4 ms·

I'd rather have a private jet, too, but I don't think my personal desires are the only salient factor here.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
If desires aren't a factor, they should be. I'm willing to spend money on a car that I can charge at home like a smartphone. It would reduce my fuel costs to zero because I have a lot of solar panels. I'll even install more solar panels if necessary. The so called free market needs to make it happen. If there's a lithium shortage, then mine more.
- pajtl 4y ago
  The question is whether we're pricing in externalities appropriately. We've had the market do it once with ICE cars and it is painfully obvious that the pricing involved was only a fraction of the true cost to the environment. Planning to 'just mine more' of whatever and completely replace all of private transportation infrastructure sure sounds like another path to environmental disaster. That's not to say we should drop EVs or anything like that. But we should at least think twice, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    If you could ask a fish what swimming in water is like, they would answer "What's 'water'?" People are so used to in kind subsidies for cars that many don't realize the extent of these supports. Toll-free highways and roads. Mandated parking minimums. Free on-street parking. Zoning laws banning anything but single family houses cite increased traffic and parking demand "caused" by denser construction (but this exclusionary zoning itself increases demand for driving). If you hit someone with your car, stay at the scene, and are not drunk criminal liability will not attach. Driver's license and insurance requirements are kept low. The US Government finances moving to suburbs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve buys mortgage backed securities. In many cities the majority of downtown land is roads and parking! When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars, then you will ask for a car based solution. An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > Mandated parking minimums. Have you lived in areas without mandated minimum parking? I have and it is a nightmare I don't care to ever repeat. There are good reasons for such rules. In a perfect idealized world with excellent public transit, there's no need for mandated minimum parking, I agree! But that perfect world mostly doesn't exist (maybe Manhattan, only some areas). When there is no parking, but people absolutely must have their car to get to work to be able to survive, it is mayhem. Violent fights over parking with human and property damage, people circling for hours and hours all night trying to park, you can't leave your house to go to important things because you lose your spot, and so on. The positive way to do it is to solve for public transit first, so that most people are happy to not have to have a car. Then parking becomes a moot point, no rules needed. If you force people to have a car to exist in society and simultaneously force them to have no place to park, it is a disaster.
      - supertrope 4y ago
        Better mass transit often requires reallocating strips of land from car lanes and parking. For example dedicated bus lanes are painted over what used to be on street parking spots. Or a station is constructed in the middle of the road. If we resist removing parking, then we're not going to get improved mass transit. Should the market set the supply of parking, or should local government officials do it based on dogma? Right now most cities choose option two. Planning officials usually copy and paste traditional rules such as 1.4 parking spots per residential unit, or 1 parking spot per x square feet of store sales floor. These figures are set with the goal that parking is only maxed out a few days per year. This means there's lot of idle blacktop most days. Developers usually build the legal minimum amount of parking because the minimum number of spots is so high. Land used for low productivity use like parking comes at the opportunity cost of more affordable rent. When the price of something is set to $0, demand is without bound. People leave their cars parked on prime real estate instead of moving them to a garage a block away, store second and third vehicles, etc. Local authorities usually only charge for parking as a last resort. Time based limits are usually first implemented. Because 97% of parking is free people will drive around and around, or get there really early in hopes of finding a free spot. A significant proportion of downtown traffic is parking spot cruising. Parking minimums can first be relaxed on streets well served by transit. When a new building is literally down the block from a station and a 1.4 parking spots per resident is mandated that's not a good use of scarce land. Developers won't build zero spots. Banks financing the project will have their own parking requirements. Letting parking float at market price has the benefit of parking being easy. A city can set prices with the target of one open spot per block. If demand is low, let the price fall to $0. No more cruising around and around, risking a parking ticket, or trying to understand complex day and hour limits. There is an good book on this (dry) subject. The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
- marsven_422 4y ago
- csydas 4y ago
