I don't think there is a "best way" - but increasing costs is one way. Singapore is an example of this - you have pay up 106K SGD for the COE (certificate of entitlement) to even be allowed to own a car.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
95 points (85.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
9576 readers
133 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This punishes the poor in rural areas. Unless you are referring to only cities that will also be improving mass transit at the same time, increasing costs has only downsides.
Reframing reducing subsidies as increasing costs is what makes people hate the idea. Gradually reducing incentives to drive would give people plenty of time to transition to other lifestyles.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Introduce a cheap alternative, get people used to it, then slowly phasing in taxes to make the undesired behavior too expensive to be worth it for the average person, but still give the option.
I have long thought that cars should largely not exist in cities, but (in America at least) they're required for rural living. Inside cities, there should be cheap (maybe even free), readily available, and numerous public transportation options. Convert parking lots into usable land, and install large parking garages on the outskirts of the cities, again cheap or free, and make them hubs for the public transportation options.
Now, people can drive to the city on their own. We don't have to immediately redo the entire country's infrastructure so that rural citizens still have mobility. If you're just passing through the city, or want to keep your car on you, there could be a day pass option. It'd be expensive, but doable. Otherwise, you can park and do whatever you need to, and just return to your car when done.
As far as city dwellers who may want to own a car for trips, allow rental of a space in a parking garage for a reasonable rate. You can store your car there indefinitely, have free access to it, but would still need a day pass to operate inside the city.
Change is slow. We have to accept some half measures in service of getting things more in line with where we want them. Eventually we may be able to phase out cars completely, but I'd personally be fine with a drastic reduction in cars inside cities. Incentivizing alternatives works better than punishing the unwanted behavior, and works even better when the two are used in tandem.
- Tax carbon (and equivalents)
- give back all carbon tax to all citizens, equally
- Increase tax linearly over time, and let folks and business plan their transition predictably.
This will incentivize people to demand affordable transportation, transition to alternatives, get low income citizens a reason to not oppose increased cost of living. Big consumers have to pay, low consumers will pay a little but get more back.
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby.
By decentralizing them. We could have less cars if less people needed then by have a car librsry that is in walking range that people can use when they need instead of everyone having one/two/4 cars per nuclear families
Lately I've been pointing out that most drives people take regularly are only a mile or two long. It's a hit and miss argument though. Probably more useful for getting people on board with smaller, lighter, cars than getting them out of cars entirely.
I can drive a mile or two in a couple minutes, in any weather, at any time of day. I can get a full supply of groceries or heavy bulky items at any moment. Far less common, but I also have extra clothes, a stocked medical bag, and other stuff wherever I go. I can do this all on my time frame in an instant's notice. I can get across town to help when they need to get to urgent care quick, or think someone is breaking in. I can get to the hospital if I need it, I can leave town in a hurry, I can visit my parents 4hrs away at any moment.
I guess if public transit could do that, I would take it. The autonomy of having a car means they are not going anywhere. The absolute best you will possibly do it reduce car use. I rarely grocery shop anymore because our local store has a bizarrely affordable home delivery option. If I can pay $10+cost for groceries, I am not driving 15min to the store on a busy weekend. I would carpool to work, but what if I had to leave early, or had to go to a friend/family emergency...20min for the local cab to even get to me is not acceptable in the second scenario.
Autonomy and convenience are what you are looking to remove/replace. I am not saying there isn't a path. It is worth looking into it, for sure. I just don't see it, yet.
Autonomy is enjoyable. I understand keeping a car for that purpose in today's cities. However, if there were multiple methods of crossing the city in a similar timeframe, keeping a car is a high expense. It is possible to have light rail and bus services in a city where no one waits at any stop more than a few minutes because of the high frequency. Imagine if you had access to a $5 trip across your city in the same time it takes currently to drive. Sure, I'm being idealistic here, but in that scenario, why drive when you can be driven?
I assume you took a look at the page I linked, but if not, the figures that 52% of trips are less than three miles are not of all trips ever taken. They are for daily, regularly occurring, expected trips. This removes from consideration that odd trip out of town, those summer trips to the lumber yard, and certainly the emergency hospital visits.
For all these out of the norm trips, keep your car. With good public transit, you don't even need to check a schedule. Just hop on something that's going towards your destination. Use it for your commute, for your trips to see friends, for going out with your spouse. Use the car when something comes up unexpectedly.
I'm not trying to rag on you specifically, but I'll go over your examples of non regular trips you either make or are prepared for:
Going to get groceries on a whim;
Wouldn't it be nice to live a few minutes walk from a grocery? Everyone should, given we must eat. Imagine if supermarket departments were instead their own shops, distributed through your neighbourhood.
