8 ms·

It's not rocket science. Establish tax-switching policies. Make it less attractive to take the car by building automated car tolls and let the drivers pay. Sub

It's not rocket science. Establish tax-switching policies. Make it less attractive to take the car by building automated car tolls and let the drivers pay. Subsidize public transportation to make it cheaper for the citizens. That's basically what has been done in Stockholm (even though I wish it had been done to a greater degree, public transportation needs to be even cheaper). Cars destroys our shared environment and expanding it's infrastructure costs plenty (space, money, pollution). Of course it should be heavily taxed so that cycling, bus and subway infrastructure can be financed.

jamesblonde 8y ago
I travel 40 mins daily across town in stockholm. Change subway once for each journey. I travel at 08.30 and home at 17.15. I always get a set both ways. I turn on my laptop, work on the 4g connection all the way home. Rarely is there any problem.
pc86 8y ago
Out of curiosity how do you finance all this public transport when driving is so expensive you lose money with each tax increase?
- unicornporn 8y ago
  It's a balancing act I suppose. People still find that it's worth paying to take the car, but not to the same extent as without the tolls (it only costs between $1 and $4 depending on the time of the day). I'd guess there's still some headroom for increasing the tolls without decreasing the car traffic too much. If it were too expensive there'd be less money to finance public transportation which, I guess, creates a strange dependency. It somehow works, but there's still of course far too much car traffic.
salmon30salmon 8y ago
This is an absolutely terrible idea, and really hurts the lower class, especially in sprawled out places like the US. Often times, housing that low-income people can afford are not near their jobs or places of business. Sometimes, owning a personal use automobile is the only reasonable way to get across town to their jobs, or back to their home in time for an evening with their kids. Raising the cost of driving artificially directly impacts the lower income groups at a far more impactful rate than the higher income groups. Long story short, a flat toll is an incredibly regressive tax and directly damages lower income communities.
- Zarath 8y ago
  Isn't it a stereotype that poor people are the ones taking the bus/train?
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Depends on the city. You can't really do it in Atlanta unless you can afford to live near a stop.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Rich and poor do both. Poor people have longer trips on BOTH transit and cars.
  - maxander 8y ago
    It’s the stereotype, not the reality. Check out the housing prices near frequently-served bus stops in your local city.
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  If it is automated, there is no reason the fee couldn’t be progressive.
  - unicornporn 8y ago
    In Stockholm it's done by cameras that read the license plate (automated payment once a month can be set up). So no, progressive taxing would not at all be impossible (but perhaps unpopular in the US).
- ska 8y ago
  But the opposite is also true - cities have sprawled out to the degree that they have in part because driving is subsidized. You are quite right that addressing this too quickly can hurt a lot of people with limited means, but maintaining artificially low cost of driving isn't doing anyone any favors either.
  - 8y ago
existencebox 8y ago
It's a bit of a chicken-egg problem, at least from my perspective in the US, as well as a bit of a vicious cycle. I'm not optimistic. Here's why. (and also why I think the fix wouldn't work for many cities in the US at the current time.) In Seattle, if I want to get from a suburb on the east side into the city, during ANY trafficked time, it's going to be at least 2 busses (usually crowded, late, or full, so add another ~1), a decent amount of walking, and a 1.5-2 hour total trip. This compounds with the fact that many of the fringe buses only come once every half/hour, and not at all on weekends. Compare this to a city that had proper infrastructure to start, Philadelphia. I lived a comparative distance, and the population is MUCH higher and denser. But a 5 minute walk and a single 20-30 minute train ride put me anywhere I wanted in center city. While Seattle "has light rail" it's an honest joke next to the coverage in the north-east. As such, there's _no option_ to tax balance, it would end up being highly regressive punishing those forced to live further out and with no option but to use a car. The vicious cycle comes into play as the increased car traffic makes public transit less emphasized, convenient, and more of a perceived negative, leading to increased car traffic, etc etc. (compounded by less people wanting to take the tax burden they don't see a personal benefit to; there are a few different "tragedy of the commons" type effects in this mess.) If we had trains that could get me to work like the sister post says about Stockholm's, no need for additional motivation, I wouldn't own a car for an instant, and didn't until my mid/late 20s when I left the east coast, but that's not the reality of the cities we've built, and now we're in a bit of a hole that I'm not sure how to incentivise people out of.
