I'm not sure I agree that it's a question of rail vs car. Frankly American urban environments are the worst in the world, precisely because they are built for cars and not people. Freeways and parking lots do not make for a livable human environment.
I've spent quite a bit of time living in cities that prioritized pedestrian access, and made extensive use of subways, light rail, etc. in order to facilitate movement and render cars less necessary. In general, it's simply incomparable to the experience of navigating the typical American city, which is by contrast nerve-wracking and alienating.
Then of course there's the traffic jam issue. Spending 2-4 hours a day, every day, sitting in traffic as you commute back and forth between your suburban domicile and your job, is no way to live.
Really, it's a question of the right tech for the right purpose. For movement outside of our between cities, cars are ideal. For movement within cities, rail, bicycle, and the old-fashioned human leg are best suited ... at least if you want your cities to be worth living in. When cities are designed for cars, they cease to be destinations, and merely become extensions of the road.
The problem is really this totalitarian urge to control movement by putting permission gates at every entry point to the transportation network. We let them get away with it in the airports, thus establishing precedent. Now they want the same at train and bus stations, and moreover to put kill switches in cars. If they get the latter cars will no longer be a symbol of freedom. I doubt they'll just use it to shut down drunk driving or political dissidents (eg the Trucker Convoy would have been stopped cold by this). They'll also use it to geo-limit vehicles a la ULEZ: preventing people from driving beyond a certain range, or from accessing certain destinations.
I see your point. I tend to think the solution lies in finding ways to lower, rather than increase, localised density. Granted, that's easier said than done. Dealing with the totalitarian urge on the part of progs, on the other hand, requires a whole different set of social technologies...
Even high density can be extremely livable, Tokyo for example. The key is burning all zoning laws on a pyre, to enable mixed use integrated residential commercial, thus yielding actual neighborhoods and communities rather than anonymized residential hives.
The American practice of isolating residential and commercial districts creates the transportation problems in the first place, since no one can walk anywhere, and doing anything involves some use of mechanical transport. It also leads to everyone hating everyone because no one knows anyone. It's no accident that it's only in the US that there's such bitter acrimony over transportation questions that get resolved in every single other country in a fairly sensible, non-controversial fashion.
This also touches to the point of the article - it's harder, in general, to establish control over rural and suburban areas (i.e. distributed population areas). It's far easier to control cities because there are many more key choke points that police/military occupiers can establish that prevent movement. The relative distribution of guns in the USA exacerbates this difference but doesn't fundamentally alter it.
It’s not just civilians. The military need BOTH cars and trains to move men and arms. A train can move a lot of troops to a collection point much faster (assuming that the tracks are still intact). Cars can move the troops in a more unpredictable patterns. So, killing cars will also undermine the government too.
Thank you for the article and you are absolutely correct.
The left is doing everything they can to force people into the mass transit system. And it’s all about control.
One thing that you didn’t mention is electric vehicle mandates.
Electric cars may be fine for cities but are inconvenient for those in the suburbs and rural areas.
The middle class is in for a shock when people find out that used electric cars aren’t working as well as used gas powered vehicles, with much shorter range and battery life.
Many people who now buy used cars will be forced to buy new vehicles and resale values will be lower. Many will also be forced to use mass transit instead, which of course is the goal.
The negatives far outweigh the positives, at least for now.
Electric vehicles are yet another step in this direction, IMO. Infrastructure requirements - Widespread EV adoption will require massive investment in new charging infrastructure. This gives governments more say over where and how vehicles can be fueled/charged. It also increases opportunities for surveillance via connected charging networks.
Vehicle controls - As you mentioned, new vehicles will have remote "kill switches" allowing governments to disable individual cars remotely. EVs make this even more feasible since software updates can be pushed over the air. This concentrates vehicle authority in the hands of a few.
Energy dependence - Rather than relying on gasoline taxes, EVs will depend on electricity grids that governments heavily regulate. This shifts dependence from fuel producers to utility providers and energy politicians. Prices and access can more easily be manipulated for political means.
