7 ms·

My compelling reason is that I live in Manhattan and frequently make trips to visit family that are not well served by public transportation. And when I'm ther

My compelling reason is that I live in Manhattan and frequently make trips to visit family that are not well served by public transportation. And when I'm there, I prefer using a vehicle to get around. I often return to New York with a carful of groceries, luggage, etc. I've tried this via public transit -- it's a miserable affair. The utility of a personal vehicle for me is very high -- perhaps substantially higher than it would be for you. There's no need to justify vehicles based on economic classes and livelihood. Why does the car debate need to be made into some kind of class conflict? It's just more convenient and pleasant, and that's how some choose to spend their money. I'm sorry it inconveniences you, but our society exists because we're willing to be slightly inconvenienced by our neighbors (especially those with different preferences than us) in exchange for certain benefits.

notatoad 8y ago
that's not a very compelling reason. Making it slightly easier for you personally to carry your groceries isn't going to convince anybody that personal vehicles are a necessity. >Why does the car debate need to be made into some kind of class conflict? because it's simply not sustainable for everybody who wants to drive a car to do so. there isn't physically enough space. The only way to let some people drive a car is to make it expensive enough to discourage most people from driving a car.
gpm 8y ago
The argument against here that I find most compelling is that the externalities of you driving your car are so insanely huge that it should be priced into the range of ridiculousness. Things that you have to consider (The numbers attached are completely made up and probably off by multiple orders of magnitude in most cases, but are to make the point that you should be assigning costs to these things. Then you should multiply by them by reasonable estimates of the quantities that make up the denominator on the unit and see what you come up with. Also note that as there are less cars on the road the externalities per car probably go up): - Air quality (say, 0.1c per person you drive past?) - Noise polution (say, 0.1c per person you drive past?) - Road size - realestate cost (say, 0.000001c/trip per per person who pays taxes?) - Road size - increased walking (and other travel) time (say, 0.0000001c/trip per person who crosses a road you drove on?) - Congestion (say, 1c for everyone on a bus behind you?) - Road maintenance (probably negligible compared to the other costs) - Pedestrian safety (...) - Climate change (...) Our society exists not just because we're willing to be slightly inconvenienced by our neighbors, but because we are willing to go to reasonable lengths to avoid inconveniencing our neighbors. Perhaps, reasonable lengths includes not driving into the city.
- briandear 8y ago
  When every subway stop has elevators, then we cannot talk. Until then, try transporting kids or groceries using the subway. When the sidewalks are cleared of construction scaffolding, bike share racks blocking sidewalks or crazy grown adults dressing like Spider-Man, or psychotic homeless harassing people, then maybe we can talk. As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2, it wouldn’t make a single bit of difference compared to a single day’s worth of pollution compared to a small Chinese or Indian city. Perhaps a tariff on all goods and services from China or India would be more effective than banning cars in NYC. Banning cars from NYC would have a cosmetic effect on climate change and nothing more. And, in case you weren’t aware, cars already pay huge costs in NYC. It costs over $10 just to cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC. They don’t pay a toll to leave NYC: so someone is getting money just for a car to enter the city.
  - gpm 8y ago
    > try transporting kids or groceries using the subway Err. I was transported plenty as a kid on the subway without using elevators, so were many other kids. Groceries... generally you just walk. I live in a less dense city and it's never been a problem walking to the grocery store. Including for my parents when I was a kid. > sidewalks are cleared of... I mean, getting rid of cars means more room for sidewalks mean they are defacto cleared of this stuff. The reason it's a problem right now is they are packed into the same 5 feet as the pedestrians. > As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2... I suspect you are right. I put what I consider the least compelling reasons at the bottom. > cars already pay huge costs in NYC. It costs over $10 $10 really isn't that much money... as demonstrated by the number of people who pay it. Understand that when I say the right number might be "ridiculous" I do mean "ridiculous". I'm avoiding saying specific numbers because then I have to justify them, but think thousands, possibly large numbers of thousands.
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    > Until then, try transporting kids or groceries using the subway. I live in Atlanta, a place the NYTimes often writes about our lack of income mobility because of a lack of mobility[1]. I also live 2 blocks from the southernmost transit (midtown) connected grocery store that gets a lot of business from the poorer south side of the city. So, when you say "try transporting kids or groceries on the subway" I (and transitively, the nytimes) ask, which kids? because it's not the 20% of Atlantans that are low income and that have kids and multiple hourly wage jobs that can readily afford the costs of a car -- and they're already doing it, in a city more sprawled than NYC and other cities. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...
tokyodude 8y ago
You could ship the stuff home... Yes I know that's probably not realistic but here in Japan for example it's extremely common to ship your luggage to the airport the day before and/or ship it home from the airport on the way back. I've done it a few times. It's also common to buy things at a store like a PC or printer or microwave and have them delivered instead of carrying them home. Japan's shipping services are relatively cheap and generally pretty good at delivering in 2hr windows
- nihonde 8y ago
  I also live in Japan about half time. The near-complete lack of on-street parking and high tolls (which are effectively congestion taxes) plus amazing public transportation are all good objectives for NYC. Also, things like luggage delivery, which I’ve used to ship bags from Tokyo to Kyoto and back.
nihonde 8y ago
I’ve owned a car in the city before. It’s also an insane hassle and an extravagant expense. I live just fine without a car now. If I need to drive out of the city, I rent.
bradleyjg 8y ago
> I'm sorry it inconveniences you, but our society exists because we're willing to be slightly inconvenienced by our neighbors (especially those with different preferences than us) in exchange for certain benefits. There's a certain amount of trading inconveniences that goes on in life. Think about an apartment building--maybe the guy in 4B has a dog that barks occasionally, the couple in 7D throws a big party twice a year, the woman in 2F hasn't bothered anyone in two years but back then she threw up all over the elevator and didn't clean it up, and so on. There's no explicit accounting but there's a rough justice. When that gets too far out of balance people get justifiably angry. If you routinely drive in Manhattan and each time inconvenience thousands of people, how can you ever hope to balance those books?
knitHacker 8y ago
You make it sound like owning a car in Manhattan is just a matter of choice when it is an extreme luxury and an inconvenient one at that. That's at least $1000 (probably more) on something you definitely won't use every day and definitely don't need. My SO and I each make 6 figures each and will only own a car once we move out of Manhattan because no matter how inconvenient it is it's not fiscally responsible.

