race people and were dumbfounded by the amount of interracial couples walking around openly. And while there are exceptions, the majority of people who I've met in the South that are legitimately racist are either very old or are incredibly poor and uneducated.


Roman-Simp

Even as a non American and someone who detests the infrastructure and city design model of the US and the utter lack of public transport I think these so much lack of nuance in the conversation. Too many ignore just how popular personal automobiles were from an ideological position and how they fit into an American self conception of itself. Many also ignore the benefits that flexibility gave in the mobility of Americans and American families (which is why on average the move a lot more than people in other similarly advanced economies) Often times in conversations we ignore core cultural drivers of changes People often forget the automobile dominated the 20th century as a symbol of prosperity the world over and it was only much later that even Europe reversed some of its car dependent infrastructure decisions. It’s a very nuanced conversation that’s often ignored in order to just bash the yanks. There more to it than… “muhaaa bad company corruption” or “dumb Americans no train” But then again, this is Reddit. I just hope someone reads this and is atleast more understanding of these developments.


Texa55Toast

As a rural American, it's nice to see an outsider view that's not automatically demonizing us. I live in a 3rd class city a block from town hall. The town was founded in the late 1800s as a factory town on a rail line. Our roads were set up for horses and carriages. But as our factories we're no longer needed, they eventually removed the rail station. Without personal transportation, this town would have died. Not to mention we have a big hunting and fishing culture. American PT frowns and guns and dead animals/fish.


YMJ101

Then stay in rural America and drive a car. 80% of Americans do not live in a rural area, so why then should we "Urbanites" bend to your will? We want transport that doesn't lead to the deaths of millions worldwide via pollution or crashes or the contribution to climate change, and infrastructure that isn't warped to accommodate such vehicles.


Texa55Toast

What are you talking about? I never said said mass transit or public transportation is a bad thing. I only said it is not practical where I live. Anyone who lives in a place with good MT/PT is blessed. They do not work with my lifestyle or my area but that doesn't mean it won't work for others. The only reason I need to travel to the major urban area near me is for specialty doctors. I'll keep doing what's best for me and I hope "Urbanites" get the transportation that they need.


YMJ101

This a discussion of how public transportation in cities was kneecapped with the help of one man, why do your feel the need to "but what about rural areas"? I appreciate the support, but it's people with your same mindset that prevent us from having nice, world-class public transport.


Texa55Toast

This dude ruined a city. Not all of them. I also said I. My response to you that public transit in urban areas is a good thing and will work for those areas. The only point I brought up was that it can't work everywhere. We need a mixed system based on how large and diverse the topography is in America. The only one trying to prevent anything is you. You are trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you. Go back to r/fuckcars


YMJ101

All American cities are car-centric, it isn't just NYC. And I don't doubt that this man had a hand in that as other cities seeked to replicate his "successes". The people trying to prevent the implementation of actual good public transit are those who do not use it or do not profit from it, not some random internet person who is a strong public transit advocate. You're not being silenced or persecuted. Those who cannot or would rather not own and operate an automobile are. Nobody is going to force you into a bus to go to Walley World.


Lamont-Cranston

> Too many ignore just how popular personal automobiles were from an ideological position and how they fit into an American self conception of itself. You're ignoring how that "popularity" came about: they ran streetcars into the ground, replaced them with inferior buses, or just plain shut them down while bombarding society with marketing about how great cars were and the sign of new post-war prosperity. And they combined this with building housing accessible only by cars and allowing the GI Bill to be used to buy a car, etc


Roman-Simp

Far too many people don’t understand emergent consumer phenomenon. Especially if they’re of a left persuasion like I am. Street cars are dead in most parts of the world not because of some conspiracy but because they actually do suck, require more investment to upkeep, have fixed routes (far less flexible than busses) and cost a crap ton of money to operate all the associated infrastructure That’s why busses are better and light commuter rail coupled with busses is the peak of public urban infrastructure👌 However in the US around that time, there was enough large scale societal wealth that most just went with the Automobile. This fundamentally created a different experience for the Elite classes on the ideal of public transportation, couple that with the experience with the 2nd world war and the logistics of the Autobaun and the necessity for continental defense across the US lead to the creation of the interstate system for the transportation of military viehcle in the case of an emergency and to facilitate trade which also then fueled the rapid adoption of the automobile as: 1) The infrastructure was there 2) The middle class wealth was there 3) The industry was prestigious (cutting edge of technology and all that) All leading to the Automobile being the symbol of “the future” for most of the 20th century Hence why even Europe adopted it, destroyed city centers and all that And it was only in the last few decades of the 20th century that they started reversing those decisions. I know it’s easy to imagine some vast conspiracy of big cat auto execs destroying the peoples belived public infrastructure and walkable cities all to make a profit and force people into something they don’t want. But think about it for longer than a minute and read news articles, letters, public discourse around the era. This was not a conspiracy This was an emergent phenomenon from the invention and rapid innovation of a new technology, the birth of an industry and a culture of rapid progress of the middle class dream. This is not to say the Auto industry didn’t lobby, bribe and sabotage its completion It very clearly did and there are records for that But even those records show the Auto industry was a lot less relevant than popular discourse in places like r/fuckcars imagine. Ultimately the narrative of some cabal who ran public infrastructure to the ground and lied to people to get cars is a myth. It’s a simple answer, a pleasant myth that’s used to explain a complex phenomenon. because these days for anyone with even the slightest amount of information on the subject, it boggles the mind how such a rapid transformation of our cities came about “didn’t they know car were bad”. And so it’s easier to believe in a conspiracy than the emergent phenomenon of multiple intersecting factors “surely they must have been deceived by the marketing companies and the government was bought out by the auto industry”. Because it’s easier for our world view to comprehend. Ultimately it’s an attempt to provide simple answers to a complex problem and like all attempts at simplification it’s largely mythical and based on a mountain of assumptions, obsfucations and further simplifications. When in fact, like most things, it’s a lot more complicated. Hence… neuance. And this is from someone who legitimately hates cars but can understand that people a century ago perhaps didn’t know all the things I do now. And not everything in the world can be explained by a conspiracy of elites. Often times emergent phenomenon manifests itself in very powerful and transformative ways that leave impacts for generations to come. Hope this has given more context. And can help you better think about the issue.


