4 ms·

Ah yes, only the rich should be able to drive!

by leesec 8y ago

rootusrootus 8y ago
That is the net effect, yes. Although honestly, $1/mile isn't that unfeasible for many people. Many people pay close to that already, so it wouldn't be like making 10x as expensive or something.
- Fins 8y ago
  Must be nice living in that SV bubble. How about we make it income-tested, and charge everyone who supports that idea, say, $10/mile and up? Even if you want to go on a road trip in a rental. Or get your kid to a hospital. At least that would be fair to people who actually work for a living, need to get places, and can't afford to live near transit because it has all been bid up through the stratosphere by techbros who can afford hiring ubers, muncheries, wags to do all the tedious jobs for them while they nonchalantly drive their electric scooters through what once used to be livable cities populated by different groups of people and complain about those uncouth nasty people who dared to drive their rusty beaters 50 miles to clean and cook and do all that menial work them for polluting "their" air.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    SV meaning Silicon Valley? Unless that bubble is a couple thousand miles across, then no, I'm not living in that bubble. In your hypothetical world, I would support splitting everyone by ideology so that the people willing to pay for nice things go to one city and the people who want to mooch go to the other. Let them each go their own way. We'd all be happier.
    - Fins 8y ago
      Doesn't really matter all that much if it is SV proper, or Silicon Alley, or Silicon Prairie, or any of the other areas where well-paid tech workers can afford to live without cars, look down on those who can't, and propose what comes across as an extremely blatant "I got mine, so screw you".
themagician 8y ago
This is actually not such a bad idea. If only the rich can drive then only the rich can commute. The city itself then becomes a haven for the middle class.
- leesec 8y ago
  Ever lived any where that's not a major city in the US? It is common here in Michigan to drive 20 miles to work.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    That's irrelevant in a discussion about banning cars from inner cities.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Average across the US is 16 miles, so it would essentially be asking people to pay an extra $700/month or so. Kinda like an instant 25% pay cut. Definitely would suck, but I bet a lot of people would make it work, and it would reduce congestion pretty dramatically. It would also be political suicide, but this whole subtopic is a theoretical discussion anyway.
  - albedoa 8y ago
    To be clear, you believe that in this hypothetical only the rich would be able to afford to drive but the jobs and their employees would remain 20 miles from each other.
  - danjayh 8y ago
    I live in a mid-sized city in Michigan (Grand Rapids). Housing in the inner city is relatively expensive (3x+ the cost of the housing 20 miles out). Congestion is not really a thing ... maybe for 1/2 an hour right at 5PM and for 1/2 an hour in the morning. Parking is solved by having cheap lots at the fringes of the city center and providing a shuttle in (parking in the city center is only for higher income folks). Affordable point-to-point transit enables lower income folks to have nice houses and work jobs in the city, all while still having enough time left over for cooking & hanging out with family. For instance, a nice 3br 1500 sqft house can be had outside of the city for under 100k (which works out to < $1k/month for principal, tax, insurance). A nice 3br 1500 sqft condo rents in the city for nearly 3k/month.
benj111 8y ago
Roads are finite so you need some way to ration them. I suppose you could say current rationing is first come, first serve? That seems to lead to congestion so it seems to me we could do better. You're right, I'm not sure a regressive tax is the best way. Is it worse than the current system though? What would be a better system?
smileysteve 8y ago
That's already the system in place, at least in the U.S.. Being properly insured isn't cheap. That you then have additional cost because 50% of the driving population isn't properly insured is an extra sting. This is exacerbated by health care costs; state minimums coverages haven't followed increased costs; realistically, if more than 2 people get injured in any given automobile accident, 50% of drivers face bankruptcy.

Ah yes, only the rich should be able to drive!

by leesec 8y ago

Ah yes, only the rich should be able to drive!

That is the net effect, yes. Although honestly, $1/mile isn't that unfeasible for many people. Many people pay close to that already, so it wouldn't be like making 10x as expensive or something.

Fins 8y ago
Must be nice living in that SV bubble. How about we make it income-tested, and charge everyone who supports that idea, say, $10/mile and up? Even if you want to go on a road trip in a rental. Or get your kid to a hospital. At least that would be fair to people who actually work for a living, need to get places, and can't afford to live near transit because it has all been bid up through the stratosphere by techbros who can afford hiring ubers, muncheries, wags to do all the tedious jobs for them while they nonchalantly drive their electric scooters through what once used to be livable cities populated by different groups of people and complain about those uncouth nasty people who dared to drive their rusty beaters 50 miles to clean and cook and do all that menial work them for polluting "their" air.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  SV meaning Silicon Valley? Unless that bubble is a couple thousand miles across, then no, I'm not living in that bubble. In your hypothetical world, I would support splitting everyone by ideology so that the people willing to pay for nice things go to one city and the people who want to mooch go to the other. Let them each go their own way. We'd all be happier.
  - Fins 8y ago
    Doesn't really matter all that much if it is SV proper, or Silicon Alley, or Silicon Prairie, or any of the other areas where well-paid tech workers can afford to live without cars, look down on those who can't, and propose what comes across as an extremely blatant "I got mine, so screw you".

themagician 8y ago

This is actually not such a bad idea. If only the rich can drive then only the rich can commute. The city itself then becomes a haven for the middle class.

leesec 8y ago
Ever lived any where that's not a major city in the US? It is common here in Michigan to drive 20 miles to work.
- adrianN 8y ago
  That's irrelevant in a discussion about banning cars from inner cities.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Average across the US is 16 miles, so it would essentially be asking people to pay an extra $700/month or so. Kinda like an instant 25% pay cut. Definitely would suck, but I bet a lot of people would make it work, and it would reduce congestion pretty dramatically. It would also be political suicide, but this whole subtopic is a theoretical discussion anyway.
- albedoa 8y ago
  To be clear, you believe that in this hypothetical only the rich would be able to afford to drive but the jobs and their employees would remain 20 miles from each other.
- danjayh 8y ago
  I live in a mid-sized city in Michigan (Grand Rapids). Housing in the inner city is relatively expensive (3x+ the cost of the housing 20 miles out). Congestion is not really a thing ... maybe for 1/2 an hour right at 5PM and for 1/2 an hour in the morning. Parking is solved by having cheap lots at the fringes of the city center and providing a shuttle in (parking in the city center is only for higher income folks). Affordable point-to-point transit enables lower income folks to have nice houses and work jobs in the city, all while still having enough time left over for cooking & hanging out with family. For instance, a nice 3br 1500 sqft house can be had outside of the city for under 100k (which works out to < $1k/month for principal, tax, insurance). A nice 3br 1500 sqft condo rents in the city for nearly 3k/month.

benj111 8y ago

Roads are finite so you need some way to ration them. I suppose you could say current rationing is first come, first serve? That seems to lead to congestion so it seems to me we could do better. You're right, I'm not sure a regressive tax is the best way. Is it worse than the current system though? What would be a better system?

smileysteve 8y ago

That's already the system in place, at least in the U.S.. Being properly insured isn't cheap. That you then have additional cost because 50% of the driving population isn't properly insured is an extra sting. This is exacerbated by health care costs; state minimums coverages haven't followed increased costs; realistically, if more than 2 people get injured in any given automobile accident, 50% of drivers face bankruptcy.