7 ms·

How about: We need fewer cars. Full stop.

• xracy 3y ago
  I have a conspiracy theory that the moment the California HSR project finishes and the next project starts... It will be the beginning of the end. Right now people just love to hate on it cause "it's over budget, and road projects never go over budget."
• tomcar288 3y ago
  Yes, that would be the most environmentally friendly option. I think, a lot of people miss the fact that a lot of the oil is used in the production of the car and battery. there's a breakdown on this somewhere. Personally, I think a big part of the issue is the size of vehicles that have been mandated by regulatory agencies. Why don't we move towards micromobility?, something between a E-bike and a super light weight car. that would require far less lithium, and far less oil.
  • paraselene_ 3y ago
    > between a E-bike and a super light weight car Like, a e-scooter/motorcycle? I see hundereds of them during my daily commute. Costs around $3000, and about $20 in monthly charge costs.
    • tomcar288 3y ago
      most of those are all gas powered. the ones that are electric are usually limited to 28mph or just a little more than that. also, very few if any are 4 seaters.
  • Loughla 3y ago
    I would kill for an ultra efficient, all-wheel drive, lightweight car the size of a smart car at most. But with a top speed of 70 or so. Also, a small trailer hitch so I can hook a small wagon on for groceries and other things to pack around. Edit: Unironically, something like the P45 (https://topgear.fandom.com/wiki/P45 https://topgear.fandom.com/wiki/P45), but maybe with a bubble instead of my arms out.
  • xnx 3y ago
    > I think, a lot of people miss the fact that a lot of the oil is used in the production of the car and battery. You are not going to be happy to learn where the $128 billion for California's high speed rail and other mass transit infrastructure goes: concrete, asphalt, steel, and lots and lots of dirty fuel for the mining equipment and earth movers. Salaries for high-paid consultants on the project may be spent on air travel or other luxuries.
• OldManRyan 3y ago
  The amount of hoop jumping people go through to avoid saying we should invest more in public transit is insane. You see it on HN every time someone mentions density or transit. No one is saying you can't have a car or should live in a downtown apartment, we just shouldn't build everything around having a car.
  • Aloha 3y ago
    We should invest more in public transit, but there is literally 100 years of built infrastructure which has fueled patterns of development which make taking transport unattractive. So we can invest more, just dont expect it to result in many fewer cars.
    • Shawnj2 3y ago
      More bus lanes would be a cheap and easy start. The problem with current car centered cities is that taking transit is slower than taking a car so people with the means use the fastest transit option by driving. If you remove minimum parking laws and increase bus lanes which let transit users bypass traffic, this is a low cost way to encourage more transit usage.
  • Spivak 3y ago
    Nobody actually disagrees with this take, but here's what happens. This has happened now three times in my hometown. 1. Some Politician: We need to invest in public transportation. 2. Planning Commission: Okay but it's geographically infeasible to blanket the city in busses, the only thing that is going to work is a rail system to cover the long distances and have busses to cover the last mile. 3. Sounds great! Let's put together a proposal. 4. Politician: Hahahahahahahaha we can't afford that. Also people will riot if we eminent domain literally thousands of homes. 5. Politician: What if we just added really annoying bike lanes to like 3 roads that will sit there empty because a dedicated lane wasn't what was stopping people from riding their bikes? 6. Planning Commission: But that won't actually he.... 7. Politician: LOOK AT HOW WE'RE INVESTING IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!!1 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. GREEN. ENVIRONMENT. Like good lord if they would actually commit to more than just some symbolic non-solutions I would volunteer to swing a hammer to lay tracks.
• ActorNightly 3y ago
  Forcing everyone to public transport is horrible. People should have the option to not depend on anyone or anything for transportation. That isn't to say more public transport investment is bad, but there are other alternatives. For example, make ebikes cheap and make inner cities be ebikes only. In places like NY or Boston, everyone on ebikes would likely result in faster trip times.