Bulky purchases;
Not sure what you had in mind, but furniture, major appliances, lumber, yard mulch, garden stones, etc, can all be delivered. Yes, often at a fee, but if you're buying something like this once or twice a year, it's well cheaper than a car.
Driving across town to bring someone else to an emergency room;
If you're talking a scheduled doctors visit, then these aren't on a moments notice events. As far as actual, proper emergencies go, ignoring the existence of ambulance service, even if you no longer had a car, there's probably cars around you. I've waived a stranger down on the road for a trip to the hospital. I've knocked on the door of people I don't know that had a car in the driveway. By and large, people will help you in such a scenario. I'm also sure that coworkers would offer up their car if a family member wound up in the hospital when you'd ridden a bike to work.
A home burglary
Here I'm at a disadvantage, given I don't live somewhere the odds of this are even one in a million. I suppose I'll just say that car ownership for this situation seems more costly than a decent security system and maybe life insurance.
I'll leave off with the suggestion that if you can broaden your horizons, there are a large number of places in existence today that have multiple methods of local - and even high speed regional - transit where the autonomy and convenience people gain in their lives by not being chained to a personal vehicle is undeniable. Cost savings for the car free citizens; cost savings for the municipality or country; better physical health on average; less pollution; less noise.
Best part about getting people out of cars? Less traffic people who keep their cars.
More grocery stores is not a great option for a number of reasons. A more effective distribution hub would be ideal (it's biggest flaw being the single point of failure).
The bulky purchases counterpoint is fair. I would prefer just driving to get a bunch of soil or supplies for a project. Having to rely on an outside person to get the right stuff, deliver it in a reasonable time, and not having the "oh right I need this too" of walking the isles when kitting up for a project are bigger losses imo than I think people realize. The number of times I went for one thing, then spent a little time price checking other things in the isle or discovering something new is noteworthy. I have groceries delivered now....it is not a great system (yet!) but worth expansion.
The emergency room and burglary ones are definitely outliers and purposefully used on my part, but having solutions for an emergency need is not to be discounted because "it rarely happens". That one I don't think I can budge on. (The life insurance comment was a bit ignorant, but you seem to be commenting in good faith. I'd rather have someone not die over getting a life insurance payout)
I agree that walking is great and cars are detrimental on the whole. I can't think of a good fix for the system and don't think the fantasy ideas often given are good. Honestly I only really debate them to be devil's advocate and help strengthen the debate from your side, because you need outside viewpoints to do that.
I appreciate the reply.
Oh the life insurance thing I had meant health insurance, thinking if you get injured during the burglary, your deductible would still be cheaper than purchasing an entire car. Complete flub on my part.
I've certainly changed an entire project based on some thing I didn't know existed in the hardware store before. Walking around and looking at various things can be useful. In this regard I am an outlier in that I have a cargo trailer for my bike that I do use for bringing home small lumber and odds and ends. Definitely not ideal when I've realized I forgot something, but that's fortunately a rarity.
You mentioned soil. I'm going to guess you're talking about those bags they have in the garden centre. I can't think of anything I've done where I only needed a few of those personally. The times I needed topsoil or mulch or stone, I've just gotten either a yard delivered in one of those square bags, or a larger amount from a tilt truck.
What we disagree on is the grocery store point. While I don't now, not too long ago I lived in an area where a couple bakeries, a deli, a butcher with weird hours, and a small produce / vegetable market were all within walking distance. This allowed me to pop by on my way home to grab something for the evening. I did this most days, and at most it added ten minutes to my journey. Not hyperbole here, I would take a street or two detour and be in and out in a few minutes with the few things I needed.
Given these places didn't have parking lots akin to a modern Walmart or Target, it was always easy to get in and out without navigating through a sea of parked sedans making the entrance to the store hundreds of feet from the sidewalk. We didn't need to do the weekly or biweekly hour or longer trips to the shops. I did that when I was a child and I greatly prefer frequent handfuls of purchases to loading up a trolley.
Kind of like performing oil changes every few months or whenever instead of changing the motor every other year. Maybe not a great analogy but you get my point I'm sure.
Having these huge superstores set up shop and drive the smaller competition out of business isn't a model I like. I see it as damaging to the local economy, the people that end up having to shop there, and the people that end up working there. Walmart is a prime example of this sort of practice. Even if it's cheaper in the beginning, it never stays like that.
Despite the disagreements, it is nice to have a chat with someone that's got a different perspective without the conversation turning ugly. Cheers for that.