Lamont-Cranston

>Far too many people don’t understand emergent consumer phenomenon. What is the emergent consumer phenomenon when you have only one option and the public transit alternative has been shut down? > Street cars are dead in most parts of the world not because of some conspiracy but because they actually do suck, require more investment to upkeep, have fixed routes (far less flexible than busses) and cost a crap ton of money to operate all the associated infrastructure You are plainly asserting the opposite of reality, trams/streetcars have been coming back for years across Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_town_tramway_systems_in_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_town_tramway_systems_in_Germany And elsewhere the people of Melbourne love that the city kept them, people in the rest of Australia are always complaining they should have kept theirs too when they visit. Their higher cost comes with greater capacity and longevity, they carry far more than a bus and last far longer. And how often do you see buses changing routes. > and cost a crap ton of money to operate all the associated infrastructure What is the cost of building ever more roads to keep pace with congestion and what is the cost of low density sprawl that comes with this low capacity? For someone claiming to be a leftie you sure do easily fall prey to believing in in neoliberal economic traps about upfront costs and its deceptions about capital investments in public infrastructure. >That’s why busses are better and light commuter rail coupled with busses is the peak of public urban infrastructure Except for the minor detail that this isn't how things are done anywhere outside the US, and the reason it is done in the US this way is because public transit planning and operation is left to local municipalities who can only plan for the area within their small boundary and cant take into account the fact that a modern city and its suburbs and surrounding region cover many municipalities. There is a lot of Dunning Kruger in your post, you just dont know or you grossly assume your parochialism is right or you uncritically accept neoliberal conceits. After this many corrections so quick I cant keep going fisk all of this its just so boring and sad.


Roman-Simp

Dude, it’s clear you didn’t even read what I wrote and you’re just out here for a pointless fight with someone who mostly agrees with you cause you can’t deal with you have a simplistic, flawed narrative based of your sentiment and desire to see neoliberals behind every corner. For the record I’m not even American I’m not even a westerner, just someone whose actually seen a lot of the world including the west which is why I know you’re spilling bulshit about “no one else does it outside the USA” Your experiencs are probably limited to Western Europe which is you you think you can make such sweeping statements about the rest of the world with such arrogance. Even more perplexing is that fact that you’ve literally just repeated what I said. The street car is -Returning- to European city centers. Implying they were once taken away… because spoiler they were. People of Melbourne are glad their city kept the street cars and others complain that they should have kept their too implying they were taken away elsewhere … because spoiler they were. And Yh, Roads kinda suck. Roads are expensive, inefficient and there are much better public transportation options for financial efficiency especially with modern technology Not to even mention the environmental impacts, the effect of cityscapes, the cost for maintenance and upkeep once they get large enough and run routes that could be served with better options. So I don’t even understand where that came from. And of course, I’m giving you what you call the “neoliberal argument” because that was the argument that was made ?🤨 (even tho neoliberalism didn’t exist for another 2-3 decades but okay) It’s exactly what I’m talking about, not understanding a phenomenon in its context. If even hearing what the people of the era said about what they were doing and what they expected from their actions pisses you off it tells me all I need to know about your ability to engage in intelligent historical analysis. Hence why I beat the point of neuance If you’re too immature to grasp that or lack the ability to read then I don’t blame you, English isn’t my first language either. I just have the good sense to not assume I can explain away a multifaceted global development with a simplistic narrative. But hey, I’m the one with Dunning–Kruger, right mate 🙂.


Lamont-Cranston

> Dude, it’s clear you didn’t even read what I wrote and you’re just out here for a pointless Did you not see me conclude with admitting that after having to correct so much in just two paragraphs I was giving up? To have not seen this raises the question about how much of my post did you read? And for someone who claims to agree with me you sure to oppose most forms of public transportation.


