4 ms·

We could make it harder and harder to use/own a car: more expensive, difficult to park, slower to use, etc. Then people would seek out other solutions by themse

by bambax 4y ago

We could make it harder and harder to use/own a car: more expensive, difficult to park, slower to use, etc. Then people would seek out other solutions by themselves, be it using a bike, public transport, or moving less (asking for more remote work options, for instance). We don't seem to even be trying to do this and it's depressing.

rootusrootus 4y ago
This is a matter of politics. Right now the majority of the population doesn't agree with your position. That's the problem you have to solve. The real difficulty there is that people are by nature concerned more about near-term, local events. If you try too hard to make their life more expensive and difficult, they'll just vote you out of power.
- bambax 4y ago
  Agreed.
Xymist 4y ago
Perhaps don't advocate making good things in life shittier in order to make comparatively shit options you happen to approve of look good by comparison? If you want public transport to be an even barely acceptable alternative to cars: - Make it door to door, no connections, no hiking to or from a station/stop/port at either end - Make it on demand, no timetables or shortages - Make it actually show up, and not be susceptible to strikes or moderately bad weather - Make a ticket cost the same as or less than the cost in petrol (or electricity) for the same journey - Make it private, without the need to be crammed into a box with strangers These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that personal cars provide that trains, planes, taxis, subways, and busses frequently (perhaps generally?) do not. I don't even commute, I work entirely remotely, and your proposal would still be a massive decrease in my quality of life whether it achieved your objective or not. If you want alternatives to be more popular, make them better than the status quo for every individual rather than just waving at "the world in general" and saying it's better for that/them.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  If you want cars to be an even barely acceptable alternative to public transport: - They should not be stuck in traffic jams - They should not kill children, pedestrians and cyclists - They should be electric without heavy and polluting batteries These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. > - Make a ticket cost the same as or less than the cost in petrol (or electricity) for the same journey In your utopia, do I get a free car and only spend money on petrol for travel? It it a country that provides free car repairs and service, need no insurance, MOT checks, and has no road tax? In Britain the fixed costs of owning a car exceed £2000 a year before you've driven a single mile.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    You can solve almost all of those problems more easily by improving road design with knowledge we already have. In relative terms cars are actually amazingly safe given that we drive them trillions of miles a year. > They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. Figure out how to get trains to operate everywhere instead of only on fixed routes, and then this comparison will be valid. Until then you're talking about two (more, really) different use cases with a minimal amount of overlap. So at the very least we will need buses, and a lot of them, to feed the areas where it't uneconomical or otherwise unfeasible to run rails. Do the environmental math on that -- how full does a bus need to be before the pollution per passenger is better than a compact car with one passenger? How about a compact car with four passengers? Public transit would need a fundamental change in approach. And of course this is only talking about people. Always lost in this conversation is that moving humans from place to place is just one use case.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      > You can solve almost all of those problems more easily by improving road design with knowledge we already have. Sure, to some extent. The knowledge we already have about how to prevent e.g. cars killing children, pedestrians, and cyclists is that you slow them down (and separate them which also typically involves taking space from cars to make room). But as seen above in this thread, that kind of thing meets opposition from people who say you're "making good things in life shittier". > the areas where it't uneconomical or otherwise unfeasible to run rails. If you've never done this, I suggest taking a look at old maps of the US's passenger rail network. We had a lot more rail in the past than we do now.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> We could make it harder and harder to use/own a car: more expensive, difficult to park, slower to use, etc. [...] We don't seem to even be trying to do this and it's depressing. Well, because the parties who try to do that (e.g. Greens in europe) immediately get out-voted out of office once the population starts to notice the permanent traffic jams. But it's not for a lack of trying -- they put measures like reducing speed limits in cities, reducing car lanes, etc.
nostromo123 4y ago
Oh, "we" are trying this in Austria! Especially in Vienna, the Greens have introduced harsh parking rules for commuters, blocking of new road infrastructure projects that have already been in planning for decades, and so on. But I and many others who commute to Vienna don't want to go back to commuting by public transport. Been there, done that - in one direction, it's 1.5h by train + 2 metro lines, vs. 30-40 mins by car. It's an absolute no brainer, I will not waste 3h per day (!!) commuting. To the helpful suggestions of "finding a home closer to work", I can only say: and what do I so in some years when I change jobs? Move again? No thanks! Public transport is great if the factors align, but honestly, with the travel times that I have, I wouldn't use it even if they made it free of charge.
- notacoward 4y ago
  Thank you for adding that perspective. If only we could hope that people will listen to others with actual experience of the solutions they so blithely propose.

by bambax 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

This is a matter of politics. Right now the majority of the population doesn't agree with your position. That's the problem you have to solve. The real difficulty there is that people are by nature concerned more about near-term, local events. If you try too hard to make their life more expensive and difficult, they'll just vote you out of power.

bambax 4y ago
Agreed.