notatoad 8y ago

that's not a very compelling reason. Making it slightly easier for you personally to carry your groceries isn't going to convince anybody that personal vehicles are a necessity. >Why does the car debate need to be made into some kind of class conflict? because it's simply not sustainable for everybody who wants to drive a car to do so. there isn't physically enough space. The only way to let some people drive a car is to make it expensive enough to discourage most people from driving a car.

gpm 8y ago

The argument against here that I find most compelling is that the externalities of you driving your car are so insanely huge that it should be priced into the range of ridiculousness. Things that you have to consider (The numbers attached are completely made up and probably off by multiple orders of magnitude in most cases, but are to make the point that you should be assigning costs to these things. Then you should multiply by them by reasonable estimates of the quantities that make up the denominator on the unit and see what you come up with. Also note that as there are less cars on the road the externalities per car probably go up): - Air quality (say, 0.1c per person you drive past?) - Noise polution (say, 0.1c per person you drive past?) - Road size - realestate cost (say, 0.000001c/trip per per person who pays taxes?) - Road size - increased walking (and other travel) time (say, 0.0000001c/trip per person who crosses a road you drove on?) - Congestion (say, 1c for everyone on a bus behind you?) - Road maintenance (probably negligible compared to the other costs) - Pedestrian safety (...) - Climate change (...) Our society exists not just because we're willing to be slightly inconvenienced by our neighbors, but because we are willing to go to reasonable lengths to avoid inconveniencing our neighbors. Perhaps, reasonable lengths includes not driving into the city.