UpperLowerEastSide

The GM streetcar conspiracy doesn't explain the demise of the streetcars, because by the time GM attempted to monopolize the sale of buses, streetcars were in decline. This doesn't mean "emergent consumer phenomenon" is the best explanation for the history of housing and infrastructure. >However in the US around that time, there was enough large scale societal wealth that most just went with the Automobile. This fundamentally created a different experience for the Elite classes on the ideal of public transportation, couple that with the experience with the 2nd world war and the logistics of the Autobaun and the necessity for continental defense across the US lead to the creation of the interstate system for the transportation of military viehcle in the case of an emergency and to facilitate trade which also then fueled the rapid adoption of the automobile as: 1) The infrastructure was there 2) The middle class wealth was there 3) The industry was prestigious (cutting edge of technology and all that) Hidden in your explanation is the major reason: namely US infrastructure and housing policy greatly favored car oriented suburban sprawl over transit oriented development. The US could have spent the money developing a system of "light commuter rail coupled with busses " but didn't. >Hence why even Europe adopted it, destroyed city centers and all that And it was only in the last few decades of the 20th century that they started reversing those decisions. Europe like America has a large auto industry so it's not surprising the state would strengthen the auto industry with freeway development. >This is not to say the Auto industry didn’t lobby, bribe and sabotage its completion It very clearly did and there are records for that But even those records show the Auto industry was a lot less relevant than popular discourse in places like r/fuckcars imagine. >Ultimately the narrative of some cabal who ran public infrastructure to the ground and lied to people to get cars is a myth. It’s a simple answer, a pleasant myth that’s used to explain a complex phenomenon. because these days for anyone with even the slightest amount of information on the subject, it boggles the mind how such a rapid transformation of our cities came about “didn’t they know car were bad”. I mean, freeway revolts were a prominent part of the "popular discourse" during construction of the Interstate Highway System throughout the country. And since the OP is on Robert Moses, people were starting to realize by WWII that Moses' bridges for car traffic were not relieving congestion on the older bridges. The problem for the people, was that the federal government as a whole was more in tune with what car builders and suburban developers wanted than what city residents wanted. >And this is from someone who legitimately hates cars but can understand that people a century ago perhaps didn’t know all the things I do now Following "someone who legitimately hates cars" with the "but" makes what you said before the "but" not really matter that much. So, yes the history of infrastructure is complicated. Saying it is largely the result of "an emergent phenomenon from the invention and rapid innovation of a new technology, the birth of an industry and a culture of rapid progress of the middle class dream" does not really explain the history of infrastructure though.


UpperLowerEastSide

Culture doesn't build cars, freeways or single family homes. The success of the car depends and depended on large infrastructure investment, which is why they lobbied for the construction of highways in the first place, in order to grow as companies. And once car companies grew in size and influence, which was fairly quickly, it became in the best interests of national leaders to invest further in infrastructure, since along with the lobbying car companies were doing, car companies now represented a significant portion of the national economy. Cars would not have the same "flexibility and mobility" benefits as they do today after so much spending on freeways if they had to share the roads with throngs of people, which is how cities were before cars proliferated and car companies led the way to ban people from using most of the road as jaywalking. Culture honestly comes off as a largely post-hoc judgement to explain societal conditions.


Indiana_Jawnz

Unpopular opinion: the American public increasingly wanted motor vehicles and favored them over rail and trolley transit by the 1920s, and this only increased as time wore on as trolleys were seen as old fashioned and uncomfortable. This is why in 1929 you had the Presidents' Conference Committee trying to design a new trolley car that people would actually want to ride. Transit companies also increasingly began to prefer buses to trolleys by the 1930s as they were much cheaper to operate and routes could be made anywhere. Was Moses a mean guy? Probably. Did he force the city towards cars against it's will? No.


Marcimarc1

not really, american car companies bought up the trolley lines and destroyed them


Indiana_Jawnz

Only by 1920 over half of the trolley lines in the country were already in bankruptcy, and this only got worse as cities grew more congested, making trolley less efficient. As this happened busses and automotive transit got more efficient. Busses became larger and more reliable, allowing companies to operate routes without the expenses that go into maintaining the rails and catenary of a trolley line, let alone other costs like snow removal and power generation that were tied to those lines as well. National City Lines (the GM part owned company you are talking about) wasn't buying and destroying profitable and healthy transit companies, it was buying dying ones and using buses to make them profitable again. They also didn't get rid of all trolley lines as a rule. If a trolley line was profitable they continued to operate it.


Little-Bears_11-2-16

There is way more context to it than just [people liked them better](https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demise).


gamaknightgaming

That’s not the whole story though. Most trolley companies had agreements with the town or city they were chartered with not to raise their rates which meant that you ended up with ridiculously low fairs by the 1930s as most of these agreements were made in the 00’s


asianyo

They bought less than 10% of total lines. The vast majority was in response to demand from voters. American infrastructure is shit because people wanted something that wasn’t feasible, and still do.


[deleted]

[удалено]


asianyo

Nothing to do with geography. It has to do with there is no way to make fast, traffic free, safe, superior car dependent infrastructure vs rail and walkable infrastructure


[deleted]

>the American public increasingly wanted motor vehicles The American *suburban* public increasingly wanted this. I think you'll find that most of the people who complain about needing more parking or car access in cities are the people who don't actually live in the cities. They want to be able to drive from their house in the suburbs into the middle of a city, shop, and then leave.


