Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cool_dude85 1872 days ago
Sorry, which national newspaper supports anti-car urbanism?
1 comments

My local paper regularly rails against an imaginary phalanx of anti-car jihadists. Any dollar not spent in support of automobiles is sufficient evidence of a nefarious anti-car agenda. Meanwhile, pre-apocalypse, mass transit is chronically under funded and over capacity.

Apparently commuters choosing to not drive is an unforgivable affront to Freedom Markets™.

Cite: The Power Broker, Robert Caro

There are definitely some activists for whom the label "anti-car" might be fairly applied, as these activists appear to reflexively oppose any project involving cars. However, virtually every time I've seen the charge of "anti-car" labelled at an organization or individual, it's generally by the sort of people you describe, people who define "anti-car" as spending a dime on anything that doesn't support cars, irrespective of whether or not the targets also support car projects.

The national newspapers I've seen have broadly been pro-infrastructure of all kinds, whether car or mass transit.

Right but mass transit are cars in inherent conflict. There's no way to "do both" and not be incredibly wasteful.

A lot of newspapers are for a little for-show light rail with park and drive for 9-5 commuters only, but this is a waste that just begets more car-oriented suburbs.

True urban development is going to force a lot of people comfortable in their subdivisions and predictable slowly-to-the-moon single family home prices to comfort a different world, and nobody likes change.

So it's rich people + status quo inertia. That's a lot to confront.

Rich people aren't anti-car. They are pro-car for themselves and anti-car for everyone else. Donald Trump will have no problem affording the Manhattan congestion tax. All the food service workers in Long Island will have to abandon their homes and communities or pony up an extra $300 per month.
Well, I welcome this. Cars do exclude people so it's about time they divide the rich and the aspirational.

There is plenty written about making the LIRR more than a rich suburbanite's 9-5 commute booster, and likewise making the long island buses complement rather than ignore a train service that runs east-west throughout the day.

Nobody need pony up 300 a month because there's no other choice.

Ok. But "the rich" have instituted the congestion tax without instituting any of those improvements to public transportation. Donald Trump is not taking a bus to Mar a Laggo.

> it's about time they [cars?] divide the rich and the aspirational

I'm somewhat shocked by this. Why would you want rich people to be able to avoid all the problems they create for everyone else with their greed?

>mass transit is chronically under funded and over capacity.

Ironically in most places it's hardly used at all and the few places where people actually use it are where its underfunded and overcrowded.