I never thought the anti car movement would go anywhere. Its been incredible to see my city building bike lanes and starting other, more ambitous projects.
I think it's finally been rooted out as one of the major causes for a lot of North American's frustrations. All the talk about gas prices are root caused by not having walkable cities. Big corporations and their enshittification is made worse by main streets closing up with smaller shops being pushed out for big box stores. The lonliness epidemics have in no small part been tied to the loss of third spaces and the isolating design of suburban sprawl.
I'm all for it, let's get at these problems. The auto & oil industries have been profiting off of the slow decline of our cities, it's time we push back.
(Note I know all of those issues are complicated and nuanced, but the thing I can guarantee is that they are all exacerbated by dominant car culture)
One of the root causes, yes, but you can see places where this is overcome by..... heavily regulating capitalism.
What we need is to overthrow our oligarchs and solve wealth inequality, then educate people how to think for themselves and care for others, and we could get to the point of wider support for alternatives. Even now, there are places (examples given in the video) where some progress is being made. We could make so much more.
Progressives ushered in these changes. It wasn't capitalism that destroyed cities, it was the government!
Capitalism provided amazing public transportation before the government destroyed it all. European countries copied what we had before the federal government funded highway construction (socialism) and the public transportation companies couldn't compete (capitalism) so they went bankrupt
No, the private sectors failed at public transit. The reason we have Amtrak is quite literally because private rail failed, and it failed because the private companies realized they made more on freight than passengers, so they quite literally enshittified their own rail service so they wouldn't need to continue it. In NYC the IRT and the BMT were both on the verge of bankruptcy so the state bailed them out and bought them. In the cases of rail, including Amtrak and the MTA, the government bailed them out, and then politicians continued to cut funding over and over, which is why rail in America is so terrible. Because idiots think rail = socialism now.
You are right with the interstates though. Those were purely the government, funded by the taxpayers, but lobbied for by oil and car companies, who also helped governments buy streetcars so they could then rip out the tracks in favor of roads. So now we have taxpayir subsidized roadsthat help private carriers and businesses.
Ain't no history like a train nerd history knowledge.
You are so incredibly wrong that I need to take an advil.
Ok you are leaving out CONTEXT to WHY privatized rail couldn't compete.
SOCIALISED road network that was brand new and "free" for use by the user.
SOCIALISED air transportation where airports were built and maintained by the government and airlines were SUBSIDIZED to maintain routes.
So HOW did you expect private RAIL to compete with these 2?
WHO WOULD INVEST INTO RAIL WHEN THE DIRECT COMPETITORS WERE SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Without that investment, where was private rail supposed to get money to modernize and make their fleet more comfortable?
Look at Europe at the same time. The government DIDN'T destroy their cities to put the car everywhere. The government DIDN'T subsidize oil and hand driver's licenses out to anyone that breathes. The government DIDN'T build airports everywhere and subsidize routes. Rail companies were able to compete with other forms of transit.
I'm a rail nerd too. I fucking know what happened. It was a travesty but it wouldn't have happened without EVIL GOVERNMENT.
I think you're arguing something else now, or I'm misunderstanding your argument. I'm not arguing that if the government had subsidized rail that it would have been better, that's no question it would have been better. It absolutely should have been prioritized at minimum same level as the interstate and air budgets.
What I am disagreeing with is that capitalism did a great job on it's own. It didn't. The companies were going bankrupt, and in rail's case they were torpedoing it on purpose so they could get out of the passenger rail business. It's not a "Oh woe is us if only capitalism had saved us"
The United States government (federal, State or local) should have done something to stop the public transportation system of this country from collapsing.
Where we disagree:
You believe the private sector (capitalism) conspired against the public transportation and destroyed it.
I believe the government destroyed it. I believe the government's actions hurt the companies involved and the government did absolutely nothing to save these companies because that was the point. The government thought this was old technology that will be replaced by cars and airplanes. That was a lie, the progressives of the early 1900s got it wrong. Today we suffer from those decisions.
Look at all the examples of CITIZENS UNITING TO STOP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT from building highways. Or look at the history of how people DEMANDED their cities buy up metro lines (MTA, CTA, etc) to keep them from going away. Those cities ended up cutting service anyway and not investing in these services because they didn't care or want to. That's the government hoping people stop using it so they can close it.