Indiana_Jawnz

Today, yes, we are talking about 80-100 years ago. In the 1920s suburbs barely existed, and those that did were fairly dense and well connected "streetcar suburbs". The post WWII car centric sprawl suburbs like Levittown NY and PA that most people think of when they envision suburbs today didn't exist yet.


Applestani

And if the city wants their money, it should take steps to support that. Because we know what happens when the affluent and white pack up, leave, and don't come back. We saw this during covid. Cities die without commuters.


[deleted]

> We saw this during covid. Cities die without commuters. I'm sure that wasn't due to businesses being shut down? I do agree though that they should take steps to support commuters. Good public transport can do that. Build some parking garages outside of the city center with trains or trams going into it very conveniently and keep the actual center very walkable.


Applestani

Adams is still crying for companies to make their employees come back to NYC offices so they'll go out and spend money again. Make things shitty enough for commuters and they'll just plant their heels on WFH and stay away. The cities need their dollars more than they need dinner, drinks, and Broadway.


[deleted]

I mean, that's obviously not the case. Cities that have de-prioritized car infrastructure haven't fallen apart.


Hopps4Life

Exactly. Especially in states like mine where houses and cities are spread farther apart. A troll would be awful. It would take a whole day or 2 to get all the shopping done.


anaccountthatis

That’s the point. They were built like that on purpose to make people use cars and make public transport non-viable. By people like Moses.


Indiana_Jawnz

That's not true though, that's just the nature of rural areas. They don't have the density to make mass transit profitable or efficient. Central PA in the Cumberland Valley for example is made up of towns all founded in the 1800s and they are spaced about 10-15 miles from one another. Suburban sprawl is a function of the car centric nature of American society, not rural areas.


yousernamecolon

Many American cities have made it illegal to be denser, these are all policies that make them car dependent. It’s not some natural state of being that houses have to be spread out and can’t be connected by public transit


Indiana_Jawnz

Yeah but if we are discussing rural areas and states as the guy above mentioned, isn't the issue. The towns of Carlisle, Newville, and Chambersburg aren't spaced 10-15 miles from one another because of some anti density law, it was a function of the horse and foot travel based world that existed when they were founded.


yousernamecolon

You could easily make a train between those then. I’d bet one existed at one point. Then have buses from the train station


Indiana_Jawnz

How does a train make more sense than the bus that replaced it? Trains are infinitely more expensive to operate and maintained than buses, as buses are essentially already subsidized by local governments thanks to roads. And people don't want to spend hours on buses and trains when they could just drive 20 minutes. The fact is that as areas get less dense mass transit becomes less feasible. The problem in the US is lack of good mass transit in many American cities, and the trend of making them sprawl, like we have in Phoenix, and poor connection between major cities, not the lack of connection between rural towns.


YMJ101

A vast minority of Americans live in rural areas, why are we kowtowing to them? Let the rurals have their cars and let the rest of us have at least the option to take public transit.


Indiana_Jawnz

Who is stopping you from having public transit? Also, it's worth noting that according to the US census places anybody would consider decidedly rural small towns are considered urban as long as they have more than 2,500 people, Small towns.we have been discussing, places like Tobyhanna, Waynesboro, Shippensburg, and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, would be called Urban, but they are a far cry from what comes to a normals person's mind when they hear that word. So the idea most of the country is urban is based on that flawed definition.


YMJ101

The people stopping public transport in America are the same ones who benefit the least (personally, immediately) from it. According to the 2010 Census, an "Urbanized area" contains 50,000 or more people. An "urban cluster" is of at least 2,500 people and less than 50,000, AND is linked to some densely settled core (where I'm assuming your 2,500 number came from). Meaning, YOU are the one who has misunderstood/misrepresented the stats. Still, let's say "urban clusters" should count as rural since they have lower population density. The 2010 Census notes that over 200,000,000 Americans live in Urban AREAS (greater than 50K), almost 2/3 of the population, and almost 3x as many rural + "urban cluster" residents.


atom786

Why does mass transit have to be "profitable"? Do schools have to be profitable?


Indiana_Jawnz

Because at the time they were run by private for-profit companies, so if they weren't profitable they went bankrupt. If we are discussing the realities of the time and why what happened did happen, that matters. I agree with subsidized public transit, I believe the bus system that does serve the Cumberland valley now is subsidized. But in areas like that bus service is about a good as it will get. There just isn't the ridership to justify the high costs of rail transit.


sherlock1672

It's a way nicer experience when everything isn't crammed together in narrow streets and alleys, and you actually have room to move and think. I'm grateful not to live in a cramped euro style city.


Applestani

This isn't true at all. They were built like that because people wanted to live in clean neighborhoods with detached homes, yards, driveways, and garages.


Indiana_Jawnz

What do you mean you don't want to raise your family in a yard less 900 square foot rowhome in the shadow of an worsted mill and take your 4 kids on the subway with you?


Applestani

> worsted mill A what lol 😂 I don't understand what you speak of, strange city man.


Lamont-Cranston

Does someone really want something when it is the only option available after you close down or render difficult to use the alternative?