Xymist 4y ago

Perhaps don't advocate making good things in life shittier in order to make comparatively shit options you happen to approve of look good by comparison? If you want public transport to be an even barely acceptable alternative to cars: - Make it door to door, no connections, no hiking to or from a station/stop/port at either end - Make it on demand, no timetables or shortages - Make it actually show up, and not be susceptible to strikes or moderately bad weather - Make a ticket cost the same as or less than the cost in petrol (or electricity) for the same journey - Make it private, without the need to be crammed into a box with strangers These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that personal cars provide that trains, planes, taxis, subways, and busses frequently (perhaps generally?) do not. I don't even commute, I work entirely remotely, and your proposal would still be a massive decrease in my quality of life whether it achieved your objective or not. If you want alternatives to be more popular, make them better than the status quo for every individual rather than just waving at "the world in general" and saying it's better for that/them.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
If you want cars to be an even barely acceptable alternative to public transport: - They should not be stuck in traffic jams - They should not kill children, pedestrians and cyclists - They should be electric without heavy and polluting batteries These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. > - Make a ticket cost the same as or less than the cost in petrol (or electricity) for the same journey In your utopia, do I get a free car and only spend money on petrol for travel? It it a country that provides free car repairs and service, need no insurance, MOT checks, and has no road tax? In Britain the fixed costs of owning a car exceed £2000 a year before you've driven a single mile.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  You can solve almost all of those problems more easily by improving road design with knowledge we already have. In relative terms cars are actually amazingly safe given that we drive them trillions of miles a year. > They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. Figure out how to get trains to operate everywhere instead of only on fixed routes, and then this comparison will be valid. Until then you're talking about two (more, really) different use cases with a minimal amount of overlap. So at the very least we will need buses, and a lot of them, to feed the areas where it't uneconomical or otherwise unfeasible to run rails. Do the environmental math on that -- how full does a bus need to be before the pollution per passenger is better than a compact car with one passenger? How about a compact car with four passengers? Public transit would need a fundamental change in approach. And of course this is only talking about people. Always lost in this conversation is that moving humans from place to place is just one use case.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    > You can solve almost all of those problems more easily by improving road design with knowledge we already have. Sure, to some extent. The knowledge we already have about how to prevent e.g. cars killing children, pedestrians, and cyclists is that you slow them down (and separate them which also typically involves taking space from cars to make room). But as seen above in this thread, that kind of thing meets opposition from people who say you're "making good things in life shittier". > the areas where it't uneconomical or otherwise unfeasible to run rails. If you've never done this, I suggest taking a look at old maps of the US's passenger rail network. We had a lot more rail in the past than we do now.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> We could make it harder and harder to use/own a car: more expensive, difficult to park, slower to use, etc. [...] We don't seem to even be trying to do this and it's depressing. Well, because the parties who try to do that (e.g. Greens in europe) immediately get out-voted out of office once the population starts to notice the permanent traffic jams. But it's not for a lack of trying -- they put measures like reducing speed limits in cities, reducing car lanes, etc.

nostromo123 4y ago

Oh, "we" are trying this in Austria! Especially in Vienna, the Greens have introduced harsh parking rules for commuters, blocking of new road infrastructure projects that have already been in planning for decades, and so on. But I and many others who commute to Vienna don't want to go back to commuting by public transport. Been there, done that - in one direction, it's 1.5h by train + 2 metro lines, vs. 30-40 mins by car. It's an absolute no brainer, I will not waste 3h per day (!!) commuting. To the helpful suggestions of "finding a home closer to work", I can only say: and what do I so in some years when I change jobs? Move again? No thanks! Public transport is great if the factors align, but honestly, with the travel times that I have, I wouldn't use it even if they made it free of charge.

notacoward 4y ago
Thank you for adding that perspective. If only we could hope that people will listen to others with actual experience of the solutions they so blithely propose.