And guess what, today the government CONTINUES to fuck it up constantly. The government does not care. It never did. The last time we had anything close to amazing public transportation in USA was when it was privatized and not FUCKED WITH BY THE GOVERNMENT. That's the truth
I didn't learn a whole lot because i know much of what was in here - but this is a GREAT video with those concepts. And as someone who grew up in DFW, it was nice to see Dallas.
The only thing I'd say is that Dallas has been expanding DART light rail for 30 years. It's slow to expand. But if you are near light rail and need to go to a place near light rail, it's great. The bus service? Well, last I had to use it was around 1998, so I don't know how it is these days, but it was decent for service, but bus service is difficult.
In 1998, where I worked was about 45 minutes away from where I lived during off hours; 1h15m or up to 1h30m during rush hour. But when my truck broke and I had to take a bus to light rail to another bus? It was nearly THREE HOURS each way. That's not workable.
Actually, I just checked and to arrive by 8:30a on Monday from where I used to live and work, it's a little less than two hours. So maybe they've made some improvements. heh. I know that first bus only ran every hour and that was part of it. Hmm, looked up the schedule - runs every half hour. So maybe I was just unluckier back then. heh.
Anyway, what we need is more of converting stroads into slower streets where we can, but we REALLY need medium density mixed development to take off everywhere possible. And also to embrace remote work where possible, creating incentives to do so.
I want to live at a place where I, in my wheelchair, can use the elevator to get down to the street and wheel myself to local shopping and restaurants, with high enough density for delivery services to make sense. I don't mind going a block or two to get to my car to drive when I need to go places (even though for me, as a dialysis patient, that would be three days per week). I want community spaces to meet my neighbors. I want pretty streets and public spaces. And charging ports for all the parking spots.
But then again, I want a pony an a sports car an an an a whole bunch of candy an........... so yes, I get the idea that it's a dream, okay? lol. But I still want a better city for all of us.
The progressives of the early 20th century deemed public transportation as old fashioned and welcomed new technology that destroyed our cities. Those same progressives sold the idea we can "help" black communities by declaring blight and providing government housing. How did that work out?
How did that new deal work out for you folks?
Conservatives at the time resisted this change and wanted our cities to remain beautiful. But nope, the progressives won
No. Neo libertarians didn't take power until 80s. This was done earlier than that. Mainly by New Deal Progressives.
Brief history lesson:
USA had the greatest public transportation network in early 1900s, all run by private companies (capitalism)
The new deal progressives took power, they viewed technology and big government as a way to solve all societies problems! The automobile was amazing but without roads it wasn't able to go anywhere. The progressives used the government and government money (socialism) to build highways and turn everything into car orientated development. Since public transportation was all privatized (capitalism) it was deemed evil.
And here you are, this is your socialist utopia. Your government is in charge of the roads. Your government used eminent domain to tear up neighborhoods for highway projects. Your government decided where people could drive to and that was that. THIS IS PROGRESSIVISM MANIFEST. THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANTED. CONSERVATIVES HATED IT BUT THEY WERE SILENCED.
We lost the best public transportation networks, we lost walkable cities, we lost clean air and close nature. All because of PROGRESSIVE POLITICS
The truth hurts your eyes? What is incorrect about what I wrote? Who built all the roads? Who destroyed neighborhoods for highways? It wasn't corporations. It was the government run by New deal Progressives who wanted CHANGE
First of all, your US defaultism is showing. Second the 20th Century is 1980 to 1990s, thus your statement about how the Public Transport Network in the 1900s is absolute irrelevant. Third the Neo Libs took Charge after the 80s? So in the 20th Century? Thus concludes, you are indeed conflating Neo Libs with Progressives.
25 Comments
Edges@lemmy.zip · 36 pts · 15h
I never thought the anti car movement would go anywhere. Its been incredible to see my city building bike lanes and starting other, more ambitous projects.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 26 pts · 15h
I think it's finally been rooted out as one of the major causes for a lot of North American's frustrations. All the talk about gas prices are root caused by not having walkable cities. Big corporations and their enshittification is made worse by main streets closing up with smaller shops being pushed out for big box stores. The lonliness epidemics have in no small part been tied to the loss of third spaces and the isolating design of suburban sprawl.
I'm all for it, let's get at these problems. The auto & oil industries have been profiting off of the slow decline of our cities, it's time we push back.
