Study Finds More Americans Commuting To Work Splattered On Grill Of F-150
Study Finds More Americans Commuting To Work Splattered On Grill Of F-150
WASHINGTON—In a trend that is reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels by curtailing the total number of cars on the road, a study released Thursday by the Transportation Department found that more Americans than ever are commuting to work splattered on the grill of a Ford F-150. “Increasing...
You're viewing part of a thread.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
You keep ignoring my question which just confirms my suspicion that the answer is "never."
If your answer is "only after every person in Australia has 10 minute transit service within a 15 minute walk (20 hours a day??), your practical answer is never. Because that will never happen.
And you haven't even engaged with my point that you're equity analysis is just vibes. You haven't actually done any cost/benefit analysis.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The answer is definitely not never.
I'm all for increasing the cost of driving, including fuel excises. And taxes on cars. And potentially congestion taxes.
But most people — at least in the mainland capitals — should be within comfortable walking distance of a public transport service that runs every 10 minutes first.
That's not currently the case.
Price mechanisms aren't as effective as they could be at changing behaviour if there are no viable alternatives in place.
So my answer is ideally petrol prices should be increased at the same time as decent bus services are rolled out across the capital cities.
And I think where public transport services are already at a decent standard, or as services are improved, we should be rolling out more localised disincentives to driving, such as pedestrianising streets.
We should be doing that right now.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Right, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page. If you scroll back up and read my original reply, I'm pushing back on multiple people communicating a hard line in the sand, no additional car ownership costs before there's some vague level of transit service.
That is a lot different than asking our policymakers to coordinate transportation changes, which you seem to be saying now. Here's the original post:
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Saying alternatives *need* to be in place *before* you can discourage car ownership is a lot different than asking policymakers to coordinate transportation changes.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Its an important distinction because people have a delusional perception of what's already available. Every city has a bus system. People can use 20 minute bus service! And I guarantee if middle class folks start riding those buses, the service will improve.
And additionally there are places that will never have transit. We can't hope people will eventually just stop living in rural areas and then after that, finally, we'll raise fuel taxes.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 I think we're broadly on the same page. It's definitely not a hard line in the sand at my end.
I tend to view transport and urban planning policy as being deeply connected. There's a number of tools in that policy toolkit that should ideally be used together to reduce car dependency. And pricing is one of them.
And I get the impression that for a number of pragmatic reasons, there might be some differences in what good policy looks like in the US versus Australia.
As an aside, country areas are an interesting side case. I think in many country areas, it is possible to get much better services than currently exist, but that's a different discussion.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
However if we decide it's ok to make it expensive to own a car, we actually can envision a world where everyone lives within transit because people will choose to do that.
And the money we raise from fuel taxes -- which are mostly paid by wealthy and middle class earners -- can be used to actually expand transit.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here's where there is a big difference between the US and Australia.
The wealthiest parts of Australia's capital cities are in the inner-city, which already have access to good public transport.
The poorest areas tend to be the outer suburbs, where public transport is a half-hourly bus, and cycling involves navigating a six-lane stroad with no protected bike lane.
It's the opposite to the US, where in many metro areas the wealthiest white residents live in outer-suburban gated communities and the (often Black) working class have traditionally lived in the inner city.
The wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne are served by the (mostly inner-city) tram network. Toorak, Brighton, Kew, Camberwell, and increasingly Fitzroy.
And the poorest tend to be in the outer suburbs.
There's a whole history of why it played out differently to the US.
But the big factor for why someone lives in, say, Carrum Downs in outer southeast Melbourne (where the local public transport is by bus) is because it's all they can afford.
In the US, where the wealthiest people live in the outer suburbs, raising gas prices to encourage them to move to the inner city where there's better public transport would probably work.
The difference is that in Australia the wealthiest people actively avoid the outer suburbs.
It's the working class who tends to live in the outer suburbs.
Most Carrum Downs residents would gladly choose to live somewhere like Brighton or Toorak with good public transport. If they could afford it.
That means there needs to be decent alternatives to driving if you're going to increase the cost of driving.