We know that more trains, buses, bikes, and feet make for a more sustainable system for everyone to get around (or do we?) So why don’t we invest $1 trillion in these modes (or should we?)
YES! Take the gloves off and fight. From my climate influence perspective, there is storytelling/messaging opportunity in making the anti-mobility folks look like the most irrelevant people on the planet, which *stings* at the human level. It may not be the big policy shift solution that solves the whole issue - BUT if we got louder (better media coverage, for one) about the political leaders who ARE moving ahead with better bike/walk/transit infrastructure and related, it'd begin to nudge the others who want such "fame". This is exactly why I intentionally invited bike-riding mayors/city council people on to my Living Change podcast . The naming and faming stories are so energizing. ANYWAY - thanks for this excellent piece, Sam.
Good stuff here. When you’re a policy wonk who reads the work of a lot of policy wonks, it gives a very skewed impression of how many Democrats are on board with intelligent transportation policies.
Tons of older Democrats are literally suburban NIMBYs. Tons of young Democrats who live in cities might be all up to date on culture war issues, but have just uncritically absorbed their parents’ NIMBYism. They might wrap their NIMBYism up in the urban “gentrification” argument, but at the end of the day a lot of them still just wish it were easier to find a parking spot.
An advocacy approach of think-pieces and blogs and well-researched books is a failing plan. Urbanist Youtube has been a godsend for reaching a larger audience, but it’s still a drop in the bucket. Even in San Francisco, I talk to a lot of people who say, “woah, you’re really into this urban planning stuff,” with the implication that it’s a super weird, niche interest.
Then I go to a YIMBY meet up and some of these guys have no idea that San Francisco politics does not utterly revolve around housing. Most voters are truly oblivious about zoning codes and permitting processes—they simply vote for whichever local candidates match their stances on hot-button national issues. And so local elections that should be about housing and transportation get subsumed by irrelevant stances on national issues.
The dominating principle is the consumption of space by mobility regardless of the access form. After the financial accountability of rail the public policy has been to finance this expansion resulting in extended infrastructure with less productive density to support it. recall that the "decaying infrastructure" trope started in 1977 (to promote the STA) on the heels of the Interstate construction.
Well said. We are stuck in the ultimate prisoner's dilemma, where we all sort of recognize the need to act, but nobody is willing to flinch or make the first move. I'd love to see my money (taxpayer $) invested in better public transportation and infrastructure not tied to cars, but... well, we know how this ends.
YES! Take the gloves off and fight. From my climate influence perspective, there is storytelling/messaging opportunity in making the anti-mobility folks look like the most irrelevant people on the planet, which *stings* at the human level. It may not be the big policy shift solution that solves the whole issue - BUT if we got louder (better media coverage, for one) about the political leaders who ARE moving ahead with better bike/walk/transit infrastructure and related, it'd begin to nudge the others who want such "fame". This is exactly why I intentionally invited bike-riding mayors/city council people on to my Living Change podcast . The naming and faming stories are so energizing. ANYWAY - thanks for this excellent piece, Sam.
Good stuff here. When you’re a policy wonk who reads the work of a lot of policy wonks, it gives a very skewed impression of how many Democrats are on board with intelligent transportation policies.
Tons of older Democrats are literally suburban NIMBYs. Tons of young Democrats who live in cities might be all up to date on culture war issues, but have just uncritically absorbed their parents’ NIMBYism. They might wrap their NIMBYism up in the urban “gentrification” argument, but at the end of the day a lot of them still just wish it were easier to find a parking spot.
An advocacy approach of think-pieces and blogs and well-researched books is a failing plan. Urbanist Youtube has been a godsend for reaching a larger audience, but it’s still a drop in the bucket. Even in San Francisco, I talk to a lot of people who say, “woah, you’re really into this urban planning stuff,” with the implication that it’s a super weird, niche interest.
Then I go to a YIMBY meet up and some of these guys have no idea that San Francisco politics does not utterly revolve around housing. Most voters are truly oblivious about zoning codes and permitting processes—they simply vote for whichever local candidates match their stances on hot-button national issues. And so local elections that should be about housing and transportation get subsumed by irrelevant stances on national issues.
The dominating principle is the consumption of space by mobility regardless of the access form. After the financial accountability of rail the public policy has been to finance this expansion resulting in extended infrastructure with less productive density to support it. recall that the "decaying infrastructure" trope started in 1977 (to promote the STA) on the heels of the Interstate construction.
We have to organize and fight for what we want, and we can win
Posting and article writing can only get us so far, we still have to be involved with politics and policy directly
Well said. We are stuck in the ultimate prisoner's dilemma, where we all sort of recognize the need to act, but nobody is willing to flinch or make the first move. I'd love to see my money (taxpayer $) invested in better public transportation and infrastructure not tied to cars, but... well, we know how this ends.