No Right to repair - this is a problem in society as a whole (See Louis Rossmann's videos on YT for more on this) and increasingly in the automobile sphere. One of the best liberties we have is freedom of movement, and along those lines being able to repair and truly own that which you bought with your own damn money is another. I grew up learning how to maintain and fix a vehicle before I was given my first car. My boomer parents in recent years, for whatever reason, got themselves one of these stupid EV and they would call me over a few times to try and fix the many stupid problems the thing would encounter, only for us to send it to the dealer because they're the only people that know how to fix the particular computer issues.
Surveillance capabilities - Connected EVs, charging stations and vehicle data provide a wealth of real-time travel surveillance data to authorities. This could facilitate monitoring and even potentially restricting the movement of individuals or groups for political reasons. It should be common knowledge that the more "smart" your car is the more that car is spying on you. When that is the case we have an invasion of privacy. Privacy is one of the reasons why we prefer private trans to public trans. If your car is spying on you you might as well be sitting on a public trans telling everyone your inner secrets and what not.
To stop a politican from passing a law requiring kill switch, just ask one simple question: “What will stop China from hacking your car to kill you?”
Stick to repeating this question. No wall of text. Focus his mind on the potential pain. All good salesman know that it’s always about stressing pain to create urgency and offering a solution to move him from pain to pleasure.
Assuming you're American, you've internalized a decision made by the federal government to subsidize automobiles above all other forms of transportation and now you equate it with freedom?
Well yeah, because it *objectively* is more free. I'm a lot harder to control in a car going on whatever road I can find then I am if I can only get off the big metal box that I'm in at the MLK Drive subway stop where the cops are waiting for me.
The automobile has always been equated with freedom, at least in the US.
In many parts of the world automobile use has been considered a luxury and restricted to the rich or to well connected Party members.
In the United States, we have the freedom to drive where we want, do what we want, and do it when we want.... because of the widespread use of the automobile.
I wouldn’t lose that right for all the money in the world......
And how much much time do Americans spend driving the open road, going wherever their free hearts desire, vs sitting in traffic jams or looking for parking? How many acres of urban real estate have been converted to parking lots and stroads? How many cities have been ripped to shreds by freeways?
It depends. I think there may be one time in the last year that I've sat in a traffic jam, and that was because some idiot decided to road rage and cut off a big rig, only to end up as a wheel decoration. Of course, I don't live in a hive city, either ;).
I'm old enough to remember when week long road trips for family vacations were well within the means of middle and working class families. The summer trip to the East Coast or the Rockies or whatever. That's much less conceivable now, but largely because of the gas prices *wink*.
Don't get me wrong. Progs trying to force everyone into cities is no bueno.
But not everyone has the luck to live in a small city of small town. Suburbanites get the worst of all worlds. The one thing progs are correct about in this conversation is that American urbanism is an abomination.
We have a whole continent to explore/enjoy. And it’s much more interesting to see it by car than by flying over it.
I can’t really comment on city traffic or parking or city congestion because I’ve never had the desire to live in a city. Too many people crammed in too close together for my comfort.
I pay gas taxes and various other fees in order to drive my car, and on top of that I have to pay taxes for regional mass transit (Washington DC, subway and bus services) that I never use..... but we, the local residents, get to subsidize the Federal employees daily commute.
Like many people, I live in the suburbs.....but far enough away from the city (30+miles) that bus service is a joke and my commute time would double (at least) if I were to use it.
A little traffic twice a day is a small price to pay for the freedom to go wherever I want, whenever I want.
And I’m sure that many Americans feel the same way.
I have no problem with people who want to use mass transit or do so for convenience. They are free to do so.
But don’t try to force the rest of us to use it.
The author is correct.
Forcing people to take the bus (or forcing people to do most things) is un-American.
Yes, I assumed that you live in the suburbs, which are essentially the most alienating environment is is possible to make.
Don't blame you, mind. Americans have no good options. Your cities are crime ridden, expensive hell holes, your rural areas are mired in poverty and opiods. Unless you've traveled you really have no idea how much better it can be. And most Americans never travel, and so assume their residential wastelands are as good as it gets.
No. I grew up in a deep rural area. I've lived in villages, small towns, small cities, and large cities all over the world. My opinion is based on direct experience, with a wide variety of environments to compare.
I've felt this way about suburbs since I was like 10.
