Raise the Hammer

Since we're doing fun graphs, a semi-related one from this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/16/...

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2013-11-18 09:44:39

This was very interesting. A few thoughts:

1) Yes, the concept of private automobiles has been enabled by cheap energy, but so have all other trappings of increasing prosperity. Cheap energy can not end, and will not end- cheap fossil fuels won’t even end soon, as demand shifts to other types of energy. (It’s hard to believe that fossil fuels are about to skyrocket, given natural gas prices of late.) An important trend very soon will be how cheap solar energy is now becoming- that sector is not far from making innovations that will make it extremely affordable. I know that oil is well-suited to fuel for automobiles, but we could make natural gas work, and we could make electricity work. We will, when necessary.

2) I couldn’t agree more about how expensive car ownership is for working-class families. I don’t think rising inequality will cause the decline of private auto ownership so much as the reverse: private auto ownership has exacerbated economic inequality. Either way, a lot of families will discover that they can barely afford one vehicle, let alone one for every adult member of the household- because they could never afford it. It was always a luxury, and believing that it should or could be attainable for most people was and continues to be very bad for a lot of people’s personal finances.

3) Given that fact, I really find it problematic when people say things like “cities cannot favour automobile owners at the expense of the less financially able members of the community.” It’s not a false statement at all, but to imply that people who use other forms of transportation are “less financially able” is not completely accurate. A typical Ontario household, who earns about $70,000 annually, is considered fairly well off, and probably maintains two vehicles. You claim the average cost of this is $8,000- I’ve read higher claims, and also think that there are costs that are never included. But that average Ontario household spends 23% of their income on car ownership- you’d do much better if you happened to earn less but could cut down to one or no vehicles. If we could get it framed not as public transit investment to help poor people, but rather to help middle-class people keep from becoming poor (I really do think car ownership is a huge reason for bad personal balance sheets), that would be a much more honest and accurate conversation.

One day, I envision important publicity campaigns directed at consumers, supported by an odd alliance of personal finance advocates, environmentalists, urbanists: “Driving makes you poor.” Someone will come up with a much better slogan, but that is I think the issue.

Cheap energy can not end, and will not end- cheap fossil fuels won’t even end soon, as demand shifts to other types of energy.

An important trend very soon will be how cheap solar energy is now becoming- that sector is not far from making innovations that will make it extremely affordable. I know that oil is well-suited to fuel for automobiles, but we could make natural gas work, and we could make electricity work. We will, when necessary.

Cheap fossil fuel energy has already ended; it is artificially kept cheap through massive government subsidies. New sources of fossil fuels being extracted via greater expense in extraction techniques (fracking, oil sands, etc, none of which represent innovations but are rather only economically viable due to rising prices / revenues) result in lower Return on Energy Investment. Further, you have to decide which it is - either demand will shift due to impending innovations which will level the playing field, or demand will shift because it is "necessary" which implies supply side issues.

I really find it problematic when people say things like “cities cannot favour automobile owners at the expense of the less financially able members of the community.” It’s not a false statement at all, but to imply that people who use other forms of transportation are “less financially able” is not completely accurate.

What is so problematic about a statement that is "not false"? The truth hurts I suppose, but this is only one part of the argument against the car culture. The number of people taking transit out of altruism, environmental consciousness etc is rather low. Economics tells a much larger part of the story. The key is to decouple vehicle ownership from social status and expose it as a lie which discounts the costs and inflates the benefits.

If we could get it framed not as public transit investment to help poor people, but rather to help middle-class people keep from becoming poor (I really do think car ownership is a huge reason for bad personal balance sheets), that would be a much more honest and accurate conversation.

Considering that the middle class is a shrinking demographic, I do not see this being helpful except from a marketing "feel good" perspective. If the best way to convince people to discard a vehicle in exchange for public transit or active transportation is to couch that discussion in a comfortable fantasy about being middle class, then it is inherently dishonest.

1) It’s certainly not inadmissible to think that fossil fuels are going to get more expensive. No one can claim that fossil fuels will not eventually become costly- they are finite, so of course they will. Whether that it is within the span of a human lifetime or not is questionable. That isn’t what you originally argued, though: you said that energy will become expensive, which is wrong. Other forms of energy are becoming dramatically more affordable, and there are reasons to believe (particularly with solar) that this will accelerate to the point where energy is genuinely abundant. Whether or not you think new extraction techniques are bona fide innovation is beside your point- cheap energy will make the private automobile untenable. Not so at all.