- NegativeLatency 8y ago
  You could build more bike lanes and add transit only lanes. Build out from the city core, and expand it to outlying areas. Prove its value by showing people that alternatives to cars can actually be better. For example if there was an express buss between Bellevue and the U District that didn't have to sit behind cars crossing Lake Washington, I think it would be pretty popular. The chicken and egg problem is hard to crack. Not enough transit riders -> high car usage -> not enough transit riders -> ... If we all throw up our hands and say "too hard" it's only going to get worse. Growing up in Seattle and Tacoma, it was pretty frustrating to hear about the supposed light rail connection between the two that's been promised and delayed countless times over the last 20+ years. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process
Thersites 8y ago
This approach would place a disproportionate tax burden on the poorest sectors of the population, at least in the US. It's mandatory to have a car in order to get to work in most parts of the country. The structure already exists, punishing the least fortunate because of existing systems and structures seems punitive.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  The poorest Americans do not own cars.
  - lev99 8y ago
    Three quarters of poor people in America have cars [0]. While the poorest people do not have them, car ownership is very common among poor Americans. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/understanding-poverty-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/under...
closeparen 8y ago
A significant facet of the decline is overcrowding. This is a prescription to make that part of the crisis far worse. The epicenter of this decline is New York, where cars are already impractical and everyone already relies on the subway.
minkowskispace 8y ago
> Of course it should be heavily taxed so that cycling, bus and subway infrastructure can be financed. I like sentences that start with "Of course...". But I tend to think that Stockholm might not be a very representative city of the worst transportation problems. Stockholm has a population of ~950,000 (or 2.3 million metro) and a city area of 188 km². Contrast that with London with 8.1 million (13.6 million metro) people and 1,572 km². Plus, there are unique geographical characteristics, different population distributions and infrastructures. All these affect commute times and congestion. I don't think the solution in Stockholm is nearly universal. It might solve the specific problems of that specific city but would fail in many ways if applied blindly in many other places.
- kartan 8y ago
  > I don't think the solution in Stockholm is nearly universal. It might solve the specific problems of that specific city but would fail in many ways if applied blindly in many other places. Or it may work even better in other cities. What differences between London and Stockholm makes you think that it is going to work worse? > All these affect commute times and congestion. And that is why London needs it more than Stockholm. And that is why London already does it. (https://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-around-london/congestion-charge https://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-ar...)
erikb 8y ago
Technology never solved human nature related problems tho, and in public transport we have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.
Nullabillity 8y ago
I assume you live near Tunnelbanan and/or take the car regularly? Currently I spend about an hour each way on my commute (e-bike Täby -> Danderyd, then subway to T-Centralen), for a trip that GMaps says takes 20mins by car. And the piece of crap doesn't work during the winter. Alternately I could take two buses to Danderyd, for a total of 66 minutes in the absolute best case (never actually happens). A car is absolutely #1 on my saving-target list, due to that. Oh, and being able to lock stuff inside it. The primary problem is the absolutely awful quality of service (in some areas, at least), not that it is somehow too expensive.
dilap 8y ago
yeah that ain't gunna do shit to fix bart. (seriously though, the problems w/ mass transit, at least here in the bay area, are not simply "not enough money".)
megy 8y ago
> It's not rocket science It is not complicated to say that, it is complicated to get those issues past when a large majority of people drive and will never want to stop.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Why would you want to stop and switch to public transportation? It's a pretty significant QoL downgrade. If you can afford a car you pretty much always want to. There is no horizon in sight where shared transportation will actually be an improvement on cars so it's always going to be kind of a futile battle.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I can afford a car but choose not buy one because riding a bike and taking public transport is a more convenient and often faster than taking the car. I don't have to look for parking spots, I don't have to refuel the car, I save a lot of money, I don't have to do maintenance on the car... owning a car just doesn't make much sense here in Berlin if you don't have to transport children around.