I live in the outer suburbs of DC, a small town recently absorbed by the greater blob of the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.... I’m looking to move, but I’ll probably have to settle for a small town much further away from the blob (need to stay in the general area due to family and friends).
Once the townhouses and condos start to appear, a small town is history.
I haven’t read all of the posts on this thread but I would be interested in your solution for the problem.... as long as I can keep my car and my freedom to go wherever I please. I am one of those people who loves cars and driving and I frequently travel rural areas.
I do agree with you about the inner suburbs though, they are horrible.... containing the worst of the city with little to recommend them.
The COVID policies were the final straw in breaking any support that I had for mass transit. Vax passes to go on planes, trains, and sometimes even busses. Add in ever greater "diversity" and feral homeless populations, and it's a no brainer to oppose this miserable method of control.
In a liberty-respecting society with a government that didn't flood its interior with violent third worlders, and that committed drug-addicted hobos to asylums and effective rehab centers, sure. Expanded urban and suburban public transit would be a nice option. That isn't the society that Westerners now inhabit.
It’s hard for any green religocrat to wrap her head around moving beyond the original premise, that plant food is death for babies, to a secondary, consequential action ostensibly based on the original premise. Well done in articulating the freedom-constricting, redistributive-taxpayer-funded tyranny of it all, along with the naming of some of the big articles to reverse from, steer-clear of, this form of Democrotech (smart dystopia).
Honestly, no. I want *my people* to be able to. The slum dwelling denizens, on the other hand, I'd rather they stick to public transport because I strongly feel they need to be controlled more anywise.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a question of rail vs car. Frankly American urban environments are the worst in the world, precisely because they are built for cars and not people. Freeways and parking lots do not make for a livable human environment.
I've spent quite a bit of time living in cities that prioritized pedestrian access, and made extensive use of subways, light rail, etc. in order to facilitate movement and render cars less necessary. In general, it's simply incomparable to the experience of navigating the typical American city, which is by contrast nerve-wracking and alienating.
Then of course there's the traffic jam issue. Spending 2-4 hours a day, every day, sitting in traffic as you commute back and forth between your suburban domicile and your job, is no way to live.
Really, it's a question of the right tech for the right purpose. For movement outside of our between cities, cars are ideal. For movement within cities, rail, bicycle, and the old-fashioned human leg are best suited ... at least if you want your cities to be worth living in. When cities are designed for cars, they cease to be destinations, and merely become extensions of the road.
The problem is really this totalitarian urge to control movement by putting permission gates at every entry point to the transportation network. We let them get away with it in the airports, thus establishing precedent. Now they want the same at train and bus stations, and moreover to put kill switches in cars. If they get the latter cars will no longer be a symbol of freedom. I doubt they'll just use it to shut down drunk driving or political dissidents (eg the Trucker Convoy would have been stopped cold by this). They'll also use it to geo-limit vehicles a la ULEZ: preventing people from driving beyond a certain range, or from accessing certain destinations.
I see your point. I tend to think the solution lies in finding ways to lower, rather than increase, localised density. Granted, that's easier said than done. Dealing with the totalitarian urge on the part of progs, on the other hand, requires a whole different set of social technologies...
Even high density can be extremely livable, Tokyo for example. The key is burning all zoning laws on a pyre, to enable mixed use integrated residential commercial, thus yielding actual neighborhoods and communities rather than anonymized residential hives.
The American practice of isolating residential and commercial districts creates the transportation problems in the first place, since no one can walk anywhere, and doing anything involves some use of mechanical transport. It also leads to everyone hating everyone because no one knows anyone. It's no accident that it's only in the US that there's such bitter acrimony over transportation questions that get resolved in every single other country in a fairly sensible, non-controversial fashion.
As you said, there isn’t a single answer for transportation.
Living in suburbs and rural areas require automobiles, so the Left’s solution is to force people into cities and eliminate cars.
The problem with that is there are many people who don’t want to, and won’t, live in the cities.
I really don’t care what city people decide to do about their transportation needs as long as they leave the rest of us alone.
This also touches to the point of the article - it's harder, in general, to establish control over rural and suburban areas (i.e. distributed population areas). It's far easier to control cities because there are many more key choke points that police/military occupiers can establish that prevent movement. The relative distribution of guns in the USA exacerbates this difference but doesn't fundamentally alter it.
