this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
401 points (98.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7205 readers
514 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree on all accounts. Instead of banning/restricting trucks, we should instead make them less convenient and more expensive. So:
The taxes would go toward pedestrian and transit infrastructure to offset the lower efficiency and greater danger larger vehicles pose.
They are already expensive. People feel it is ok to have an insane monthly truck payment because they must have a massive truck.
At a certain point, it won't make sense. But cost alone isn't going to solve it, hence the need to rework infrastructure to make owning massive cars inconvenient. If driving takes twice as long as the train, far fewer people would drive, and that eventually kills the car culture.
Yes, of course. I am not entirely serious with this plan either – there is no way you could convince existing owners to have them recolored.
They're already expensive and inconvenient.
The problem is that (many) Americans are emotionally unfulfilled consumers first and contributing members of their communities second, or third... or last, if at all.
Most of the people driving these vehicles only care about themselves. They'll removed and moan about these restrictions you'd like but they'll still buy them because their egos are so utterly fragile.
And for those who have legit reasons to operate one of these vehicles, we'll end up subsidizing the commercial fees as write offs with taxpayer dollars.
As with many hot topic issues, it's easy to apply band-aids detrimental to one group while appeasing another group – but the core of the issue still remains.
I'd argue that Americans are poorly compensated for their labor, our culture applauds those who work the hardest for the least reward, the family and community structures are sacrificed in exchange for appearing financially powerful. Our culture is about what you've acquired, not what you've given (other than your time). A big truck says you've acquired a lot.
Regulations for corporations permit them to grow and advertise without enough accountability – specifically in how their "freedom of speech" impacts the perception and lives of everyday Americans. Corporations are motivated by profits and returns more than they are consumer satisfaction or safety. As long as consumers keep believing these big trucks are what they need to show how much they've acquired, how financially powerful they are, vehicle makers will keep increasing prices while reducing costs to get a better return on Wall Street investments.
That's not really how it works though. All that does is move money from one bucket into another. Yeah, maybe your federal income tax receipts will go down marginally, but you'll need to allocate less of your budget to infrastructure since that's being funded by the tax.
It's really not an issue.
A huge part of the core of the issue is our car-centric culture, as in we've equated driving a car with freedom somehow such that waiting in traffic is preferable to sitting on a train actually getting somewhere because you're in your car.
To solve that, we need to drastically change city centers to be inconvenient to navigate by car. We do this by eliminating car corridors in cities, which pushes cars to the outside along a belt routes. Every part of the city is still accessible by car , it just takes longer. This allows lots of good things to happen, such as:
Once people no longer need cars to get around, the culture can change. That's precisely what happened in the Netherlands (they used to be very car centric), and it can happen elsewhere too.
People will always want status symbols, but perhaps they'll pick more environmentally friendly ones if cars aren't as central to the culture, such as jewelry or designer clothing. Ideally they'd pick fully funded retirement accounts instead, but that's not as flashy.
And that'll always be true.
Instead of trying to restrict how they can make profits (they'll just lobby for carveouts in any regulation that impacts them), governments should instead try to change the demand side of the equation. For example:
And along with all this, government agencies should be producing high quality research to present to the populace in an effective way (hire an actual marketing team, don't just publish papers).
The trick is to get the ball rolling. Someone needs to pilot these ideas to show they work, then others will follow suit.
I’m sorry but you already lost me right here. This is an ignorant ideology in this vast country. I live in a city and don’t own a car, so I appreciate the sentiment (big fan of a Climate Town and Not Just Bikes). But man, it’s just ignorant.
As I said, no one cares about increased costs. Taxes are good for funding programs, not so much for restricting stuff.
If you think suburbs are cheaper to live than cities, you really are in need of some perspective. You think people want to live in cities? Or are you suggesting we force people to move to cities? Whut?
People, sorry, Americans don’t want better public transportation or infrastructure. They want better ways to travel by themselves in large cars with the greatest convenience.
Again, I appreciate the idea that we need better public transportation and infrastructure (especially as I have travel for the holidays coming up). You’re just not going to ‘legislate away’ people’s desire to be independent. It’s the epitome of the United States’ culture.
I mean, you’ve got a better argument if you make claims that we should bring factory jobs back to inner-cities. That, or something similar, motivates populations to engage with cities at all and creates the demand for better transportation infrastructure. But most people already don’t need the cars they have. They buy their four door pick up truck for that one time they might need the capacity of the course of ownership. I’d venture to guess most sedan owners don’t ever even carry more than one passenger.