  I don't think this really addresses the main concerns people are putting in the comments. "Mine more" has a definite end-point as eventually you can't just mine more. While it's good to be using solar and getting off of oil/gas powered grids, these also have fairly significant drawbacks (those panels need to be replaced and something needs to be done with the waste, recycling is currently far more expensive than just dumping them, there are chemicals in solar panels you need to consider, and removing them in a way to keep them usable for recycling requires someone not a lay-person). The reason people are pushing for a change in how we approach transportation and living centers is because the changes aren't mutually exclusive with having a vehicle dedicated to yourself, but it does mean changes to how living centers are designed currently. If self-driving can take off, very likely most people could do without having their own car and would be served very well by a "call on demand" vehicle that is frequently serviced and cleaned in between rides. If a dirty one or one in disrepair shows up, mark it as such and another is there in a few minutes (heck, probably the service could see this before it ever gets to you and route such vehicles for service). This would work for a large number of persons in living centers, and for the few who really need a vehicle for "other" reasons, they can still get a car. Further, make incentives for more walkable/convenient living centers. Better stocked markets on all corners (sorry bodegas in their current form don't cut it in their current form, but they're the right idea), grocery and health item deliveries, better public transit routes, it can work while accommodating those with a need for their own transportation. For most healthy persons, not owning a car could easily be a possibility. When I lived in Russia of all places, I didn't own a car for 6 years and as an able bodied person, it was quite doable. Taxi when I needed to get somewhere fast and on-time with some stuff to carry, public transit if it's just me as the transit was there within a few minutes, grocery delivery handled most of my needs, and that which I couldn't order on groceries there were well-stocked markets within a minute or two. For those who need additional assistance for day to day activities, yes they must be accommodated for and car ownership makes sense there; it's not persons who need additional assistance that are targeted, it's everyone else that really could live very comfortably without having to maintain a car that should be. If the free market needs to be invoked, then so be it, let the market figure out how to build businesses that deliver groceries/food/household goods, let them figure out public transport services, bike rentals, and so on...though as I see it we already have the systems for this. The technology and infrastructure is there for most of this vision, now it's about adaptation and adjustment. It's quite doable.
- WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
  And these solar panels are, of course, free? Are you stealing them from the neighborhood or what?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Of course not. I paid for them. They reduced my energy bill to zero and more than paid for themselves in a few years.

If desires aren't a factor, they should be. I'm willing to spend money on a car that I can charge at home like a smartphone. It would reduce my fuel costs to zero because I have a lot of solar panels. I'll even install more solar panels if necessary. The so called free market needs to make it happen. If there's a lithium shortage, then mine more.

pajtl 4y ago
The question is whether we're pricing in externalities appropriately. We've had the market do it once with ICE cars and it is painfully obvious that the pricing involved was only a fraction of the true cost to the environment. Planning to 'just mine more' of whatever and completely replace all of private transportation infrastructure sure sounds like another path to environmental disaster. That's not to say we should drop EVs or anything like that. But we should at least think twice, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.
- supertrope 4y ago
  If you could ask a fish what swimming in water is like, they would answer "What's 'water'?" People are so used to in kind subsidies for cars that many don't realize the extent of these supports. Toll-free highways and roads. Mandated parking minimums. Free on-street parking. Zoning laws banning anything but single family houses cite increased traffic and parking demand "caused" by denser construction (but this exclusionary zoning itself increases demand for driving). If you hit someone with your car, stay at the scene, and are not drunk criminal liability will not attach. Driver's license and insurance requirements are kept low. The US Government finances moving to suburbs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve buys mortgage backed securities. In many cities the majority of downtown land is roads and parking! When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars, then you will ask for a car based solution. An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Mandated parking minimums. Have you lived in areas without mandated minimum parking? I have and it is a nightmare I don't care to ever repeat. There are good reasons for such rules. In a perfect idealized world with excellent public transit, there's no need for mandated minimum parking, I agree! But that perfect world mostly doesn't exist (maybe Manhattan, only some areas). When there is no parking, but people absolutely must have their car to get to work to be able to survive, it is mayhem. Violent fights over parking with human and property damage, people circling for hours and hours all night trying to park, you can't leave your house to go to important things because you lose your spot, and so on. The positive way to do it is to solve for public transit first, so that most people are happy to not have to have a car. Then parking becomes a moot point, no rules needed. If you force people to have a car to exist in society and simultaneously force them to have no place to park, it is a disaster.
