4 ms·

This is going to make peoples lives worse. People who still need to drive are going to drive, but will instead end up paying more. > That’s because most people

by renlo 10y ago

This is going to make peoples lives worse. People who still need to drive are going to drive, but will instead end up paying more. > That’s because most people, correctly, can’t imagine any time soon when they won’t need to use a car for most—even all—of their daily trips. As a practical matter, the fact that for seven or eight decades the entire built environment and most transportation investments have been predicated on car travel means that we can’t quickly move away from auto dependence. So, let's build better public transportation (light rail, subways, buses / self-driving buses) or other solutions (bike lanes / roads, affordable housing near commerce) before we start making life harder for people. Once we've reached a state where there are convenient options then we should enact such taxes and fees, not before.

hvidgaard 10y ago
That sounds nice, but you will not get that movement going unless there is a reason for people to give up their car. The obvious suggestion would be to gradually make it more expensive to drive, and then gradually improve transportation and housing to deal with less cars pr household. /Edit: I meant to say you do both simultaneously. LEaving the original text up because the replies were made in that context.
- ehnto 10y ago
  Our city made it more expensive to park in the city through taxation. The result was people pay more for parking. Cars and buses are just as backed up, and there are no new rail services. The public transit system was already failing to deliver it's existing customers. Infrastructure must come before taxation as a way to motivate people. It just doesn't make sense to make people pay for a failing of public infrastructure as a way of encouraging them to use said failing infrastructure.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    I meant to say, do both simultaneously.
    - ehnto 10y ago
      Ah I see, in fact you said it well already I was just too quick to reply! This is definitely an issue I am passionate about, mostly because I want to live in the city that eventually gets this right.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    More than infrastructure, zoning and regulations preventing transit from being effective need to be in place. Hell, in an ideal city you don't even need transit as much because you can walk and cycle everywhere. Remove the need to traverse miles and miles of asphalt by letting people live near where they work and recreate and you may find that expensive rail line isn't even necessary. Also, if the buses are backed up they need their own lane. If they don't have one it's hardly even transit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kashkhan 10y ago
i would like to see an actual dollar calculation of the alleged subsidy for an electric car that costs 30cents per mile and almost always uses suburban roads that are designed for fire trucks and school buses.
BrailleHunting 10y ago
AI and sustainable energy lead to sustainable transport. Many people, especially Americans, have an unhealthy, cultural fixation on freedom tied to piloting killing machines that algorithms can do better. If someone can do their work, live their life, go where they need to go: who cares what modality if it's factually cheaper, safer and sustainable? Ahh but still, the romantic freedom of productivity and more Angry Birds time needs to be sold as better than risking drunk/texting drivers, diesel fumes and red-light tickets. (PS: the cultural "fight" is also against the extreme freedom ideal proffered by the motorcycle biker.) EDIT: Until the pain of climate change is imminent famine / Venezuelan food prices, single-occupant vehicies will remain mostly normalized.
CalRobert 10y ago
" People who still need to drive are going to drive, but will instead end up paying more." or rather: "People who still need to (walk/bus/bike) are going to (walk/bus/bike), but will instead end up (walking/paying/dying) more than they would otherwise, because I want them to pay for my motoring convenience." - everyone who can't afford a car, or can't drive due to disability
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  > everyone who can't afford a car In many places you've got this backwards. It's about who can afford to not have a car.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    And that's generally a result of planning decisions which promote housing scarcity. These decisions cause a great deal of harm. Also, consider that many people who own cars probably can't afford them. How many folks at buy here pay here lots are entering in to horrifically damaging contracts out of desperation and not prudence?

by renlo 10y ago

hvidgaard 10y ago

That sounds nice, but you will not get that movement going unless there is a reason for people to give up their car. The obvious suggestion would be to gradually make it more expensive to drive, and then gradually improve transportation and housing to deal with less cars pr household. /Edit: I meant to say you do both simultaneously. LEaving the original text up because the replies were made in that context.

ehnto 10y ago
Our city made it more expensive to park in the city through taxation. The result was people pay more for parking. Cars and buses are just as backed up, and there are no new rail services. The public transit system was already failing to deliver it's existing customers. Infrastructure must come before taxation as a way to motivate people. It just doesn't make sense to make people pay for a failing of public infrastructure as a way of encouraging them to use said failing infrastructure.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  I meant to say, do both simultaneously.
  - ehnto 10y ago
    Ah I see, in fact you said it well already I was just too quick to reply! This is definitely an issue I am passionate about, mostly because I want to live in the city that eventually gets this right.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  More than infrastructure, zoning and regulations preventing transit from being effective need to be in place. Hell, in an ideal city you don't even need transit as much because you can walk and cycle everywhere. Remove the need to traverse miles and miles of asphalt by letting people live near where they work and recreate and you may find that expensive rail line isn't even necessary. Also, if the buses are backed up they need their own lane. If they don't have one it's hardly even transit.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kashkhan 10y ago

i would like to see an actual dollar calculation of the alleged subsidy for an electric car that costs 30cents per mile and almost always uses suburban roads that are designed for fire trucks and school buses.

BrailleHunting 10y ago

AI and sustainable energy lead to sustainable transport. Many people, especially Americans, have an unhealthy, cultural fixation on freedom tied to piloting killing machines that algorithms can do better. If someone can do their work, live their life, go where they need to go: who cares what modality if it's factually cheaper, safer and sustainable? Ahh but still, the romantic freedom of productivity and more Angry Birds time needs to be sold as better than risking drunk/texting drivers, diesel fumes and red-light tickets. (PS: the cultural "fight" is also against the extreme freedom ideal proffered by the motorcycle biker.) EDIT: Until the pain of climate change is imminent famine / Venezuelan food prices, single-occupant vehicies will remain mostly normalized.

CalRobert 10y ago

" People who still need to drive are going to drive, but will instead end up paying more." or rather: "People who still need to (walk/bus/bike) are going to (walk/bus/bike), but will instead end up (walking/paying/dying) more than they would otherwise, because I want them to pay for my motoring convenience." - everyone who can't afford a car, or can't drive due to disability

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
> everyone who can't afford a car In many places you've got this backwards. It's about who can afford to not have a car.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  And that's generally a result of planning decisions which promote housing scarcity. These decisions cause a great deal of harm. Also, consider that many people who own cars probably can't afford them. How many folks at buy here pay here lots are entering in to horrifically damaging contracts out of desperation and not prudence?