Granted, historically, persistent high gas prices have driven people to downsize their vehicles. So there’s some evidence that this has the desired effect. But legislators aren’t going to do this as a tax to force the public to buy smaller cars. They’re more motivated by generating profits for car makers so they can employ more people (in theory). Still, I think it’s up for debate if people would choose a smaller car or the same big car with a smaller (or electric) engine.
They are in my area and everywhere I've lived. Rent alone is 2x the price vs my area about 20 miles outside the city center, and property often has a larger gap. Basic needs like groceries and services are also cheaper.
The difference has closed a bit in the last couple years, but it's still cheaper in the suburbs, provided you have a decent way to get to work.
And yes, I think people do want to live in cities. I would if it made financial sense, and my coworkers are similar. But only like 10% of people in my office (that I interact with with to know) live within 10 min of my office, mostly due to cost, and that's with transit completely sucking to my office (it would take 2 hours by transit, vs 30 min by car). One lives an hour away by car!
Absolutely not! I'm merely saying we should make driving in cities more restrictive, to the point where it's faster for most people to use transit or ride a bike. That can drastically reduce traffic, infrastructure costs, and in many cases average commute time.
Pretty much everyone I've talked to that has visited Europe praises their train infrastructure, which works for tourists and commuters alike. And when I ask if they're interested in seeing the same here, they say it "wouldn't work here."
I really don't buy that argument. Yes, America is bigger, but we have very dense regions where transit absolutely makes sense. NYC's subways are world famous, so it's not like people are against mass transit, they just prefer the option that's more convenient and faster. In NYC, that's the subway, but much of the rest of the country has invested in their roads way more so transit tends to be a worse experience than driving.
I grew up near Seattle, and they finally put in a commuter rail line after decades of some of the worst traffic in the country. I now live near SLC, which had way better transit with a much smaller population over the same period. In fact, I think SLC is still way ahead of Seattle because the transit system actually works cohesively, vs in Seattle where there are like three different systems that don't quite line up. Utah's Frontrunner has ~2x the ridership vs Seattle's Sounder, despite the metro area being about 1/4-1/3 the size and both having a similar length (80-90 miles). And I'd argue that Utah's car culture is much stronger than Seattle's, and traffic is way better. If you build a good system, people will use it.
What we need is better transit lines to connect suburban and urban areas, and perhaps a handful of high speed rail options between close-ish metros. Amtrak is quite popular on the east coast because it connects major metros and is competitive with cars, and it's less popular in the west because of the opposite reason. Improve the service and people will use it.
I just drove from SLC to LA because it's cheaper than flying with my kids and I don't have to deal with airports; if there was a train that went there a little faster than my car for something that splits the difference in price vs an airplane, I would've taken it. I've talked to several people in my office, and they said they'd take a high speed train to Vegas or LA if it was cheaper than flying and faster than a car. That doesn't exist, so my coworkers drive.
Trains are even more American than the automobile imo, and the only reason cars won is because we didn't upgrade the trains and we installed a ton of roads and hid the costs in taxes. Trains cost less to operate than cars on roads (assuming we're factoring in road/rail maintenance), but they cost more to the average rider so they're less popular. It's not complicated, people are cost and time conscious, and trains haven't been keeping up with the subsidized roads.
I don't think that's how people would actually behave if a more efficient option arrived.
Cars have a few functions in today's society, including:
The first is the "Independence" issue, but people have been quick to give up independence for convenience (e.g. streaming vs owning physical media, extended warranty vs knowing how to fix cars, broad acceptance of TSA so they don't need to worry about terrorists, etc). At the end of the day, people care far more about convenience than independence. How many people actually have food storage at home, or any survival knowledge?
The second two are similar, having the capability to do something yourself (even if you probably won't) is a form of status. But people are ordering more and more stuff to their homes instead of picking them up that guy utility argument is getting weaker and weaker. Just look at trucks' shrinking beds and growing cabins as evidence that people are really just after the status instead of actual utility or independence.
So we're really just talking about status here. And I think it's totally fine to keep a car parked in your garage to show off to friends or whatever, provided it's not clogging up highways or running over kids. Go ahead and take it out on weekends or whatever, just don't drive it to work (do you really want rock chips damaging your fancy truck anyway?).
So no, I reject all of that. If we built high quality transit, people do ride it. If we make getting downtown with a car more difficult than taking transit, even more will take transit and traffic will improve. It's that simple, we just need a few brave cities to prove it to the public.