2) I agree when you say “the key is to decouple vehicle ownership from social status.” But I’m not sure how you’re doing it when you say “cities cannot favour automobile owners at the expense of the less financially able members of the community.” When you say that, you are expressing a belief in the notion that transit users are “less financially able,” which is not necessarily the case. You think that very few people are taking transit out of altruism, which is fine. But I’m telling you that taking transit makes one more financially healthy than owning and operating a private automobile. When you say “the truth hurts,” I think that you are trying to say that I am poor/disadvantaged, and offended by your statement since I take the bus. That’s not exactly what hurts: just that my belief is that taking transit is a beneficial economic decision, no matter your income level, and it adds no value to call transit users poor. To repeat: no one who takes the bus is “less financially able,” but rather MORE financially able (than if they had been had they insisted on maintaining and using a car).

3)“The middle class is a shrinking demographic.” Nonetheless, it is by far the largest demographic, so where else should we focus? I’m not positive what you’re trying to say. If the middle class is in decline, and that’s a bad thing, supporting public transit is part of the way (I would say a big part of the way) we can arrest that decline. Isn’t it obvious that the best way to convince someone of something is to explain to them why it’s better? But, anyway, if the term “middle class” doesn’t appeal to you, we can say it this way: reducing dependence on the private automobile will help any Canadian, regardless of income, to be better off. Is that okay?

You think that the culture of the car has to end for a variety of reasons. I don’t think it necessarily “has” to come to an end, but I think we should try to reduce its hold, so that the middle class (the majority of people) can be better off. You don’t like when I say “middle class” either because the “comfortable fantasy” is offensive to you; or because you think it’s crass that I would suggest we do something that benefits the majority of the population, instead of just the poor. Nonetheless, we both want the same thing: stronger investments to public transit. What do you think is the best way to convince other people that what we want is a good idea?

1) It’s certainly not inadmissible to think that fossil fuels are going to get more expensive. No one can claim that fossil fuels will not eventually become costly- they are finite, so of course they will. Whether that it is within the span of a human lifetime or not is questionable. That isn’t what you originally argued, though: you said that energy will become expensive, which is wrong. Other forms of energy are becoming dramatically more affordable, and there are reasons to believe (particularly with solar) that this will accelerate to the point where energy is genuinely abundant. Whether or not you think new extraction techniques are bona fide innovation is beside your point- cheap energy will make the private automobile untenable. Not so at all.

This is a difficult argument you're trying to present. Energy has indeed become more expensive. It is the higher price being paid for energy that makes fracking, off shore oil, tar sands, etc ..., including solar, viable.

Another complicating matter is the cycle of energy boom and bust. We have been here before. The price of oil and gas increases, it peaks, society panics, invests in renewables, and then a new discovery is made (North Sea) or a new technology is uncovered (shale and fracking) prices decrease, the market returns to guzzlers and attention on renewables fade until the next crash. But, the price of energy, particularly oil and gas, trends steadily upwards.

I agree with the premise of the article but I am ambivalent as to whether oil prices will contribute greatly to the end of car culture. Not that I expect the current boom to last long, but because many people would give up their homes before they give up their cars. I think, more likely, a generational change will bring about an end to car culture.

One of the best books analysing car culture is "Carjacked" by Lutz and and Fernandez (an anthropologist and and an economist):

http://www.carjacked.org/

This book is available at HPL and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the culture of cars in the United States and Canada. The main theme is that the the benefits of driving are over-emphasized while the costs are de-emphasized or entirely invisible.

The term car culture is used because members of a culture often do not notice aspects of their culture, especially bizarre or damaging ones, that are obvious to outsiders (a fish doesn't know it is in water).

The most basic example of how we ignore or minimize the effects of automobiles are the costs ($14,000 per year for the average American) and injuries (37,313 deaths and 2.5 million injuries in the USA each year).

The deaths and injuries are seen as inevitable, like natural disasters, or the result of "accidents" . The courts tend to back up this interpretation since killing pedestrians almost never attracts serious penalties (usually just a modest fine) and defences like "I didn't see the red light" are routinely accepted. This is in contrast to other cases of homicide (such as hunting deaths or industrial deaths of workers) which are treated much more seriously.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-18 10:36:45

"I really find it problematic when people say things like “cities cannot favour automobile owners at the expense of the less financially able members of the community.” It’s not a false statement at all, but to imply that people who use other forms of transportation are “less financially able” is not completely accurate."

