4 ms·

Not sure why he would do that, I see people much older than him still driving. But he'll stay home, I imagine. Or get rides from his family members, or younger

Not sure why he would do that, I see people much older than him still driving. But he'll stay home, I imagine. Or get rides from his family members, or younger wife.

Retric 8y ago
Vision degradation with age is a common issue. Really though, public transit is vastly better from a heath, independence, financial, and safety standpoint for the elderly than driving.
- frabbit 8y ago
  Not to mention dementia, arthritis, diabetes, decreased articulation. Old people in rural areas and suburbs without mass transit are in a very vulnerable position.
  - nn3 8y ago
    It can be also useful for social contacts. I recently rode the bus in a small american city I was visiting. The main users were teens and old people. The old people mostly knew each other and chatted pleasantly during the whole ride. Given that won't work that well in a large city, but even then it's still better to be under people than sitting alone in your car.
cultus 8y ago
It sounds like your father has a good support network in case he can no longer drive, but that isn't really so common nowadays. Most elderly folks in his situation would either: A. Continue driving past the point they they are safely able to. B. Become shut-ins due to lack of transportation, accelerating physical and mental decline.
- kareemsabri 8y ago
  I guess I don't see how banning cars in cities solves that problem for the elderly (particularly outside of cities).
  - ip26 8y ago
    Banning cars in a city or some part of a city is a step in the process of making a city where you don't need a car. Removing the traffic, exhaust, & safety risk to other users helps make biking, walking, bussing, and rail faster, safer, & more pleasant.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Traffic is irrelevant for trains. It has some effect on buses, which can be mitigated with HOV lanes. (Usually the problem there is frequency and a lack of express service). At the distances most people need to travel to reach their workplaces from affordable housing, walking and cycling are never going to be pleasant. Banning cars from a city is a straight-up transfer of quality of life from the suburban masses to the richest in the center. Drastically increasing high-rise housing supply in the center is a much more meaningful step.
      - ip26 8y ago
        Drastically increasing high-rise housing supply in the center is a much more meaningful step. What are you going to do with all those extra cars? Traffic is irrelevant for trains Not for trolleys!
        closeparen 8y ago
        Nothing. Developers can dig garages if they care to, or not if they don’t. We’ve already established that driving in the urban core is unreasonable, so congestion is not a concern. Trolleys are just buses with fewer degrees of freedom.
  - cultus 8y ago
    You said that your dad's anti-BART habit is hard to break, but elderly should really be encouraged to use public transit. It is safer and healthier. I get that transit sucks in suburbs, but that is something that should be fixed. People live in high density areas. The residents should have higher priority than folks from the suburbs who choose to drive rather than taking public transit. That means having usable and human-focused urban design. I generally am very much for pricing in externalities, as you say. But when it comes to cars in very dense areas, there is a significant discontinuity in social cost between zero cars (pedestrians can freely use the streets, no traffic lights, etc) and a few cars (like in congestion pricing schemes). With even a few cars, walking becomes far more inconvenient, and there is much less public space. In dense urban cores, a huge proportion of the land area is essentially vacant, only used by a small minority that choose to drive. It is really a bizarre way of doing things.

Not sure why he would do that, I see people much older than him still driving. But he'll stay home, I imagine. Or get rides from his family members, or younger wife.

Retric 8y ago

Vision degradation with age is a common issue. Really though, public transit is vastly better from a heath, independence, financial, and safety standpoint for the elderly than driving.

frabbit 8y ago
Not to mention dementia, arthritis, diabetes, decreased articulation. Old people in rural areas and suburbs without mass transit are in a very vulnerable position.
- nn3 8y ago
  It can be also useful for social contacts. I recently rode the bus in a small american city I was visiting. The main users were teens and old people. The old people mostly knew each other and chatted pleasantly during the whole ride. Given that won't work that well in a large city, but even then it's still better to be under people than sitting alone in your car.

cultus 8y ago

It sounds like your father has a good support network in case he can no longer drive, but that isn't really so common nowadays. Most elderly folks in his situation would either: A. Continue driving past the point they they are safely able to. B. Become shut-ins due to lack of transportation, accelerating physical and mental decline.

kareemsabri 8y ago
I guess I don't see how banning cars in cities solves that problem for the elderly (particularly outside of cities).
- ip26 8y ago
  Banning cars in a city or some part of a city is a step in the process of making a city where you don't need a car. Removing the traffic, exhaust, & safety risk to other users helps make biking, walking, bussing, and rail faster, safer, & more pleasant.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Traffic is irrelevant for trains. It has some effect on buses, which can be mitigated with HOV lanes. (Usually the problem there is frequency and a lack of express service). At the distances most people need to travel to reach their workplaces from affordable housing, walking and cycling are never going to be pleasant. Banning cars from a city is a straight-up transfer of quality of life from the suburban masses to the richest in the center. Drastically increasing high-rise housing supply in the center is a much more meaningful step.
    - ip26 8y ago
      Drastically increasing high-rise housing supply in the center is a much more meaningful step. What are you going to do with all those extra cars? Traffic is irrelevant for trains Not for trolleys!
      - closeparen 8y ago
        Nothing. Developers can dig garages if they care to, or not if they don’t. We’ve already established that driving in the urban core is unreasonable, so congestion is not a concern. Trolleys are just buses with fewer degrees of freedom.
- cultus 8y ago
  You said that your dad's anti-BART habit is hard to break, but elderly should really be encouraged to use public transit. It is safer and healthier. I get that transit sucks in suburbs, but that is something that should be fixed. People live in high density areas. The residents should have higher priority than folks from the suburbs who choose to drive rather than taking public transit. That means having usable and human-focused urban design. I generally am very much for pricing in externalities, as you say. But when it comes to cars in very dense areas, there is a significant discontinuity in social cost between zero cars (pedestrians can freely use the streets, no traffic lights, etc) and a few cars (like in congestion pricing schemes). With even a few cars, walking becomes far more inconvenient, and there is much less public space. In dense urban cores, a huge proportion of the land area is essentially vacant, only used by a small minority that choose to drive. It is really a bizarre way of doing things.