4 ms·

If you don't have a car, when you have large items, there's either delivery available, you hire someone to transport it, or you rent a vehicle to go get it. I'v

If you don't have a car, when you have large items, there's either delivery available, you hire someone to transport it, or you rent a vehicle to go get it. I've lived without a car for 12 years. It's really not that big of a deal, and the situations you're discussing are pretty infrequent. As for groceries, if you have a grocery store within a 5 minute walk (which is the norm in dense cities), you don't need to buy a week's worth of groceries at a time. I go to the grocery store for quick trips a couple times a week. If you have more groceries, there's little carts (the ones you usually see old people with) that you can pull behind you. The nicest thing about this approach is that your food will generally be fresher; not only because you use it closer to when you buy it, but also because the sales in the store is higher so food isn't sitting on the shelves for long periods of time. You're considering a reduction of cars as if your city is like it currently is; just without cars. The reality is that there'll be an increase in pedestrians and bike riders, which will lead to higher density and more demand for smaller, closer shops, restaurants and grocery stores. It's something that will happen slowly, and in general your life will become more livable in many ways. Of course if you refuse to adapt, it'll be annoying in other ways, since there'll be less (or no) free parking, lower speed limits, more narrow streets, and you will have to pay greater attention to pedestrians and bikers.

shmel 5y ago
I live without car my entire life and I am sick of it. I've had so many times when I thought "gosh, I wish I just had a car so I don't have to beg someone or pay someone". For the reference, I live in London. Yes, it has stores within 5-10min radius. Normally I don't mind going there every other day. However, in March 2020 everybody was going fucking crazy and, you know, the government told me to not go out unless it is necessary. Before that, I lived in French Alps. It was splendid, I commuted by bike. However, every single weekend I was facing a choice: either I beg someone to drive me to mountains or I pray that there is a bus going where I want to go and I can calculate my hike well enough to catch one of 3-5 buses a day to come back home. Not having a car sucks balls. I really can't see how anyone can argue the opposite. I think what you mean is "you don't need a car every single day".
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  Get a car then. In general folks aren't saying that you can't have a car. We're saying that we want cities to prioritize people over cars, which includes removing free parking, removing parking minimums, having protected bike lanes, having slow streets, having better public transportation, having denser cities, etc. Basically, build cities for the people that live there, and not for people who commute in. You can still have your car, but the convenience is going to cost you. And yes, I'm very much saying you don't need a car every day, even if you maybe need one on occasion. I currently live in tokyo and I've used a car maybe six times in the past two years. Not having a car is incredible. I love it. I'd argue the opposite in that having a car sucks. I don't have to worry about where it's parked. I don't need a space at my home dedicated to it. I don't need to pay for a car loan, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc. In the rare cases when I need a car for a day or more, I rent one. In the rare cases where I need a car briefly in the city I call an Uber (or hail a taxi). My average transportation costs per month are $60. With the amount I'm saving, I can have temporary access to vehicles whenever I want.
  - toyg 5y ago
    > You can still have your car, but the convenience is going to cost you. In other words: poor people will have to pay for the environmental crimes that rich people commit. I have lived with and without car, currently I only own a motorbike; but I can't help thinking the hypocrisy of modern green movements stinks to high heaven. Where I live, rich people in leafy neighborhoods get public money to build fashionable bike lanes they'll never use, but whenever it's time to close roads and "disincentive the use of cars" it's always the dense working-class neighbourhoods who get targeted. They keep adding flat congestion charges that businesses can just unload on consumers, which in practice restrict the options only of the less-well-off. Meanwhile, who owns the actually-polluting business interests...? Certainly not white-van-man or Mr. Urban Commuter. It's just another front in the class war.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      Needing to own a car is a massive financial burden on the poor, who typically pay the cost of a new car for a used car, plus all the maintenance burden of owning an older used car. You're misrepresenting my argument. Increasing access to public transportation greatly reduces the expenses for folks who are poor. Part of making a city dense is making it easy to build, and usually also includes different types of housing, which lowers pricing. Removing parking, and parking minimums makes it easier and cheaper to build. I'm not advocating cities designed around people for green reasons. I'm advocating for them because I've lived in dense cities, which prioritize people and I've lived in places that are built for cars, and the ones built for people are simply nicer to live in, and generally cheaper to live in. My current monthly transportation costs are $60 per month.

shmel 5y ago

I live without car my entire life and I am sick of it. I've had so many times when I thought "gosh, I wish I just had a car so I don't have to beg someone or pay someone". For the reference, I live in London. Yes, it has stores within 5-10min radius. Normally I don't mind going there every other day. However, in March 2020 everybody was going fucking crazy and, you know, the government told me to not go out unless it is necessary. Before that, I lived in French Alps. It was splendid, I commuted by bike. However, every single weekend I was facing a choice: either I beg someone to drive me to mountains or I pray that there is a bus going where I want to go and I can calculate my hike well enough to catch one of 3-5 buses a day to come back home. Not having a car sucks balls. I really can't see how anyone can argue the opposite. I think what you mean is "you don't need a car every single day".

ryan_lane 5y ago
Get a car then. In general folks aren't saying that you can't have a car. We're saying that we want cities to prioritize people over cars, which includes removing free parking, removing parking minimums, having protected bike lanes, having slow streets, having better public transportation, having denser cities, etc. Basically, build cities for the people that live there, and not for people who commute in. You can still have your car, but the convenience is going to cost you. And yes, I'm very much saying you don't need a car every day, even if you maybe need one on occasion. I currently live in tokyo and I've used a car maybe six times in the past two years. Not having a car is incredible. I love it. I'd argue the opposite in that having a car sucks. I don't have to worry about where it's parked. I don't need a space at my home dedicated to it. I don't need to pay for a car loan, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc. In the rare cases when I need a car for a day or more, I rent one. In the rare cases where I need a car briefly in the city I call an Uber (or hail a taxi). My average transportation costs per month are $60. With the amount I'm saving, I can have temporary access to vehicles whenever I want.
- toyg 5y ago
  > You can still have your car, but the convenience is going to cost you. In other words: poor people will have to pay for the environmental crimes that rich people commit. I have lived with and without car, currently I only own a motorbike; but I can't help thinking the hypocrisy of modern green movements stinks to high heaven. Where I live, rich people in leafy neighborhoods get public money to build fashionable bike lanes they'll never use, but whenever it's time to close roads and "disincentive the use of cars" it's always the dense working-class neighbourhoods who get targeted. They keep adding flat congestion charges that businesses can just unload on consumers, which in practice restrict the options only of the less-well-off. Meanwhile, who owns the actually-polluting business interests...? Certainly not white-van-man or Mr. Urban Commuter. It's just another front in the class war.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    Needing to own a car is a massive financial burden on the poor, who typically pay the cost of a new car for a used car, plus all the maintenance burden of owning an older used car. You're misrepresenting my argument. Increasing access to public transportation greatly reduces the expenses for folks who are poor. Part of making a city dense is making it easy to build, and usually also includes different types of housing, which lowers pricing. Removing parking, and parking minimums makes it easier and cheaper to build. I'm not advocating cities designed around people for green reasons. I'm advocating for them because I've lived in dense cities, which prioritize people and I've lived in places that are built for cars, and the ones built for people are simply nicer to live in, and generally cheaper to live in. My current monthly transportation costs are $60 per month.