Indiana_Jawnz

Yeah, people wanted cars, then and now. Public transit was not closed or difficult to use in prewar America. People still wanted cars.


Lamont-Cranston

>public transportation is run into the ground and shut down leaving people with no alternative *Welp, guess people just want cars. Such are the ways of the market.*


Indiana_Jawnz

You are telling me NYC's public transit was run into the ground and shut down in the 1920s and 1930s? Uh....have you been there? You are telling me people were buying model-Ts as fast as they could be made because they actually wanted to ride a trolley?


Applestani

Outside of Reddit everyone still wants to own cars, own homes, and own land. Most people are not 20 year old IT bros still enjoying the novelty of trains and spending all their money in bars, clubs, and restaurants. The novelty wears off when you have three kids, crime is through the roof, and you have to haul 80lbs of groceries home from the supermarket every week just to keep the kids fed. You don't have four hours to spend riding trains back and forth to take everyone everywhere, or two hours on each end of the work day to deal with the transit system. After the 400th unstable homeless person picks his rotting feet in the seat next to you it's not fun anymore. You want to sit in privacy and air conditioning and zip right to where you're going without wasting time dealing with other people. We build infrastructure for cars because, given the choice, everyone chooses cars. Because cars are awesome.


YMJ101

Do you not think people in other countries have families to care for? And that they don't use public transport? Nobody is forcing you to ride a bus or tram, but the option should be there for those of us who want it. Why do you think you have to haul "80lbs of groceries" onto a "crime infested train" to get home? Because YOU made the decision to live in some suburban neighborhood away from amenities. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let the rest of us have nice things.


nevadaar

Cars are great, but you can't deny there are downsides to them. They take up way too much space, always cause congestion, they are expensive, you haul around a 2000+lbs hunk of metal around just to get around town. Building cities in a way that is not just car dependent, but also actively outlaws building any infrastructure that is *not* car dependent is madness.


WR810

Well said. Automobile ownership is the epitome of sovereignty.


Applestani

Can't haul a week of groceries for a family of five home on the train. Can't take the bus to the woods with a trunk full of hunting gear and then tie a deer to the bike rack and ride the bus home. Can't take 40 pounds of guns and ammo on the subway to the range without getting robbed or jacked up by transit cops. Can't even possess a firearm on almost any public transit legally. Can't bring six sheets of drywall home from Lowes on the bus. Can't take the subway to a protest the government doesn't like, they'll shut down transit to stop you. Government doesn't like your Facebook posts? Oh sorry looks like your transit pass app doesn't work anymore. FFS still can't even possess an uncovered face on the bus without some goon telling you to put the damp, stinking face diaper back on. Losing my car would be a massive, irreplaceable loss to my quality of life, liberty, and freedom. It would destroy literally everything I value and enjoy in life, and turn me into a subject of the state, forced to structure his entire life around the times, pathways, and destinations that are Approved. No way, no how, with 100% sincerity I would kill or die in the name of preserving unrestricted and private movement of individuals and goods. This is a top three civil liberty for me.


Thisnameistrashy

It's a good thing that you can build a walkable city with public transportation without destroying every single car in it, then! Like, that's the *point* of cities which aren't car-centric, to have the ability to use not-cars to go anywhere in a city? Have you ever *been* to a city with good public transportation? >\[OP losing their car\] would destroy literally everything I value and enjoy in life, and turn me into a subject of the state, forced to structure his entire life around the times, pathways, and destinations that are Approved. No way, no how, with 100% sincerity I would kill or die in the name of preserving unrestricted and private movement of individuals and goods. This is a top three civil liberty for me. I live in London and use the Tube to commute and move around the city. When you have an entire city covered by comprehensive public transport, you aren't forced to structure your life around the times the government has set because the train/bus comes every few minutes. Like, just to commute daily I can think of three completely different ways to do so through public transport off the top of my head: one of them is just by taking a bus and walking. I don't see "freedom" as being forced to have access to a car to go anywhere in a city. If so, then everybody who cannot drive in a car-centric city is unfree.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thisnameistrashy

……….. what?


JRL222

I think that he thinks that you don't have any rights because you live in the UK.


Thisnameistrashy

I mean I don't have a drivers' license, so under Applestani's preferred system (and by his own admission) I don't have any rights. But for some reason I feel that if I had backed him up with an example from my life in the UK he'd have felt different. But here's something weird. [He literally just posted a post asking which kind of bike he wants](https://www.reddit.com/r/whichbike/comments/wm5c0z/looking_for_a_new_commutergeneral_purpose_bike/), meaning he's been thinking about getting a bike while having this conversation about how car-centric cities are tOtEs CoOl (plus in that post he reveals he's from Indianapolis, which is *really* not surprising). Hey u/Applestani, I think I found a way to avoid using government-owned transport if you lose your car. It's a shame car-centric cities don't have bike lanes, if only cities with extensive public transport built them up … [Oh, wait](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/this-dutch-cycling-superhighway-connects-commuters). [They do](https://www.ispo.com/en/markets/these-are-10-best-cities-cyclists). Plus that gives me a FOURTH way to commute without cars. Strange how that works.