(Note I know all of those issues are complicated and nuanced, but the thing I can guarantee is that they are all exacerbated by dominant car culture)
LarryBetraitor@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7h
To be clear, Nintendo and their shills are the "Quit Having Fun" people, not me. If I was against fun, I wouldn't be against Nintendo.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 14h
Capitalism
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 8h
One of the root causes, yes, but you can see places where this is overcome by..... heavily regulating capitalism.
What we need is to overthrow our oligarchs and solve wealth inequality, then educate people how to think for themselves and care for others, and we could get to the point of wider support for alternatives. Even now, there are places (examples given in the video) where some progress is being made. We could make so much more.
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 13h
Progressives ushered in these changes. It wasn't capitalism that destroyed cities, it was the government!
Capitalism provided amazing public transportation before the government destroyed it all. European countries copied what we had before the federal government funded highway construction (socialism) and the public transportation companies couldn't compete (capitalism) so they went bankrupt
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 3 pts · 9h
No, the private sectors failed at public transit. The reason we have Amtrak is quite literally because private rail failed, and it failed because the private companies realized they made more on freight than passengers, so they quite literally enshittified their own rail service so they wouldn't need to continue it. In NYC the IRT and the BMT were both on the verge of bankruptcy so the state bailed them out and bought them. In the cases of rail, including Amtrak and the MTA, the government bailed them out, and then politicians continued to cut funding over and over, which is why rail in America is so terrible. Because idiots think rail = socialism now.
You are right with the interstates though. Those were purely the government, funded by the taxpayers, but lobbied for by oil and car companies, who also helped governments buy streetcars so they could then rip out the tracks in favor of roads. So now we have taxpayir subsidized roadsthat help private carriers and businesses.
Ain't no history like a train nerd history knowledge.
You are so incredibly wrong that I need to take an advil.
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 9h
Ok you are leaving out CONTEXT to WHY privatized rail couldn't compete.
SOCIALISED road network that was brand new and "free" for use by the user.
SOCIALISED air transportation where airports were built and maintained by the government and airlines were SUBSIDIZED to maintain routes.
So HOW did you expect private RAIL to compete with these 2?
WHO WOULD INVEST INTO RAIL WHEN THE DIRECT COMPETITORS WERE SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Without that investment, where was private rail supposed to get money to modernize and make their fleet more comfortable?
Look at Europe at the same time. The government DIDN'T destroy their cities to put the car everywhere. The government DIDN'T subsidize oil and hand driver's licenses out to anyone that breathes. The government DIDN'T build airports everywhere and subsidize routes. Rail companies were able to compete with other forms of transit.
I'm a rail nerd too. I fucking know what happened. It was a travesty but it wouldn't have happened without EVIL GOVERNMENT.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 2 pts · 4h
I think you're arguing something else now, or I'm misunderstanding your argument. I'm not arguing that if the government had subsidized rail that it would have been better, that's no question it would have been better. It absolutely should have been prioritized at minimum same level as the interstate and air budgets.
What I am disagreeing with is that capitalism did a great job on it's own. It didn't. The companies were going bankrupt, and in rail's case they were torpedoing it on purpose so they could get out of the passenger rail business. It's not a "Oh woe is us if only capitalism had saved us"
AviAdi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4h
I bet you and I can agree on this:
The United States government (federal, State or local) should have done something to stop the public transportation system of this country from collapsing.
Where we disagree:
You believe the private sector (capitalism) conspired against the public transportation and destroyed it.
I believe the government destroyed it. I believe the government's actions hurt the companies involved and the government did absolutely nothing to save these companies because that was the point. The government thought this was old technology that will be replaced by cars and airplanes. That was a lie, the progressives of the early 1900s got it wrong. Today we suffer from those decisions.
Look at all the examples of CITIZENS UNITING TO STOP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT from building highways. Or look at the history of how people DEMANDED their cities buy up metro lines (MTA, CTA, etc) to keep them from going away. Those cities ended up cutting service anyway and not investing in these services because they didn't care or want to. That's the government hoping people stop using it so they can close it.
And guess what, today the government CONTINUES to fuck it up constantly. The government does not care. It never did. The last time we had anything close to amazing public transportation in USA was when it was privatized and not FUCKED WITH BY THE GOVERNMENT. That's the truth
Malica@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4h
Wild to be defending capitalism in this age
AviAdi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4h
Wild to be defending governments in this age.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 8h
I didn't learn a whole lot because i know much of what was in here - but this is a GREAT video with those concepts. And as someone who grew up in DFW, it was nice to see Dallas.