jamesblonde 8y ago

I travel 40 mins daily across town in stockholm. Change subway once for each journey. I travel at 08.30 and home at 17.15. I always get a set both ways. I turn on my laptop, work on the 4g connection all the way home. Rarely is there any problem.

pc86 8y ago

Out of curiosity how do you finance all this public transport when driving is so expensive you lose money with each tax increase?

unicornporn 8y ago
It's a balancing act I suppose. People still find that it's worth paying to take the car, but not to the same extent as without the tolls (it only costs between $1 and $4 depending on the time of the day). I'd guess there's still some headroom for increasing the tolls without decreasing the car traffic too much. If it were too expensive there'd be less money to finance public transportation which, I guess, creates a strange dependency. It somehow works, but there's still of course far too much car traffic.

salmon30salmon 8y ago

This is an absolutely terrible idea, and really hurts the lower class, especially in sprawled out places like the US. Often times, housing that low-income people can afford are not near their jobs or places of business. Sometimes, owning a personal use automobile is the only reasonable way to get across town to their jobs, or back to their home in time for an evening with their kids. Raising the cost of driving artificially directly impacts the lower income groups at a far more impactful rate than the higher income groups. Long story short, a flat toll is an incredibly regressive tax and directly damages lower income communities.

Zarath 8y ago
Isn't it a stereotype that poor people are the ones taking the bus/train?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Depends on the city. You can't really do it in Atlanta unless you can afford to live near a stop.
- gowld 8y ago
  Rich and poor do both. Poor people have longer trips on BOTH transit and cars.
- maxander 8y ago
  It’s the stereotype, not the reality. Check out the housing prices near frequently-served bus stops in your local city.
germinalphrase 8y ago
If it is automated, there is no reason the fee couldn’t be progressive.
- unicornporn 8y ago
  In Stockholm it's done by cameras that read the license plate (automated payment once a month can be set up). So no, progressive taxing would not at all be impossible (but perhaps unpopular in the US).
ska 8y ago
But the opposite is also true - cities have sprawled out to the degree that they have in part because driving is subsidized. You are quite right that addressing this too quickly can hurt a lot of people with limited means, but maintaining artificially low cost of driving isn't doing anyone any favors either.
- 8y ago

existencebox 8y ago

It's a bit of a chicken-egg problem, at least from my perspective in the US, as well as a bit of a vicious cycle. I'm not optimistic. Here's why. (and also why I think the fix wouldn't work for many cities in the US at the current time.) In Seattle, if I want to get from a suburb on the east side into the city, during ANY trafficked time, it's going to be at least 2 busses (usually crowded, late, or full, so add another ~1), a decent amount of walking, and a 1.5-2 hour total trip. This compounds with the fact that many of the fringe buses only come once every half/hour, and not at all on weekends. Compare this to a city that had proper infrastructure to start, Philadelphia. I lived a comparative distance, and the population is MUCH higher and denser. But a 5 minute walk and a single 20-30 minute train ride put me anywhere I wanted in center city. While Seattle "has light rail" it's an honest joke next to the coverage in the north-east. As such, there's _no option_ to tax balance, it would end up being highly regressive punishing those forced to live further out and with no option but to use a car. The vicious cycle comes into play as the increased car traffic makes public transit less emphasized, convenient, and more of a perceived negative, leading to increased car traffic, etc etc. (compounded by less people wanting to take the tax burden they don't see a personal benefit to; there are a few different "tragedy of the commons" type effects in this mess.) If we had trains that could get me to work like the sister post says about Stockholm's, no need for additional motivation, I wouldn't own a car for an instant, and didn't until my mid/late 20s when I left the east coast, but that's not the reality of the cities we've built, and now we're in a bit of a hole that I'm not sure how to incentivise people out of.