WR810

All great reasons that automobile ownership is sovereignty.


nevadaar

It's not about banning cars for everyone. You can keep driving one if you prefer. It's about providing options. So that if someone just needs a tube of toothpaste or a couple of screws from the hardware store they have more options than just the car. It's about freedom. Cars are not freedom if people are forced to use them because there are no alternatives.


nicenwholesome

>Government doesn't like your Facebook posts? Oh sorry looks like your transit pass app doesn't work anymore. Maybe you should move to a free country :)


YMJ101

How do? If everyone is more or less forced to own and operate a car, how is this sovereignty? What about the power of choice? Some of us would rather choose what mode of transport to take to and fro. Some of us would rather have the choice to live in cities that aren't loud, polluted, disconnected, and quite frankly ugly.


nevadaar

You misspelled bicycle


nicenwholesome

So you having three kids justify poisoning my air? :)


IS-21

Yep the public preferred cars for the sense of freedom you feel from driving a car to that also push people into using cars I love the feeling of driving for this reason


Indiana_Jawnz

Yeah. In most cases a person will prefer the freedom, and maybe most importantly, utility of a car compared to that of mass transit. And I say this as a huge proponent of mass transit who is a volunteering member at a trolley museum.


lamp-town-guy

People will use the most comfortable way to get around. If driving a car is miserable experience people, regardless of income, will choose different mode of transportation if it's more comfortable. Our CEO uses trains to get around the country because he can get shit done during that time. Instead of staring on a highway for almost the same amount of time. But US has no viable alternative in most places and no high speed rail.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Indiana_Jawnz

You mean like Taipei, Tokyo, New York, or Rome? Yeah been there.


Fedcom

I've lived in a car dependent suburb for half my life and I now live in a more urban area. I feel much more freedom now. I always had just a touch of unease whenever I'd take my car out - unsure if the engine would break down on me, if I'd get in an accident on the way, whether I'd find parking, how to avoid traffic, etc. I've been in so many situations where there is some problem or other with my car and I'm calling CAA on the side of the road. It sucks being tied down both physically and financially to a hunk of steel. Public transit where I live now still isn't amazing. But it's very walkable and on top of that I can rent a bike at stations all around the city to get places. There's just no stress really. I get on my bike and go. The only thing I have to worry about is construction/cars blocking certain lanes and occasionally streets without bike lanes. I've been a tourist in cities that have excellent subway networks and there's no better feeling than being able to walk out of my house, look up the station closest to my destination, and just go. There's a subway in my city too, it's just not great. The utility of a car is fine (I still have one), but I think most people really overestimate how often you actually need it. You don't need a car to get food with your friends, but everyone in my old city still drove anyway because that's just the only feasible way to get around. You don't need a car to get groceries for a couple days. Or to carry a laptop to work. The ideal should be having the freedom to not need a car to go where you want. And if you do need a car to haul something, you can still do that. But you have to deal with all the downsides of driving in a city not designed around a car (paid parking, slower commute, etc.)


[deleted]

i love the feeling of freedom i get from sitting in traffic or the feeling of freedom i get when driving through a small town whose police will pull me over for no reason other than out of state plates or the sense of freedom i get from forking over a quarter of my paycheck to cover insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, tolls, and parking. so so free


Indiana_Jawnz

I'm a huge proponent of mass transit and wish I could use it but the fact is my car does give me freedom. My local mass transit agency, SEPTA, is simply mismanaged and makes getting where I need to go outside of certain circumstances a real pain in the ass. I wish I could commute into work on a train. Yet despite having a train station almost across the street from my house, and there being another on a separate line a block from my job, I drive to work every day because it would cost me more money to take the train and more than double my commute time.


Applestani

It's literally a sovereign privacy box that you can use to move goods and passengers in complete privacy without the prior permission or approval of any entity including the government. You have property rights within your car. This is the ONLY mode of transportation where this is true.


GWBigNose

that’s ignoring the billions spent yearly on building, maintaining the roads, and the subsidies to keep gas prices down. All spent by the government. Imagine what else we could do with that money? Cars require a significant amount of government approval and to ignore that is just disingenuous. You have property rights on any other form of transportation too


Applestani

I don't have to scan my phone to start my car. I don't have to obey a route or schedule. I am not subject to surveillance inside my car. My taxes pay for the infrastructure I use it on, because I an the vast majority of other people desire that infrastructure and that liberty.


nicenwholesome

>the vast majority of other people desire that infrastructure and that liberty The vast majority of suburbans\* and rural dwellers. And they do so by fucking up everybody else quality of life


Indiana_Jawnz

How do they fuck it up? Cities have their own tax money and political power, so how are suburban and rural people stopping them from using those funds to improve their mass transit?


nicenwholesome

They fuck it up by noise, visual and atmospheric pollution, don't they? There's no point in mass transit if the sururbia commutes to town and still expect infrastructure.


Indiana_Jawnz

If you make mass transit good people will use it.


nicenwholesome

No they won't, they (you words) want the convenience and freedoms of cars. Thus traffic jams and no money for public transit.