It’s not just civilians. The military need BOTH cars and trains to move men and arms. A train can move a lot of troops to a collection point much faster (assuming that the tracks are still intact). Cars can move the troops in a more unpredictable patterns. So, killing cars will also undermine the government too.
Not when they are the ones who have the kill switch. ;)
I'd like you to explain why we should build a mass transit system in a small town with a centralized population.
Oh I could give you an answer. But the only ones who'd understand it would be you and me.
Is there anything the Simpsons didn't predict?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ag61WDlPJU
Thank you for the article and you are absolutely correct.
The left is doing everything they can to force people into the mass transit system. And it’s all about control.
One thing that you didn’t mention is electric vehicle mandates.
Electric cars may be fine for cities but are inconvenient for those in the suburbs and rural areas.
The middle class is in for a shock when people find out that used electric cars aren’t working as well as used gas powered vehicles, with much shorter range and battery life.
Many people who now buy used cars will be forced to buy new vehicles and resale values will be lower. Many will also be forced to use mass transit instead, which of course is the goal.
The negatives far outweigh the positives, at least for now.
Yes, I forgot to mention EVs, good points here!
Nuclear energy to methanol is The Way.
Electric vehicles are yet another step in this direction, IMO. Infrastructure requirements - Widespread EV adoption will require massive investment in new charging infrastructure. This gives governments more say over where and how vehicles can be fueled/charged. It also increases opportunities for surveillance via connected charging networks.
Vehicle controls - As you mentioned, new vehicles will have remote "kill switches" allowing governments to disable individual cars remotely. EVs make this even more feasible since software updates can be pushed over the air. This concentrates vehicle authority in the hands of a few.
Energy dependence - Rather than relying on gasoline taxes, EVs will depend on electricity grids that governments heavily regulate. This shifts dependence from fuel producers to utility providers and energy politicians. Prices and access can more easily be manipulated for political means.
No Right to repair - this is a problem in society as a whole (See Louis Rossmann's videos on YT for more on this) and increasingly in the automobile sphere. One of the best liberties we have is freedom of movement, and along those lines being able to repair and truly own that which you bought with your own damn money is another. I grew up learning how to maintain and fix a vehicle before I was given my first car. My boomer parents in recent years, for whatever reason, got themselves one of these stupid EV and they would call me over a few times to try and fix the many stupid problems the thing would encounter, only for us to send it to the dealer because they're the only people that know how to fix the particular computer issues.
Surveillance capabilities - Connected EVs, charging stations and vehicle data provide a wealth of real-time travel surveillance data to authorities. This could facilitate monitoring and even potentially restricting the movement of individuals or groups for political reasons. It should be common knowledge that the more "smart" your car is the more that car is spying on you. When that is the case we have an invasion of privacy. Privacy is one of the reasons why we prefer private trans to public trans. If your car is spying on you you might as well be sitting on a public trans telling everyone your inner secrets and what not.
To stop a politican from passing a law requiring kill switch, just ask one simple question: “What will stop China from hacking your car to kill you?”
Stick to repeating this question. No wall of text. Focus his mind on the potential pain. All good salesman know that it’s always about stressing pain to create urgency and offering a solution to move him from pain to pleasure.
Assuming you're American, you've internalized a decision made by the federal government to subsidize automobiles above all other forms of transportation and now you equate it with freedom?
Well yeah, because it *objectively* is more free. I'm a lot harder to control in a car going on whatever road I can find then I am if I can only get off the big metal box that I'm in at the MLK Drive subway stop where the cops are waiting for me.
The automobile has always been equated with freedom, at least in the US.
In many parts of the world automobile use has been considered a luxury and restricted to the rich or to well connected Party members.
In the United States, we have the freedom to drive where we want, do what we want, and do it when we want.... because of the widespread use of the automobile.
I wouldn’t lose that right for all the money in the world......
And how much much time do Americans spend driving the open road, going wherever their free hearts desire, vs sitting in traffic jams or looking for parking? How many acres of urban real estate have been converted to parking lots and stroads? How many cities have been ripped to shreds by freeways?