Great observation, Stephen.

Let's consider Hamilton public transit. One useful (albeit imperfect) way to gauge ridership income is out-of-home advertising. I ride an HSR bus route almost daily and there are virtually no "private-sector" ads; 99% of all ads are public service (usually public health messages). This tells me that advertisers long ago concluded that there are no "middle-class" riders on the buses, so it's waste of $ to promote their product or service. HSR cannot get any real revenue from this source, unlike Toronto and other cities.

There is a perception that people in Hamilton (lower city especially) ride the bus because they have to, not because they want to. So the irony is that while deciding not to own a vehicle is a smart financial decision, one is stigmatized. It then becomes a self-fulfilling assumptions vortex. HSR is not an innovative agency, and seems unresponsive to requests for simple things like providing real-time data, etc.

Thoughts?

Great observation. I looked around at the ads on the bus yesterday and there were only "ghetto" PSA ads, even the Public/Wind mobile ads are gone.

HSR cannot get any real revenue from this source

That's difficult to believe. I never met a marketer who couldn't fill every last square inch of space they were offered. There is definitely some failure to lure proper advertising considering I follow my fellow GO train riders onto an HSR bus almost every day, and we're a pretty middle class working bunch.

I hate ads generally speaking, but the presence of normal advertising (like on the GO) does help the already subsidized transit, and is a sign of life and vitality of the transit system.

The posters on the buses now, do paint a demographic picture of a mostly deserted ghetto prison bus.

I think that part of the problem is that it is simpler for the ad company to sell one big bus wrap ad than lots of small inside ads. So they don't try too hard. Another point is that the HSR gets the "unsold" ad space for free and can then use them for various public service ads as they see fit ("her future is grey", "zero tolerance for violence" etc).

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DED0...

The bus wrap ads are another example of how the HSR doesn't seem to care much about giving their paying riders a pleasant experience. When bus wraps first came out they were a sort of mesh that allowed riders a bit of a view out, and allowed passersby at least a bit of a view into the bus.

More recently, the wraps have become completely opaque, which means taking in the view (one of the minor pleasures of taking the bus) is now no longer possible, and the bus is dark. The fact that it is impossible to see who is in the bus from the outside is also off-putting for potential riders. This is just one more way the city is sending the message that providing a good service for bus-riders doesn't matter, they don't even care that passengers can't see out the windows if the advertisers want it that way!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-19 15:24:09

Another good point. On unfamiliar routes I've had trouble looking for my stop through the mesh wrap; pretty annoying. But the actual space for ad posters was almost empty except for stern notices not to beat up the bus driver, and reminders of where one can exchange needles :/

The problem is that the adverts on the HSR are not just generic public service messages, but are mostly aimed at social problems like alcoholism, child abuse, drug abuse (needle exchange programs), homelessness, emergency birth control, violence ("zero tolerance for violence") and subsidy programs for the poor. And there are always many adverts aimed at raising money or awareness for diseases (often using deliberately shocking language to get attention "cystic fibrosis is like drowning on the inside"). Although these are worthy issues and programs, the net effect on bus riders is to make their ride depressing. Why are bus riders forced to look at this smorgasbord of misery each time they ride the bus? It broadcasts the message that society considers that bus riders are a group of poor, homeless, violent drug abusers. And any casual rider is likely to be shocked by this very unusual range of advertising and wonder what sort of company they've got themselves into.

The contrast is driven home by the fact that the adverts on the OUTSIDE of the bus or, at bus shelters, are uniformly upbeat commercial ads for "normal" goods and services. In other words, society doesn't feel that motorists need to be informed of the important social problems and diseases that fill the inside of the bus.

The irony is that one of the largest groups of HSR users are high school, university and college students ... who are the prime target of advertisers. Why isn't the HSR highlighting the fact that many of their riders should in fact be a highly desirable audience?

Part of making transit attractive is making the ride pleasant ... filling the inside of the bus with depressing ads, full of graphic images and shocking messages, is not the way to succeed. Most other successful municipal transit systems do not do this, and neither does GO Transit.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-18 13:50:54

Why wait until you're onboard? I've lost track of the number of downtown bus shelters with ads for gonorrhea, chlamydia and bedbug infestations.