GWBigNose

i love the feeling of freedom i get from sitting in traffic or the feeling of freedom i get when driving through a small town whose police will pull me over for no reason other than out of state plates or the sense of freedom i get from forking over a quarter of my paycheck to cover insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, tolls, and parking (in addition to taxes). so so free


Applestani

Freer than a person unable to go anywhere or do anything unless approved by the state on their terms, their schedule, and under their rules with no privacy.


Indiana_Jawnz

In love the freedom of never being able to visit a small town because mass transit never did and never will make sense to serve it....


GWBigNose

except for the fact that many rural and suburban communities are serviced throughout Europe. Cars are still used but emphasis is put on public transit. This isn’t some kind of thought experiment that doesn’t actually exist.


Indiana_Jawnz

Yeah, immediate suburbs and whatever is along rail lines. You are never using mass transit to get to Dushore, Pennsylvania.


GWBigNose

my point is that they are reliable and useable in europe.


Slam_Beefsteel

If I'm being picky, this is also true for a bicycle.


NuformAqua

unpopular and bad opinion.


Indiana_Jawnz

Yet historically accurate and correct.


NuformAqua

Only half...


Tablo901

I wager it wasn’t really the people’s will/desire to change to motor vehicles and more the influence and lobbying of private car companies against public transport and in favor of cars. This video does a nice summary of how cars became so prominent and intertwined with the “American Dream” https://youtu.be/oOttvpjJvAo


Indiana_Jawnz

You would lose that wager. It's not hard to understand why people would want private, fast, on demand, door to door transport over mass transit. But it's not just that mass transit died, it's that it shifted away from hard visible routes like trains and trolleys and to buses. The decline of mass transit, particularly trolleys and rail, began long before car companies had that sort of power. You start to see railroads suspending passenger routes early in the 20th century as omnibuses became economically superior on more rural routes.


Miku_MichDem

[Oh you sweet summer child](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)


Indiana_Jawnz

That's a conspiracy theory. As was said, streetcar lines were already dying and being suspended by the 1920s, and the companies that operated them were failing. That's why National City Lines was able to buy up so many. Trust me, I am a volunteering member of more than one trolley museum, this has come up before.


Miku_MichDem

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy. Once a conspiracy is proven it stops being a theory


CaptainSpeedbird1974

This is primarily because streetcars ran in mixed traffic, so they offered few advantages to motor vehicles, so people drove. It didn’t help that the streetcar companies had a very antagonistic relationship with the cities they served, and were required to pay for a lot of things while keeping fares low, so they would always hemorrhage money like crazy. In cities with subways, where transit is faster and more effective people still took trains. The problem is that surface transit in the 20s just couldn’t compete with driving for most people. It was good for the city, but why would you take a streetcar that gets stuck in the same traffic as your own car? Then the streetcars were ripped up and replaced with even less effective transit. Moses’ big role here was to build freeways in cities, taking up valuable space and splitting communities.


bugzappah

Isn’t one of the Museums he designed (Guggenheim?) intended to be a drive thru? Like you drive in circles up to the top floor and view the art from your car.


[deleted]

Frank Loyd wright designed the Guggenheim


bugzappah

True. Just seems very car centric so didn’t know if it was inspire by Moses philosophy Edit: apparently Moses tried to get him to make it square lol.


K4kyle

Americans: People who travel on bus and trains are commies


[deleted]

More like people who travel on buses and trains are likely mentally ill or very poor.


Au1ket

*NYC would like to know your location*


[deleted]

NYC is definitely the exception.


_who-the-fuck-knows_

Really? You sure about that? What has mental illness got to do with any of this? Lots of very well off people in my city would rather catch a train to work than fuck with city traffic and paying 3x as much for the petrol. Nothing wrong with public transit. Cars have their use but I'd definitely rather my daily commute be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.


[deleted]

I can't speak for where you live but where I'm from severely mentally ill homeless people make up a large portion of public transit users. I don't mean that derogatorily it's just my observations. Very few people who have any other options take public transit.


AsherahRising

I think the top comment was implying that due to the whole McCarthy/red scare/rugged individualism propaganda push in the past leading to an emphasis on car centric infrastructure that is the reason why it is how it is today where our public transit sucks badly enough to be a last resort


_who-the-fuck-knows_

I wonder why that is.. maybe because they are poor and marginalized and have no other option because they can't afford a car. I think you'd find if your public transit system was more extensive more people would use it.


[deleted]

That's what I'd assume, the public transit system where I live is actually relatively extensive. Driving is just still more popular in most cases.


Miku_MichDem

First of all. Just because trains and buses suck where you live **does not** mean they suck elsewhere as well Second - what do you have against mentally ill people? Just because someone has depression, ADHD or autism**does not** make them worse


[deleted]

What about what I said implied I had anything against the mentally ill? I simply stated that they're more likely to use public transit. and in this case I was more referring to bipolar and schizophrenic people who our healthcare system had failed.


jtaustin64

I think cars are still a good thing, and I am tired of pretending they are not. The automobile is still the most versatile of my transport options. Still, urban design did get fucked over. What I think is even more tragic is the destruction of mixed use neighborhoods. It used to be that each community (whether rural or urban) had its own amenities and people had a real sense of community. With the centralization of basic amenities (grocery stores, clothing stores, restaurants, etc.) lots of communities have been destroyed and we have little sense of belonging to a particular area anymore.


