3 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by seoaeu 5y ago

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.