Oh to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with what I said above, only that it's a prevailing sentiment I see all over To the extent that it's a problem of infra, that's still a political problem. We don't have good infra because both American parties believe in autonomy as the highest social good
The party that goes out of its way to build prisons, invade cities with its own military, and guts medical care for the poor is emphatically *not* promoting autonomy as a common good. It’s a party that wants indentured servants, not free people.
Mein Gott I’m not saying “both parties are the same” or anything like that. I’m literally just talking about streets and buses
But re: welfare, ppl want to act like Bill Clinton didn’t exist and that we haven’t upheld his policies for decades
Right, what I’m saying is that autonomy is the wrong way to say “this is why we can’t have infrastructure,” when, at least historically, the reason why we have had some success of social programs are to help foster something like “autonomy.” New Deal, Great Society, NYC’s public transit system, etc.
Which is just to say: these are/were social programs that help individuals live their lives how they choose to live them. To your point, that connection was severed by both parties, but I don’t think it was sacrificed at the alter of autonomy. Austerity, maybe. Tax cuts? Sure.
Or they traded out those types of infrastructures for others: the military, bullshit tech world shit, cops, border walls, prisons, etc.
Austerity and tax cuts are choices not to tax appropriately in order to maintain, build, or expand social programs. I don’t get this “things just happened or had to happen” determinism. It cuts off critique or even analysis. Things don’t just happen!
I’m not saying that last bit. All of this does require people to do things. But it’s clear that people, including voters, aren’t choosing public infrastructure as their #1 priority. I’m rejecting the premise that they’re doing this out of some vulgar definition of autonomy.
When planners or politicians talk abt infra they literally talk about the central importance of transportation choice. If we expand bus service it’s to expand ppl’s mobility choices. Even transit advocates talk this way. Every micromobility discussion, for instance, talks this way
I know many of the general public aren’t clamoring for expanded transit at the expense of car infra. But this is itself the fruit of long-term infra choices to build out a car world. We tore up and paved over train lines. Again, it didn’t just happen
And if it didn’t just happen, if it was achieved over time, then it would take a fervent ideological, long-term commitment to change it. But we don’t see manifest such a commitment in the way we pay for, plan, and build. So the question is why
I think the point where I disagree is about the belief in autonomy being the cause of lack of infrastructure. If we already had the kind of infrastructure that many Asian and European cities have, I think that Democratic politicians would defend it. The lack of infrastructure misshapes values.
But why do we have such pathetic infra in the first place? Because it’s not been deemed necessary or desirable as a political goal by the governing class. How could we “already have it” unless it were first achieved?
I think it's a combination of long-term cultural stasis, the attitudes of the ruling class, and the apathy/disregard of the public. It's not like the masses are generally clamoring for better mass transit and only held back by the ruling class.
Ok but why have we had long-term cultural stasis?
I think the state of infrastructure and culture reinforce each other in ways that are incredibly complicated, but getting the infrastructure built does seem easier in more collectivist cultures, which is almost everywhere else.
To take a small scale local example: Mpls recently built a stretch of a small street to a proper world class standard for traffic calming & bike provisions. They’ve seen a wild increase in the number of ppl biking on it. Yet it’s not as if ppl were clamoring for it
Yeah, there's definitely a key role for local advocacy groups to make things like that happen. Would be nice if we had Anne Hidalgo-type political leaders in the US, but we don't yet.
Yes, okay, this is a good example! Hidalgo is a socialist, and what I’m trying to say is that this matters. It matters because the status quo from libs here for so long has been for an entire world for the single occupancy vehicle, for independence
Maybe. I'm not sure that ideology and "good on transit" necessarily fit all that well, beyond US conservatives being a nightmare for transit.
The street had to have been rebuilt anyway. If it had maintained its car-centric focus it would have seemed “natural.” Simply in accordance with what should be. But to reorient its design was contra naturam
So it shows up in a host of overlapping interest groups who in many various ways coalesce on core beliefs. So, for instance, American fire departments have these gigantic vehicles they insist are ontologically necessary even though smaller emergency vehicles exist in many other places /
But we are forced to design new infra around these stupid trucks so there's room for these obscene vehicles. It's a different kind of absolute belief in the priority of cars, but combined w/ the parties who desperately fear losing parking, the end is the same infra ontology. "It *must* be this way"