[deleted]

I don't think people are saying cars are overall a bad thing. We're saying the car-centric infrastructure is a bad thing, which is exactly the point you're making.


Applestani

The populace wanted and appreciated "car-centric" infrastructure because cars are fast, efficient, private, and completely under the control and authority of individuals. Especially individuals with families.


nosocksinside

Please read the power broker by Robert Caro.


MineBloxKy

Noo! The streetcars!


Stinky_goosesnail

The destruction of the landscape that destroyed the landscape you could say


LahmiaTheVampire

Ah... the Elon Musk prototype.


FDRpi

Fuck Robert Moses. All my homies (and Kevin Perjurer) hate Robert Moses.


Windows_66

You'd think from the memes posted on this sub that the U.S. is just a post-apocalyptic wasteland.


YMJ101

What Americans consider as "normal" may as well seem post-apocalyptic to those who live in more civilized countries.


Big_Red_Machine_1917

Well I have seen the landscape of New Jersey.


Indiana_Jawnz

South Jersey is beautiful.


Big_Red_Machine_1917

If you wish to learn more: Wikipedia [Robert Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses) Behind the Bastards [Part One: The Man Who Ruined New York](https://omny.fm/shows/behind-the-bastards/part-one-the-man-who-ruined-new-york?in_playlist=podcast) Behind the Bastards [Part Two: The Man Who Ruined New York](https://omny.fm/shows/behind-the-bastards/part-two-the-man-who-ruined-new-york?in_playlist=podcast)


Corbeau_from_Orleans

If you wish to learn a lot more: Caro, R. A. (1974). The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York.


Not-Jesus666

Came here to say this. Great book.


Notpeak

Definitely the best way to learn about Moses.


blackbeard_teach1

Wait Are you saying centralised planning is bad or companies are bad? Anyhow i listen to 10m untill the "Jewish question" and i kept noticing a certain theme, they love to point out Racism A LOT. Is this an American socialist podcast?


xXStunamiXx

I guess that depends on your definition of "socalist." Robert leans left in a lot of ways, but also really likes his guns, and does appreciate resiliency in ways like home gardens that make produce, raising your own food, etc. If you continue to listen, you'll find they point out racism a lot in these episodes because it's a major theme on Moses's life.


Sapere_Audio

That was certainly true with Chicago and [the building of the Eisenhower expressway](https://interactive.wbez.org/curiouscity/eisenhower/) ! A lot of modern South-side neighborhoods like Pilsen and Little Italy, as well as North-side neighborhoods like Roger's Park (and Skokie), are a result of the displacement of those communities during construction.


Friederich_Stirner

Another fucking tankie post ? Jesus Christ someone should do something about the brigading !


Houseofducks224

Moses built the Banfield in pdx. It's my favorite highway


KazeArqaz

Ah, the benefit of hindsight...


Easy_Explanation299

Ez downvote. This is like saying Henry Ford is the reason we don't have horses in the street anymore.


SmoothOperator89

Henry Ford the Nazi sympathizer who attempted to sue the US government for blowing up his factories in Germany? That Henry Ford?


Indiana_Jawnz

Well the US government never blew up Ford factories in Germany, so that never happened. And yes, Ford was an anti semite, one who possibly never changed those views, but he also brought the automobile to the masses and his factories built the tanks and planes and jeeps that helped destroy Nazi Germany. Turns out people are multi dimensional and history is nuanced.


Easy_Explanation299

Nothing like using your 2022 viewpoint on someone alive nearly 100 years ago. No surprise tho, you regularly post in fuck cars. you seem unbiased on this subject.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Strange-Gate1823

America isn’t Europe. These posts are ignorant and ill informed. Also F150 go vroom!


JRL222

OP never said that it was Europe.


Strange-Gate1823

No shit fuck face the commie scum is shitting on America because he thinks public transport is the end all be all like all commie brainlets. Now downvote me, report me and go run and cry in the basement


JRL222

I haven't downvoted you at all. Nor do I believe that anyone else has. I'm pretty sure that no one has reported you either. American infrastructure isn't the greatest thing of all time, nor is public transportation something that will destroy the American dream. You are being way too emotional right now. Please chill.


YMJ101

Say one bad thing about cars and these people come out of the woodwork, it is insane. Talk about sunk-cost fallacy much..


WIAttacker

>Also F150 go vroom! I am sorry your penis doesn't work anymore.


Buckinghambonie

Why would I want to use public transit if I don't have to? Have you seen the people that DO use it?


Zardhas

>Have you seen the people that DO use it? Yes, just regular people, because public transport are kind of the cheapest and more convenient way of transportation in big towns. In develloped countries of course.


Buckinghambonie

Maybe the regular person is like that, and if so then regular people are worse than I'd thought and I'd hate to have to go back to riding with them.


Zardhas

May I ask in which country you live ? Because that's far from any experience I've had in public transportation


[deleted]

Huh maybe that’s the result of the destruction of public transit that OP is citing. Sounds like you agree with the post.


Slick_1980

Just like in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'!! Lol


American-Mann

Why was I pinged for this