    - supertrope 4y ago
      Better mass transit often requires reallocating strips of land from car lanes and parking. For example dedicated bus lanes are painted over what used to be on street parking spots. Or a station is constructed in the middle of the road. If we resist removing parking, then we're not going to get improved mass transit. Should the market set the supply of parking, or should local government officials do it based on dogma? Right now most cities choose option two. Planning officials usually copy and paste traditional rules such as 1.4 parking spots per residential unit, or 1 parking spot per x square feet of store sales floor. These figures are set with the goal that parking is only maxed out a few days per year. This means there's lot of idle blacktop most days. Developers usually build the legal minimum amount of parking because the minimum number of spots is so high. Land used for low productivity use like parking comes at the opportunity cost of more affordable rent. When the price of something is set to $0, demand is without bound. People leave their cars parked on prime real estate instead of moving them to a garage a block away, store second and third vehicles, etc. Local authorities usually only charge for parking as a last resort. Time based limits are usually first implemented. Because 97% of parking is free people will drive around and around, or get there really early in hopes of finding a free spot. A significant proportion of downtown traffic is parking spot cruising. Parking minimums can first be relaxed on streets well served by transit. When a new building is literally down the block from a station and a 1.4 parking spots per resident is mandated that's not a good use of scarce land. Developers won't build zero spots. Banks financing the project will have their own parking requirements. Letting parking float at market price has the benefit of parking being easy. A city can set prices with the target of one open spot per block. If demand is low, let the price fall to $0. No more cruising around and around, risking a parking ticket, or trying to understand complex day and hour limits. There is an good book on this (dry) subject. The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
marsven_422 4y ago
csydas 4y ago
I don't think this really addresses the main concerns people are putting in the comments. "Mine more" has a definite end-point as eventually you can't just mine more. While it's good to be using solar and getting off of oil/gas powered grids, these also have fairly significant drawbacks (those panels need to be replaced and something needs to be done with the waste, recycling is currently far more expensive than just dumping them, there are chemicals in solar panels you need to consider, and removing them in a way to keep them usable for recycling requires someone not a lay-person). The reason people are pushing for a change in how we approach transportation and living centers is because the changes aren't mutually exclusive with having a vehicle dedicated to yourself, but it does mean changes to how living centers are designed currently. If self-driving can take off, very likely most people could do without having their own car and would be served very well by a "call on demand" vehicle that is frequently serviced and cleaned in between rides. If a dirty one or one in disrepair shows up, mark it as such and another is there in a few minutes (heck, probably the service could see this before it ever gets to you and route such vehicles for service). This would work for a large number of persons in living centers, and for the few who really need a vehicle for "other" reasons, they can still get a car. Further, make incentives for more walkable/convenient living centers. Better stocked markets on all corners (sorry bodegas in their current form don't cut it in their current form, but they're the right idea), grocery and health item deliveries, better public transit routes, it can work while accommodating those with a need for their own transportation. For most healthy persons, not owning a car could easily be a possibility. When I lived in Russia of all places, I didn't own a car for 6 years and as an able bodied person, it was quite doable. Taxi when I needed to get somewhere fast and on-time with some stuff to carry, public transit if it's just me as the transit was there within a few minutes, grocery delivery handled most of my needs, and that which I couldn't order on groceries there were well-stocked markets within a minute or two. For those who need additional assistance for day to day activities, yes they must be accommodated for and car ownership makes sense there; it's not persons who need additional assistance that are targeted, it's everyone else that really could live very comfortably without having to maintain a car that should be. If the free market needs to be invoked, then so be it, let the market figure out how to build businesses that deliver groceries/food/household goods, let them figure out public transport services, bike rentals, and so on...though as I see it we already have the systems for this. The technology and infrastructure is there for most of this vision, now it's about adaptation and adjustment. It's quite doable.
WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
And these solar panels are, of course, free? Are you stealing them from the neighborhood or what?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Of course not. I paid for them. They reduced my energy bill to zero and more than paid for themselves in a few years.