I think we both fundinentally agree that over-dependence on cars is a problem and are likely in alignment in a number of ideologies. I come from a rural conservative background(I was cured of the conservative bit thanks to some very patient and empathetic liberal folks) and maintain a readiness mentality (not quite prepper loony, but on the same tacks). As of right now, I am very near the outskirts of a small town. I am within easy walking distance of a Walmart (10min maybe), but being able to go there even if it isn't a good-weather daytime-hours trip while I am in good health, means I will never be anti-car.
Where we overlap, I think, is that making every other option far more accessible, safe, affordable, and convenient should absolutely be a goal. Funny you mention the parking lots. Big box stores did that back in the fifties and sixties because shoppers were more easily manipulated by "oh, this place is always busy, it must be good!". Something I see in the very old town I live near, and have heard mentioned in conversation with city planners and civil engineers is the idea of stores having their shop-front and entrance right on the sidewalks with parking lots in the back with access by a utility road that connects before the main commercial district. Eliminating the "stroad" effect on the main streets of the shopping district, and facilitating pedestrian traffic without having to burden the town with implementing extra pedestrian-friendly pathways. We also have an ordinance that Jaywalking is not a thing and pedestrians have the right of way no matter the situation or crossing point. This leads Main Street to be a great place to walk down and pop into shops or cafes....but....I am still gonna drive down there before I park at one end and walk it. Our main highway connection road (read about streets and roads and stroads, it is really interesting), that also connects the residential zone to the commercial district, just got a facelift and an extra-wide walking path...but until those trees along side grow real big, that is a desert slog to walk down on any sunny day.
Younger more pedestrian-friendly city planners and the like have really great ideas moving forwards, but it is a slow change in a world literally paved with awful, decades old, corporate-run planning.
After rambling and having a readthrough again...I think cars will always dominate rural situations, could be almost phased out of urban situations, and will be a battle ground where the two meet. I keep reading about making cars cost more. If people had to retest every 5 years and pay $500 each time to maintain a licence, it would most assuredly cut back on cars, ESPECIALLY if those other cheap, efficient, clean, safe alternatives existed....but that still makes my "torment the poor"-o-meter twitch and I dont like it. I don't have any real answers. I think a lot of the answers from the passionate people fighting this fight are not as realistic, or taking every lifestyle into account, as they think...but I don't want them to fail or give up for lack of insight. Hopefully discourse can bring more disparate information together and bring about real workable solutions. I look forward to a day where I only drive my Jeep because it is a hobby and a toy, and sell my car because I never drive it any more.
To be easier on your torment the poor-o-metre, one possibility could be to charge a yearly fee for a safety inspection on a personal car, with the fee being scaled by its weight. This way, cars would be safer generally, and people driving a Smart Fortwo would only be out the time it took to get the inspection.
These sorts of inspections are already in place in several countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany. Some countries also require higher annual registration costs for heavier vehicles, with other places adding inflated street side parking fees. Think of this as sort of an amalgamation of all these things.
The higher the delta between fees for driving a compact car and a large pick up truck is, the more reason people might see in not choosing the F-150. I'm not saying everyone should be cruising around in a Chang Li, but even downsizing the truck lovers to a Chevrolet S-10 would be great. Though of course, the manufacturers would have to make smaller trucks again, which means less profit, and la de da you know how the shareholders feel about that.
Side note, I see people in the summer driving their Jeeps with the doors off. Not my cup of tea but damn if it doesn't look cool as hell.
I learned a wild thing about trucks, because I despise pickups (other options do what they do, but better in every metric). Apparently trucks are huge so they can be in a different classification of vehicle and avoid certain fees and taxes, and those same fees and taxes make smaller foreign trucks not profitable to sell in the States (the point of the fees and taxes.... lobbyists, ffs).
I am a big fan of making huge vehicles more annoying to own, and small, clean vehicles much easier and cheaper to own and operate, with exceptions like minivans for families with 3+ kids. I am so very in support of getting the single-passenger giant SUVs and non-work trucks off the road, even if it means giving up my Jeep.
There are good ideas out there that get us moving in a better direction and I think those are worth pushing.
Seats made of knives and sandpaper
That will depend a lot from city to city, and also person to person. Some people loathe public transportation, as they see it as something for "the poor". Trading in cars for motorcycles, electric or combustion, is a good step forward, but would just lead to those ultra dense Indian cities.
What works best is not having places you want or need to go so fucking far: school, grocery store, workplace. For me, my job is 30km away from my home, but thankfully I can take a bus. Some people would take buses, but don't, because of: 1- they're overcrowded (because it's more profitable); 2- there's no direct lines that go to where the person wants to go ("low demand", unprofitable); 3- they don't run at the times the person needs (same as 2)
Another user mentions that many drives are less than a mile, for me that's whenever I go buy groceries, as I don't have a bike or anything to carry the bags, so putting them in the car works better.