This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Your footnote says that this is just a name, but I would point out that car-dependent suburbs are relatively new, mostly post WW2. The neighborhoods that urbanists like tend to be the older ones, and in fact often describe this as a "traditional" development style.
This is somewhat true, but far from completely. Highways especially are often the domain of the state or federal government, so you have situations like the state of Texas trying to expand I-35 through downtown Austin that the city generally opposes. Or small groups of individuals who join together based on their self-interest rather than political agreement to oppose changes with nitpicky legal maneuvering. In general, lawsuits filed by individuals or small groups are a common tool to prevent development, and the laws these suits are based on can come from any level of government.
Mind-boggling. It’s as if they want Austin to suck as much as possible. Like the suck is part of the charm.
It sometimes legitimately feels like the state does things for no other reason than to frustrate the city and its residents. In this case I think the relevant state officials really do believe that expanding the highway will reduce congestion in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence, but wouldn't be surprised if they felt the ability to throw their weight around and ignore the city's point of view was a bonus.
Expanding will enable people to further satisfy their powerful preference to live further from work. Congestion and total commute time will of course remain approximately the same. And that's a good thing.
Why stop there? Why not buy everyone their own helicopter? It's not the responsibility of government to try to satisfy everyone's preference on everything at no cost to them. That's not economically efficient.
If we had the technology for Blade Runner style flying cars or something I would support them. If helicopters were quiet, affordable and reliable I would support them. I would certainly not accept an argument along the lines of "mini super helicopters are bad because they let people live in single family homes outside of the urban core". Just as I don't expect the government to hand out free helicopters.
I'm not asking for the government to buy me an SUV. I am going to vote for a very small portion of my taxes being used on basic infrastructure such as light rail in the urban core and a robust freeway network.
Sure, and this all sounds good. But cars are very heavily subsidized. I know people don't like to accept this fact, because they see how much they are paying and assume that it can't be that much after subsidies. The fact is simply that driving is very expensive, and costs aside, is a terrible way to have everyone get around inside a city.
Austin has almost no light rail, and what little there is, isn't near I-35. If it did, this wouldn't be such an issue!
I don't think road costs up being "a very small portion" of taxes. This one project is estimated to cost 7.5 billion; Austin's population is about a million. That's $7,500 per resident. Obviously the state is spending the money in this case, and some of the people impacted don't live in the area, but again it's only one project in one small part of the city.
It crosses I-35, twice. It's not a perfect substitute for I-35 because it doesn't parallel it; the "Red Line" (optimistically named to be forward-compatible with future dreams of having a second color too...) connects downtown to the NW, whereas I-35 is still required for anyone connecting to N, NE, S, or SE. If you want to use rail to skip (most) southbound I-35 traffic you have to divert 3 miles west to the Howard Park&Ride first.
2.5M, if you include the whole metro area. And the metro area is very affected by these decisions; a ton of I-35 traffic is commuting from Pflugerville or Round Rock, and the Red Line goes through Cedar Park and Leander. $7,500 per resident goes down to $3,000 per metro resident.
A lot of the people impacted don't live in the area - if you want to go between Dallas/Ft-Worth (6.5M people) and San Antonio (2.5M), you either take a toll loop (expensive for car drivers, speed limits too high for many truck drivers, miles of extra distance) or you slog through I-35. The relative amount of impact is surprisingly small, though, with something like 85% of I-35 traffic from within the metro area.
The plans I've seen are divided into an 8 mile stretch in the center of the city (the expensive part), 8 in the south, 11.5 in the north. That's almost the entire North-South length of the city! And because Austin's historical philosophy toward East-West arterials has been "What's an East-West arterial?", a lot of travel which isn't really North/South as the crow flies gets fed into I-35 for a congested stretch anyway.
I also wouldn't chalk the whole cost up to "cars are heavily subsidized". The expensive new lanes are slated to be HOV-only, in part to make buses more attractive by no longer forcing them to sit in traffic with single-occupancy commuters. Some of the new features are things like decks and pedestrian bridges, connections between bike paths, etc.
On the other hand, I wouldn't bet on $7.5M being the whole cost or on everything planned being a completed benefit. The $7.1B "Project Connect" expansions to public transit (which you might interpret as "non-car-users are heavily subsidized", to be fair?) have been downscaled to a useless shadow of what was originally promised to voters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link