briandear 8y ago
When every subway stop has elevators, then we cannot talk. Until then, try transporting kids or groceries using the subway. When the sidewalks are cleared of construction scaffolding, bike share racks blocking sidewalks or crazy grown adults dressing like Spider-Man, or psychotic homeless harassing people, then maybe we can talk. As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2, it wouldn’t make a single bit of difference compared to a single day’s worth of pollution compared to a small Chinese or Indian city. Perhaps a tariff on all goods and services from China or India would be more effective than banning cars in NYC. Banning cars from NYC would have a cosmetic effect on climate change and nothing more. And, in case you weren’t aware, cars already pay huge costs in NYC. It costs over $10 just to cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC. They don’t pay a toll to leave NYC: so someone is getting money just for a car to enter the city.
- gpm 8y ago
  > try transporting kids or groceries using the subway Err. I was transported plenty as a kid on the subway without using elevators, so were many other kids. Groceries... generally you just walk. I live in a less dense city and it's never been a problem walking to the grocery store. Including for my parents when I was a kid. > sidewalks are cleared of... I mean, getting rid of cars means more room for sidewalks mean they are defacto cleared of this stuff. The reason it's a problem right now is they are packed into the same 5 feet as the pedestrians. > As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2... I suspect you are right. I put what I consider the least compelling reasons at the bottom. > cars already pay huge costs in NYC. It costs over $10 $10 really isn't that much money... as demonstrated by the number of people who pay it. Understand that when I say the right number might be "ridiculous" I do mean "ridiculous". I'm avoiding saying specific numbers because then I have to justify them, but think thousands, possibly large numbers of thousands.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  > Until then, try transporting kids or groceries using the subway. I live in Atlanta, a place the NYTimes often writes about our lack of income mobility because of a lack of mobility[1]. I also live 2 blocks from the southernmost transit (midtown) connected grocery store that gets a lot of business from the poorer south side of the city. So, when you say "try transporting kids or groceries on the subway" I (and transitively, the nytimes) ask, which kids? because it's not the 20% of Atlantans that are low income and that have kids and multiple hourly wage jobs that can readily afford the costs of a car -- and they're already doing it, in a city more sprawled than NYC and other cities. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...

tokyodude 8y ago

You could ship the stuff home... Yes I know that's probably not realistic but here in Japan for example it's extremely common to ship your luggage to the airport the day before and/or ship it home from the airport on the way back. I've done it a few times. It's also common to buy things at a store like a PC or printer or microwave and have them delivered instead of carrying them home. Japan's shipping services are relatively cheap and generally pretty good at delivering in 2hr windows

nihonde 8y ago
I also live in Japan about half time. The near-complete lack of on-street parking and high tolls (which are effectively congestion taxes) plus amazing public transportation are all good objectives for NYC. Also, things like luggage delivery, which I’ve used to ship bags from Tokyo to Kyoto and back.

nihonde 8y ago

I’ve owned a car in the city before. It’s also an insane hassle and an extravagant expense. I live just fine without a car now. If I need to drive out of the city, I rent.

bradleyjg 8y ago

> I'm sorry it inconveniences you, but our society exists because we're willing to be slightly inconvenienced by our neighbors (especially those with different preferences than us) in exchange for certain benefits. There's a certain amount of trading inconveniences that goes on in life. Think about an apartment building--maybe the guy in 4B has a dog that barks occasionally, the couple in 7D throws a big party twice a year, the woman in 2F hasn't bothered anyone in two years but back then she threw up all over the elevator and didn't clean it up, and so on. There's no explicit accounting but there's a rough justice. When that gets too far out of balance people get justifiably angry. If you routinely drive in Manhattan and each time inconvenience thousands of people, how can you ever hope to balance those books?

knitHacker 8y ago

You make it sound like owning a car in Manhattan is just a matter of choice when it is an extreme luxury and an inconvenient one at that. That's at least $1000 (probably more) on something you definitely won't use every day and definitely don't need. My SO and I each make 6 figures each and will only own a car once we move out of Manhattan because no matter how inconvenient it is it's not fiscally responsible.