The only thing I'd say is that Dallas has been expanding DART light rail for 30 years. It's slow to expand. But if you are near light rail and need to go to a place near light rail, it's great. The bus service? Well, last I had to use it was around 1998, so I don't know how it is these days, but it was decent for service, but bus service is difficult.
In 1998, where I worked was about 45 minutes away from where I lived during off hours; 1h15m or up to 1h30m during rush hour. But when my truck broke and I had to take a bus to light rail to another bus? It was nearly THREE HOURS each way. That's not workable.
Actually, I just checked and to arrive by 8:30a on Monday from where I used to live and work, it's a little less than two hours. So maybe they've made some improvements. heh. I know that first bus only ran every hour and that was part of it. Hmm, looked up the schedule - runs every half hour. So maybe I was just unluckier back then. heh.
Anyway, what we need is more of converting stroads into slower streets where we can, but we REALLY need medium density mixed development to take off everywhere possible. And also to embrace remote work where possible, creating incentives to do so.
I want to live at a place where I, in my wheelchair, can use the elevator to get down to the street and wheel myself to local shopping and restaurants, with high enough density for delivery services to make sense. I don't mind going a block or two to get to my car to drive when I need to go places (even though for me, as a dialysis patient, that would be three days per week). I want community spaces to meet my neighbors. I want pretty streets and public spaces. And charging ports for all the parking spots.
But then again, I want a pony an a sports car an an an a whole bunch of candy an........... so yes, I get the idea that it's a dream, okay? lol. But I still want a better city for all of us.
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -24 pts · 15h
Never forget what "progressives" did to our cities.
DmMacniel@feddit.org · 7 pts · 14h
when? where? who?
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 14h
The progressives of the early 20th century deemed public transportation as old fashioned and welcomed new technology that destroyed our cities. Those same progressives sold the idea we can "help" black communities by declaring blight and providing government housing. How did that work out?
How did that new deal work out for you folks?
Conservatives at the time resisted this change and wanted our cities to remain beautiful. But nope, the progressives won
DmMacniel@feddit.org · 7 pts · 13h
Ah, you are conflating Progressives with Neo Libertarians?
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 13h
No. Neo libertarians didn't take power until 80s. This was done earlier than that. Mainly by New Deal Progressives.
Brief history lesson:
USA had the greatest public transportation network in early 1900s, all run by private companies (capitalism)
The new deal progressives took power, they viewed technology and big government as a way to solve all societies problems! The automobile was amazing but without roads it wasn't able to go anywhere. The progressives used the government and government money (socialism) to build highways and turn everything into car orientated development. Since public transportation was all privatized (capitalism) it was deemed evil.
And here you are, this is your socialist utopia. Your government is in charge of the roads. Your government used eminent domain to tear up neighborhoods for highway projects. Your government decided where people could drive to and that was that. THIS IS PROGRESSIVISM MANIFEST. THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANTED. CONSERVATIVES HATED IT BUT THEY WERE SILENCED.
We lost the best public transportation networks, we lost walkable cities, we lost clean air and close nature. All because of PROGRESSIVE POLITICS
baines@lemmy.cafe · 7 pts · 13h
we have a live one here lmao
AviAdi@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 13h
The truth hurts your eyes? What is incorrect about what I wrote? Who built all the roads? Who destroyed neighborhoods for highways? It wasn't corporations. It was the government run by New deal Progressives who wanted CHANGE
baines@lemmy.cafe · 3 pts · 13h
lolololololol
DmMacniel@feddit.org · -2 pts · 13h
First of all, your US defaultism is showing. Second the 20th Century is 1980 to 1990s, thus your statement about how the Public Transport Network in the 1900s is absolute irrelevant. Third the Neo Libs took Charge after the 80s? So in the 20th Century? Thus concludes, you are indeed conflating Neo Libs with Progressives.
logannic@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 12h
I'm curious as to what you imagine "20th Century" means exactly.
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 8h
Hmm
AviAdi@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 12h
THIS FUCKING VIDEO IS ABOUT AMERICAN CITIES!!! MY US DEFAULTISM???? THIS THREAD IS ABOUT AMERICAN CITIES HOLY SHIT
20TH CENTURY IS 1980 TO 1990S? 😂😂😂 LMFAO WOW
NEVERMIND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. WOW. 😂😂😂