4 ms·

It would be less expensive but that isn't why we own cars. It would also be less expensive to buy cheap fuel efficient cars. We buy these cars because we are b

It would be less expensive but that isn't why we own cars. It would also be less expensive to buy cheap fuel efficient cars. We buy these cars because we are buying flexibility and time. Even public transportation can take lots of extra time if you aren't in the center of dense service. With my car, I don't have to wait for an Uber, I don't have to plan, I can just go whenever and wherever I want. It also doesn't get exponentially more expensive if I want to go somewhere 1+ hours away. Obviously if you never leave a three block radius, a car would be pretty silly. I'm just trying to say car ownership isn't generally about cost.

imgabe 7y ago
Jeez, it seems every time in these threads there's someone who comes in like "Hey I live 40 miles from the nearest paved road, I need my own car!!!" Nobody is saying it's going to be illegal to own your own personal car or anything. Sure, if you want to live in the middle of nowhere then you'll probably need your own transportation. For a lot of people it's not going to be as necessary to bother owning your own car when you can call one whenever you need it and it will be there in 5 minutes. If you can get 90% of the flexibility and time for 10% of the cost that is going to make sense for a lot of people. Not owning a car at all is a much larger difference in savings than owning one that gets 30mpg rather than 20mpg.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  I think you're missing the point. For the last 70 years American politics has promoted a set of policies that have made cities hard or impossible to navigate without cars. You don't have to be "40 miles from the nearest paved road" to experience this. Now a lot of the same people that promoted and lobbied for these ideas are trying to sell a "quick fix" in the form of car sharing and other recurring revenue models. There is no quick fix. The US needs a lot of public infrastructure investment before not owning a car is viable for the majority of people. Uber is not affordable compared to buying a $500 used car from Craigslist if you commute every day and does not solve the problem of navigating big box store "shopping centres" as a pedestrian.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    We don't know yet what the cost of something like Uber is going to be if the car can drive itself. I don't know what city you live in, but where I live the city is pretty difficult to navigate with a car. This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. And besides, the entire point here is that you still have access to a car. You are not facing the problem of navigating a car based infrastructure without a car. The entire idea is that there are cars available on-demand! I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that. There is zero reason we can't simultaneously work on more efficiently using the infrastructure we already have.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      > I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money... Non-US governments already have. This isn't incompetence, it's intentional policy. > This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. Ride sharing has only made this problem worse[1]. Is there any evidence that even more ride sharing will improve the situation? The basic problem is that everyone needs to get into or out of a few central locations at around the same time (typically 9am/5pm). Solving this requires moving people more efficiently (as in more people/m^2 of roadway) than cars, even ride sharing cars, would allow. [1] https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-increases-not-reduces-traffic/528659/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-inc...
      - imgabe 7y ago
        Nobody is saying not to invest in public transportation. I'm for that 100%. I sincerely hope the US develops the political will to do it. But even if everyone agrees to do it tomorrow, we're talking decades to completely rebuild infrastructure of major cities. I don't know why this is framed as an either/or choice. Build better public transportation, sure. How about we also use cars more efficiently. Why are you against that?

imgabe 7y ago

Jeez, it seems every time in these threads there's someone who comes in like "Hey I live 40 miles from the nearest paved road, I need my own car!!!" Nobody is saying it's going to be illegal to own your own personal car or anything. Sure, if you want to live in the middle of nowhere then you'll probably need your own transportation. For a lot of people it's not going to be as necessary to bother owning your own car when you can call one whenever you need it and it will be there in 5 minutes. If you can get 90% of the flexibility and time for 10% of the cost that is going to make sense for a lot of people. Not owning a car at all is a much larger difference in savings than owning one that gets 30mpg rather than 20mpg.

AlexandrB 7y ago
I think you're missing the point. For the last 70 years American politics has promoted a set of policies that have made cities hard or impossible to navigate without cars. You don't have to be "40 miles from the nearest paved road" to experience this. Now a lot of the same people that promoted and lobbied for these ideas are trying to sell a "quick fix" in the form of car sharing and other recurring revenue models. There is no quick fix. The US needs a lot of public infrastructure investment before not owning a car is viable for the majority of people. Uber is not affordable compared to buying a $500 used car from Craigslist if you commute every day and does not solve the problem of navigating big box store "shopping centres" as a pedestrian.
- imgabe 7y ago
  We don't know yet what the cost of something like Uber is going to be if the car can drive itself. I don't know what city you live in, but where I live the city is pretty difficult to navigate with a car. This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. And besides, the entire point here is that you still have access to a car. You are not facing the problem of navigating a car based infrastructure without a car. The entire idea is that there are cars available on-demand! I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that. There is zero reason we can't simultaneously work on more efficiently using the infrastructure we already have.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money... Non-US governments already have. This isn't incompetence, it's intentional policy. > This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. Ride sharing has only made this problem worse[1]. Is there any evidence that even more ride sharing will improve the situation? The basic problem is that everyone needs to get into or out of a few central locations at around the same time (typically 9am/5pm). Solving this requires moving people more efficiently (as in more people/m^2 of roadway) than cars, even ride sharing cars, would allow. [1] https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-increases-not-reduces-traffic/528659/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-inc...
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Nobody is saying not to invest in public transportation. I'm for that 100%. I sincerely hope the US develops the political will to do it. But even if everyone agrees to do it tomorrow, we're talking decades to completely rebuild infrastructure of major cities. I don't know why this is framed as an either/or choice. Build better public transportation, sure. How about we also use cars more efficiently. Why are you against that?