If the HSR is interested in making their service attractive to those who have a choice, it would be better to simply leave unsold ad space empty, or fill it with the work of local artists or poets, than use it as a dumping ground for those depressing ads they can't seem to find anywhere else to post. They could also insist on balance for those ads that are sold by the local advertising contractors. I'm not convinced that the advertisers actually know who is taking the bus ... they are probably just following the general prejudices of the general public. Does the HSR provide a demographic break-down of their riders to potential advertising agencies? I'm pretty sure the majority would be relatively young students, or commuters going to work.

After all, GO Transit doesn't feel a need to fill the inside of their buses with disturbing ad campaigns against the full spectrum social problems and diseases.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-18 15:21:28

Here's a horribly dark anti-smoking ad drawn by a teenager! Also, Pornography Hurts!

(Hope I'm not taking this thread too far away from M. Sweet's article.)

Kevlahan has filled in details on my point. Yes, I was very surprised when I took my first ride on a bus. HSR reinforces: the messages that social service agencies try to communicate on daily basis; there are no people but "poor people" riding the buses. If HSR wants a much broader uptake in riders, the entire demographic and income profile of Hamilton needs to be a target. The message ought to be: taking transit is the smart economic choice.

Sadly, advertisers are a pretty savvy lot and placing ads where the valuable eyeballs are is an artform they've worked on for years --- they're actually pretty good at it. If there's no ads for the latest cell phone, mortgage offering or mutual fund on the bus, there is probably a reason for it (ie. few potential customers in the captive audience). That is one of the things we might see change if LRT or more, at least perceptually, luxe alternatives to the bus are embraced, built out and promoted here in town.
In the meantime, why don't we devote the space to public art (and I DO NOT mean graffiti!). Seeing what our local artists have to offer would be so much nicer than the dreck, voids and reminders of misery that we're faced with now.

While CBS state that they are no longer prepared to sustain annual losses, they have expressed an interest in negotiating an amended contract for the final five year period in the alternative to outright cancellation effective December 31, 2010.

Staff has had an opportunity to survey other municipalities and are able to confirm that bus advertising contract renewals in recent years have experienced dramatic declines in benefits to the municipality relative to historical experience.

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/1E8E5FEB-197B-41B1-8E5F-2110C9E53ECD/0/Mar22EDRMS_n85152_v1_8_4__TOE01061a.pdf

the single occupant automobile is the smoking of the next generation. the destruction and wilful ignorance will seem as improbable as lighting up a cigarette in a hospital in two decades.

Oh fabulous Zoltar, please tell me more of the future. Stoning a soccer mom on her way to pick up 4 kids from soccer sounds so appealing.

exactly my point. if you had asked someone in the 1950's if it would be ILLEGAL to smoke in a park they would have responded in the exact same way.

So you mean, in 2070 a single person in a fission powered mobile will be ostracized? Little melodramatic even for Zoltar.

http://www.avivacommunityfund.org/ideas/acf19051

Direct funds into our community, lets win this grant!!

I like the discussion around the HSR advertising strategy, and I think this is a subject which deserves greater scrutiny and perhaps a public campaign to encourage the HSR to expand it's advertising horizons. The various comments are correct, that the tone of the advertising is a small but significant part of the experience of riding public transit.

Another classic transit-centric campaign was Hamilton Civic League's (made in Burlington) "Want Change?" PSA leveraging urban cliche: empty, grease-spotted pizza box open next to an invisible beggar, or a graf-blighted brick wall.

http://civicleague.ca/media-initiatives

I didn't get a "Beggar" vibe as much as I did a city that needs a cleanse... which it does (politically).

I like cycling but I wouldn't consider it a "healthy" alternative unless something is done about pollution. My throat has a negative reaction to cycling alongside heavy traffic sometimes (especially when there are trucks, it seems), even running has caused me to start coughing uncontrollably at least once.

my god, your wit and rhetoric have showed me the err of my ways. you are right. the future will be exactly the same as the past. i would continue this telegram exchange but i need to go feed my horse so i can go to work.

I agree technology will change. Ideally, I hope that vehicles will not be polluting machines. Just a little over the top to think that a non-polluting vehicle that is not at full capacity in 20 years (later exampled at 60 years) will be the "smoking" of the millenial years. But dramatic point taken. Carry on.