4 ms·

> Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on the lower class vehicle owners

by hkt 5y ago

> Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but it would be expensive. Public transport, dedicated cycling infrastructure, and planning policies aiming for the "15 minute neighbourhood" are what you're looking for.

seoaeu 5y ago
A full rollout of those ideas would take decades. I'd love to see all of them happen, but you can't just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit and a walkable neighborhood come 2035.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  In many parts of the world good public transport already exists, and had existed for decades. An inability to build good public transport in cities seems to be a uniquely American problem. I could certainly see cities like London banning ICE cars within their centres within 5 years, without much impact on poorer individuals. It’s already financially prohibitive to drive into the centre due to the congestion charge, and most people would consider it insane to drive due to traffic, and the fact that public transport is about twice a quick.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit In the US, we are so far away from "forcing" people to get rid of ICE cars that the very concept is ludicrous. What we instead force is ownership of ICE cars, and it's nearly impossible to live without one because we have banned, via law, the land use that would allow a person even the option of living without a car. As somebody who advocates for the mere legalization of car-free land use, I am frequently accused of forcing others to get rid of their car, or of being exclusionary, for merely proposing the possibility. People in the US are somewhat sick in the head when it comes to cars, and need to at least let the huge population of people who don't want to be subjected to the violence and pollution from cars to live that way. The contrast between Paris, which great expanded non-car options during the pandemic, and a car-addicted city like San Francisco which can't even convert a lightly used beach highway into a bike and walkway, is massive. The US must change drastically, but the drastic change is to allow people to ditch their cars, not force them.
JoshTriplett 5y ago
You'd also need solutions for deliveries, in-person shopping, timely commutes, and other things that transit and cycling don't solve. Even many neighborhoods designed to be 100% walkable and pedestrian-first make affordances for delivery vehicles and similar. Those vehicles can and should be electric, but cycling and transit still aren't at all complete substitutes.
- heraclius 5y ago
  > timely commutes Billions of people seem to have worked out how to do this on bicycles and public transport.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    One of the big differences I’ve observed between the USA and Europe is the way cities are zoned: I didn’t realise until I actually went to America that SimCity 2000 is somewhat realistic with regard to Californian city design. By comparison, my residential building here in Berlin has a restaurant and a café on the ground floor, a business office on the first floor, and the rest is residential, and even the parts of the city with houses rather than apartment blocks do similar things horizontally rather than vertically: house, house, kebabs, five houses, small supermarket, three houses, office. Similarly in the UK, you’ll have domestic resistances above or next to shops and pubs and offices. Or next to (I’ve never seen them above) industrial buildings: workshops, factories, etc.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  In person shopping for groceries is solved by walking in many large European cities. If you rely on street parking, the shop is likely not much further than your car anyways. Commutes can also be faster by public transit than by car, especially if start and destination are in the same city. Delivery vehicles and trucks are probably the most difficult, but they're also major contributors to the noise and stink.
thedrbrian 5y ago
So not only are you taking their transport away you’re forcing them to move home/buy a new house and forcing them to find a new job. Bloody hell, that’s a massive change.
- keithnz 5y ago
  yes, you can't solve these problems with tiny band-aids, it requires significant structural changes. People have to live and act differently. My observation of the US from the outside is that this kind of adaption is next to impossible and would be unpopular. The timescales needed compared to the election cycles means politically it's near impossible without very widespread support. It seems it will require actual disaster scenarios to instigate change, even then, the US seems really slow to adapt. So I'm expecting that we will see slow piecemeal measures that are more palatable to the populace.

by hkt 5y ago

seoaeu 5y ago

A full rollout of those ideas would take decades. I'd love to see all of them happen, but you can't just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit and a walkable neighborhood come 2035.

avianlyric 5y ago
In many parts of the world good public transport already exists, and had existed for decades. An inability to build good public transport in cities seems to be a uniquely American problem. I could certainly see cities like London banning ICE cars within their centres within 5 years, without much impact on poorer individuals. It’s already financially prohibitive to drive into the centre due to the congestion charge, and most people would consider it insane to drive due to traffic, and the fact that public transport is about twice a quick.
epistasis 5y ago
> just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit In the US, we are so far away from "forcing" people to get rid of ICE cars that the very concept is ludicrous. What we instead force is ownership of ICE cars, and it's nearly impossible to live without one because we have banned, via law, the land use that would allow a person even the option of living without a car. As somebody who advocates for the mere legalization of car-free land use, I am frequently accused of forcing others to get rid of their car, or of being exclusionary, for merely proposing the possibility. People in the US are somewhat sick in the head when it comes to cars, and need to at least let the huge population of people who don't want to be subjected to the violence and pollution from cars to live that way. The contrast between Paris, which great expanded non-car options during the pandemic, and a car-addicted city like San Francisco which can't even convert a lightly used beach highway into a bike and walkway, is massive. The US must change drastically, but the drastic change is to allow people to ditch their cars, not force them.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

You'd also need solutions for deliveries, in-person shopping, timely commutes, and other things that transit and cycling don't solve. Even many neighborhoods designed to be 100% walkable and pedestrian-first make affordances for delivery vehicles and similar. Those vehicles can and should be electric, but cycling and transit still aren't at all complete substitutes.

heraclius 5y ago
> timely commutes Billions of people seem to have worked out how to do this on bicycles and public transport.
- ben_w 5y ago
  One of the big differences I’ve observed between the USA and Europe is the way cities are zoned: I didn’t realise until I actually went to America that SimCity 2000 is somewhat realistic with regard to Californian city design. By comparison, my residential building here in Berlin has a restaurant and a café on the ground floor, a business office on the first floor, and the rest is residential, and even the parts of the city with houses rather than apartment blocks do similar things horizontally rather than vertically: house, house, kebabs, five houses, small supermarket, three houses, office. Similarly in the UK, you’ll have domestic resistances above or next to shops and pubs and offices. Or next to (I’ve never seen them above) industrial buildings: workshops, factories, etc.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
In person shopping for groceries is solved by walking in many large European cities. If you rely on street parking, the shop is likely not much further than your car anyways. Commutes can also be faster by public transit than by car, especially if start and destination are in the same city. Delivery vehicles and trucks are probably the most difficult, but they're also major contributors to the noise and stink.

thedrbrian 5y ago

So not only are you taking their transport away you’re forcing them to move home/buy a new house and forcing them to find a new job. Bloody hell, that’s a massive change.

keithnz 5y ago
yes, you can't solve these problems with tiny band-aids, it requires significant structural changes. People have to live and act differently. My observation of the US from the outside is that this kind of adaption is next to impossible and would be unpopular. The timescales needed compared to the election cycles means politically it's near impossible without very widespread support. It seems it will require actual disaster scenarios to instigate change, even then, the US seems really slow to adapt. So I'm expecting that we will see slow piecemeal measures that are more palatable to the populace.