3 ms·
This seems quite one-sided. What's the steelman argument in favor of the car? I've heard that it increases labor mobility. I imagine being able to conveniently
by ETH_start 3y ago
This seems quite one-sided. What's the steelman argument in favor of the car? I've heard that it increases labor mobility. I imagine being able to conveniently and independently relocate from remote job markets without substantial transportation infrastructure connecting them to the larger national job market would give workers in remote sites more leverage. Are there any other arguments in favor of cars that you're aware of?
- CalRobert 3y agoI'd at least have time for the argument that they enable exploration of areas that are impossible to serve with transport, but that's why I don't actually hate cars, just car dependency. They also saved New York from mountains of horse poop.
- arcticbull 3y agoThat's what I'm arguing against also. The default should be 'you don't need a car' - if you insist on having one that's fine, but it shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers and instead billed at the point of use. Basically all roads should be toll roads. If you want to leave town to a place that isn't served by transit, you can rent one. Most importantly though, cities should not be designed around them but instead around people, bikes and transit. > They also saved New York from mountains of horse poop. Wedding's over, we don't really need the priest anymore ;)
- pandaman 3y agoLow density housing. It's being attacked the most in such threads as this because it's likely the main reason of the car adoption. People do love living in detached houses with their own plot of land. Mobility for labor and commerce is also a big plus: any retail business can draw customers from much wider area just as well as employees. Large plants and factories can be built far away from the cities with cheap land and energy.