It depends. I think there may be one time in the last year that I've sat in a traffic jam, and that was because some idiot decided to road rage and cut off a big rig, only to end up as a wheel decoration. Of course, I don't live in a hive city, either ;).
I'm old enough to remember when week long road trips for family vacations were well within the means of middle and working class families. The summer trip to the East Coast or the Rockies or whatever. That's much less conceivable now, but largely because of the gas prices *wink*.
Don't get me wrong. Progs trying to force everyone into cities is no bueno.
But not everyone has the luck to live in a small city of small town. Suburbanites get the worst of all worlds. The one thing progs are correct about in this conversation is that American urbanism is an abomination.
We have a whole continent to explore/enjoy. And it’s much more interesting to see it by car than by flying over it.
I can’t really comment on city traffic or parking or city congestion because I’ve never had the desire to live in a city. Too many people crammed in too close together for my comfort.
I pay gas taxes and various other fees in order to drive my car, and on top of that I have to pay taxes for regional mass transit (Washington DC, subway and bus services) that I never use..... but we, the local residents, get to subsidize the Federal employees daily commute.
Like many people, I live in the suburbs.....but far enough away from the city (30+miles) that bus service is a joke and my commute time would double (at least) if I were to use it.
A little traffic twice a day is a small price to pay for the freedom to go wherever I want, whenever I want.
And I’m sure that many Americans feel the same way.
I have no problem with people who want to use mass transit or do so for convenience. They are free to do so.
But don’t try to force the rest of us to use it.
The author is correct.
Forcing people to take the bus (or forcing people to do most things) is un-American.
Yes, I assumed that you live in the suburbs, which are essentially the most alienating environment is is possible to make.
Don't blame you, mind. Americans have no good options. Your cities are crime ridden, expensive hell holes, your rural areas are mired in poverty and opiods. Unless you've traveled you really have no idea how much better it can be. And most Americans never travel, and so assume their residential wastelands are as good as it gets.
> Yes, I assumed that you live in the suburbs, which are essentially the most alienating environment is is possible to make.
Sounds like you've internalized decades of leftist anti-suburb propaganda.
No. I grew up in a deep rural area. I've lived in villages, small towns, small cities, and large cities all over the world. My opinion is based on direct experience, with a wide variety of environments to compare.
I've felt this way about suburbs since I was like 10.
I live in the outer suburbs of DC, a small town recently absorbed by the greater blob of the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.... I’m looking to move, but I’ll probably have to settle for a small town much further away from the blob (need to stay in the general area due to family and friends).
Once the townhouses and condos start to appear, a small town is history.
I haven’t read all of the posts on this thread but I would be interested in your solution for the problem.... as long as I can keep my car and my freedom to go wherever I please. I am one of those people who loves cars and driving and I frequently travel rural areas.
I do agree with you about the inner suburbs though, they are horrible.... containing the worst of the city with little to recommend them.
It isn’t really ‘freedom though. It comes at a very price.
Oh! This is satire!
The COVID policies were the final straw in breaking any support that I had for mass transit. Vax passes to go on planes, trains, and sometimes even busses. Add in ever greater "diversity" and feral homeless populations, and it's a no brainer to oppose this miserable method of control.
In a liberty-respecting society with a government that didn't flood its interior with violent third worlders, and that committed drug-addicted hobos to asylums and effective rehab centers, sure. Expanded urban and suburban public transit would be a nice option. That isn't the society that Westerners now inhabit.
It’s hard for any green religocrat to wrap her head around moving beyond the original premise, that plant food is death for babies, to a secondary, consequential action ostensibly based on the original premise. Well done in articulating the freedom-constricting, redistributive-taxpayer-funded tyranny of it all, along with the naming of some of the big articles to reverse from, steer-clear of, this form of Democrotech (smart dystopia).
Bad Libertarian take. Do you want every moron to drive a car or truck?
Honestly, no. I want *my people* to be able to. The slum dwelling denizens, on the other hand, I'd rather they stick to public transport because I strongly feel they need to be controlled more anywise.
No, the morons can take the bus...
Cars are a rip-off. Lemmings drive vehicles they can’t afford outright and that are planned to wear out before they pay it off in full.
Which is exactly why I buy used cars with cash. :)
That's why I buy them with cash and hang onto them for at least six years.