4 ms·

privately owned gasoline-guzzlers are an archaic solution to the transportation problem, and they are not effective in today's society For people with a very l

by gaius 8y ago

privately owned gasoline-guzzlers are an archaic solution to the transportation problem, and they are not effective in today's society For people with a very limited lifestyle restricted to a few city blocks perhaps this is true. But the majority of people do not live that way and have use cases for cars that you have not considered in your analysis. change always requires some sacrifice, By other people, funnily enough

adrianN 8y ago
I don't have a car but my life is not restricted to a few city blocks. I either ride a bike or take public transport (or both!) to get where I want to go.
maaaats 8y ago
The point would be to get rid of the reasons people need cars. By rethinking urban planning, infrastructure, public transportation etc.
- xienze 8y ago
  Yes, just wave a wand and instantly transform thousands of existing low-density cities and suburban neighborhoods into little European villages. I’m convinced, cars will be useless in short order.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I don't think anybody honestly suggests to get rid of cars in short order. As you noted changing cities is a multi-decade operation. So it's best to start sooner rather than later.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  Is that urban planning or suburban planning? Are we talking about better planned (more walkable) inner cities, or are we talkingt about a long term shift in what people wants, such as people not wanting a private back yard? Because outside of cities, as long as people have detatched homes on reasonably sized lots, getting around requires a car. There will simply not be the density needed for efficient public transportation. While I might agree that the idea of large suburbs with detatched homes is probably not very sustainable, I don't see how they aren't here to stay (together with the cars required to live in them)
  - maaaats 8y ago
    I don't see why it requires a car. A suburb neighborhood could have a bus stop somewhere, taking the people to and from a more connected (as in public transport) place/hub. Walking a few hundred meters must be doable? Or maybe the hub (outside the city) could have parking, so you drive there but take public transport from there on?
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      > I don't see why it requires a car. A suburb neighborhood could have a bus stop somewhere, taking the people to and from a more connected (as in public transport) place/hub. That's how it works. I walk 600m to my bus stop in my suburb neighborhood. So commuting from where I live is no problem. I don't need a car for that. But all the other transportation (driving kids to various sports practices, going to the forest, the lake, going to the school that isn't along a bus route with kids that can't walk very far etc) is harder. There will always be a gap between the transport I want/need and the transport that can be solved by public transport. So some kind of semi-private transport (e.g. shared autonomous cars) is probably required if the suburban lifestyle is going to be possible without cars.
      - gaius 8y ago
        So some kind of semi-private transport (e.g. shared autonomous cars) is probably required You can have the on-demand voice-activated self-driving car experience right now: it’s called a taxi. Is that viable for all your use cases?
        alkonaut 8y ago
        Taxi prices would have to be substantially lower for taxi to be a viable alternative. Perhaps for some of the use cases there could be better utilization (meaning cheaper) taxi, e.g. a taxi picking up my kids for school could also pick up a few more.
        gpm 8y ago
francisofascii 8y ago
Most use cases are solvable with bikes, strollers, buses, and perhaps car rentals outside the city limits.
Shorel 8y ago
It's good to have a car and use it for long trips - or whenever you want to. It is not good to need a car and having to use it every day for several hours.
- gaius 8y ago
  Indeed - in fact that is exactly what I do. Walk/train to work, drive to the hills or the coast at weekends. What I am responding to above is the assertion “I don’t need a car myself therefore no one should be allowed to have one”.
strongtown 8y ago
Interestingly, most people don't need to do anything to build a new building. So far, I've only seen immediate neighbors show up to complain about their "view", which isn't a sufficient reason to prevent hundreds of apartments. Otherwise, people who live out in the 'burbs have to do zero to support density for those of us who want it. So who are the other people who need to change?

by gaius 8y ago

adrianN 8y ago

I don't have a car but my life is not restricted to a few city blocks. I either ride a bike or take public transport (or both!) to get where I want to go.

maaaats 8y ago

The point would be to get rid of the reasons people need cars. By rethinking urban planning, infrastructure, public transportation etc.

xienze 8y ago
Yes, just wave a wand and instantly transform thousands of existing low-density cities and suburban neighborhoods into little European villages. I’m convinced, cars will be useless in short order.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I don't think anybody honestly suggests to get rid of cars in short order. As you noted changing cities is a multi-decade operation. So it's best to start sooner rather than later.
alkonaut 8y ago
Is that urban planning or suburban planning? Are we talking about better planned (more walkable) inner cities, or are we talkingt about a long term shift in what people wants, such as people not wanting a private back yard? Because outside of cities, as long as people have detatched homes on reasonably sized lots, getting around requires a car. There will simply not be the density needed for efficient public transportation. While I might agree that the idea of large suburbs with detatched homes is probably not very sustainable, I don't see how they aren't here to stay (together with the cars required to live in them)
- maaaats 8y ago
  I don't see why it requires a car. A suburb neighborhood could have a bus stop somewhere, taking the people to and from a more connected (as in public transport) place/hub. Walking a few hundred meters must be doable? Or maybe the hub (outside the city) could have parking, so you drive there but take public transport from there on?
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > I don't see why it requires a car. A suburb neighborhood could have a bus stop somewhere, taking the people to and from a more connected (as in public transport) place/hub. That's how it works. I walk 600m to my bus stop in my suburb neighborhood. So commuting from where I live is no problem. I don't need a car for that. But all the other transportation (driving kids to various sports practices, going to the forest, the lake, going to the school that isn't along a bus route with kids that can't walk very far etc) is harder. There will always be a gap between the transport I want/need and the transport that can be solved by public transport. So some kind of semi-private transport (e.g. shared autonomous cars) is probably required if the suburban lifestyle is going to be possible without cars.
    - gaius 8y ago
      So some kind of semi-private transport (e.g. shared autonomous cars) is probably required You can have the on-demand voice-activated self-driving car experience right now: it’s called a taxi. Is that viable for all your use cases?
      - alkonaut 8y ago
        Taxi prices would have to be substantially lower for taxi to be a viable alternative. Perhaps for some of the use cases there could be better utilization (meaning cheaper) taxi, e.g. a taxi picking up my kids for school could also pick up a few more.
        gpm 8y ago

francisofascii 8y ago

Most use cases are solvable with bikes, strollers, buses, and perhaps car rentals outside the city limits.

Shorel 8y ago

It's good to have a car and use it for long trips - or whenever you want to. It is not good to need a car and having to use it every day for several hours.

gaius 8y ago
Indeed - in fact that is exactly what I do. Walk/train to work, drive to the hills or the coast at weekends. What I am responding to above is the assertion “I don’t need a car myself therefore no one should be allowed to have one”.

strongtown 8y ago

Interestingly, most people don't need to do anything to build a new building. So far, I've only seen immediate neighbors show up to complain about their "view", which isn't a sufficient reason to prevent hundreds of apartments. Otherwise, people who live out in the 'burbs have to do zero to support density for those of us who want it. So who are the other people who need to change?