NegativeLatency 8y ago
You could build more bike lanes and add transit only lanes. Build out from the city core, and expand it to outlying areas. Prove its value by showing people that alternatives to cars can actually be better. For example if there was an express buss between Bellevue and the U District that didn't have to sit behind cars crossing Lake Washington, I think it would be pretty popular. The chicken and egg problem is hard to crack. Not enough transit riders -> high car usage -> not enough transit riders -> ... If we all throw up our hands and say "too hard" it's only going to get worse. Growing up in Seattle and Tacoma, it was pretty frustrating to hear about the supposed light rail connection between the two that's been promised and delayed countless times over the last 20+ years. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process

Thersites 8y ago

This approach would place a disproportionate tax burden on the poorest sectors of the population, at least in the US. It's mandatory to have a car in order to get to work in most parts of the country. The structure already exists, punishing the least fortunate because of existing systems and structures seems punitive.

oftenwrong 8y ago
The poorest Americans do not own cars.
- lev99 8y ago
  Three quarters of poor people in America have cars [0]. While the poorest people do not have them, car ownership is very common among poor Americans. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/understanding-poverty-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/under...

closeparen 8y ago

A significant facet of the decline is overcrowding. This is a prescription to make that part of the crisis far worse. The epicenter of this decline is New York, where cars are already impractical and everyone already relies on the subway.

minkowskispace 8y ago

> Of course it should be heavily taxed so that cycling, bus and subway infrastructure can be financed. I like sentences that start with "Of course...". But I tend to think that Stockholm might not be a very representative city of the worst transportation problems. Stockholm has a population of ~950,000 (or 2.3 million metro) and a city area of 188 km². Contrast that with London with 8.1 million (13.6 million metro) people and 1,572 km². Plus, there are unique geographical characteristics, different population distributions and infrastructures. All these affect commute times and congestion. I don't think the solution in Stockholm is nearly universal. It might solve the specific problems of that specific city but would fail in many ways if applied blindly in many other places.

kartan 8y ago
> I don't think the solution in Stockholm is nearly universal. It might solve the specific problems of that specific city but would fail in many ways if applied blindly in many other places. Or it may work even better in other cities. What differences between London and Stockholm makes you think that it is going to work worse? > All these affect commute times and congestion. And that is why London needs it more than Stockholm. And that is why London already does it. (https://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-around-london/congestion-charge https://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-ar...)

erikb 8y ago

Technology never solved human nature related problems tho, and in public transport we have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.

Nullabillity 8y ago

I assume you live near Tunnelbanan and/or take the car regularly? Currently I spend about an hour each way on my commute (e-bike Täby -> Danderyd, then subway to T-Centralen), for a trip that GMaps says takes 20mins by car. And the piece of crap doesn't work during the winter. Alternately I could take two buses to Danderyd, for a total of 66 minutes in the absolute best case (never actually happens). A car is absolutely #1 on my saving-target list, due to that. Oh, and being able to lock stuff inside it. The primary problem is the absolutely awful quality of service (in some areas, at least), not that it is somehow too expensive.

dilap 8y ago

yeah that ain't gunna do shit to fix bart. (seriously though, the problems w/ mass transit, at least here in the bay area, are not simply "not enough money".)

megy 8y ago

> It's not rocket science It is not complicated to say that, it is complicated to get those issues past when a large majority of people drive and will never want to stop.

Spivak 8y ago
Why would you want to stop and switch to public transportation? It's a pretty significant QoL downgrade. If you can afford a car you pretty much always want to. There is no horizon in sight where shared transportation will actually be an improvement on cars so it's always going to be kind of a futile battle.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I can afford a car but choose not buy one because riding a bike and taking public transport is a more convenient and often faster than taking the car. I don't have to look for parking spots, I don't have to refuel the car, I save a lot of money, I don't have to do maintenance on the car... owning a car just doesn't make much sense here in Berlin if you don't have to transport children around.