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    > People should have the options to not depend on anyone or anything for transportation. They do: walking. Even ebikes keeps you dependent on electricity. Bicycles keep you dependent on consumables for maintenance (oil, etc.) and spare parts suppliers. I bicycle as my primary transportation, and I have to admit that I've been increasingly irritated by ebikes. They drive on the bike paths (even though that's not legal here), and when doing so they drive far too fast and don't even try to warn others using the path that they're passing. I've seen a half dozen cases of ebikes slamming into pedestrians and bicyclists in the last few months. I think the people advocating ebikes need to start educating people driving them about how to do so without endangering people, or this is going to turn into yet another flash point between groups who should be on the same side.
    • germinalphrase 3y ago
      Speed limits exist, but people do not fear enforcement because there is little enforcement infrastructure.
      • JohnFen 3y ago
        (For clarity: I'm talking about off-street bike paths here) The problematic ebikes are already breaking the law by driving on bike paths where motorized vehicles are prohibited. All they'd really have to do to both be legal and to avoid endangering and angering other users of the path is to not use the motor while on them. Since they don't, I don't think they'd care anything about speed limits, either.
  • ryukafalz 3y ago
• matthoiland 3y ago
  More trains please. High-speed rail between cities, lightrail between suburbs, streetcars between neighborhoods, and better shoes for everywhere else.
  • CamperBob2 3y ago
    Yes, fixed rail at a time when people no longer have to crowd themselves into cities. That's the ticket.
    • kcb 3y ago
      Make cities decent places to live, grow a family, and hang out instead of just workday commute destinations.
    • bitwize 3y ago
      More people should be living in cities. We need not only fewer cars but also fewer freestanding, single-family homes. Continental Europeans trounce Americans in land management in part because continental Europeans do not abhor density the way Americans do.
      • CamperBob2 3y ago
        Don't worry, your opinion will change about 12 seconds after your first child arrives.
        • bitwize 3y ago
          1) I'll probably never have children. 2) Childbearing couples seem to function just fine in relatively dense European urban housing. The idea that we somehow need space to spread out is largely confined to the Anglosphere, which is why land management problems are so much worse in the Anglosphere.
    • adastra22 3y ago
      If you've ever been to Tokyo, Taipei, or any old European capital, you'd know that "crowding people into cities" can be a good and beautiful thing, when the infrastructure is there.
• jmclnx 3y ago
  >How about: We need fewer cars. Full stop. This, people need to get out from behind the wheel and walk, bike. In the long term it will greatly benefit them. The funny thing is, with auto prices so high, many people cannot buy new, and quite a few cannot afford even used. So maybe a trend is starting.
• chroma 3y ago
  Has any country voluntarily decreased car usage? Even the Netherlands has seen per capita private car ownership increase over time. Cars are very compelling and useful products. That’s why they’re preferred by heads of state and rich people. Car usage will only decrease when someone invents something better.
  • bittercynic 3y ago
    They're compelling and useful largely because of enormous public investment in supporting infrastructure. Without gigantic roads they'd be much less appealing.
  • wizofaus 3y ago
    Depends how you define "voluntarily", but it does appear some developed countries have slightly lower kms-traveled-by-private-vehicle per citizen now than they did 10 or 20 years ago (e.g. there was a study done in the UK in 2012 showing a 4% drop since the late 90s). It'd be good to find some more recent and easily accessible references.
• closeparen 3y ago
  Almost none of America's existing stock of buildings is usable without every adult driving a car. It's going to take a while to demolish and rebuild the postwar developments where hundreds of millions of people live. We can and should 10x the supply of housing in walkable neighborhoods, but even then it would still be extremely unusual to live in a walkable neighborhood.
• freitzkriesler2 3y ago
  I'll take some downvotes for this opinion: I hate public transportation. I hate dealing with crowds of people. I hate waiting for whatever conveyence I'm going to ride on. I hate feeling like I need a full bath after riding on said conveyence. I hate dealing with the inevitable schizos, drug addicts, mental illness, and other malcontents that will undoubtedly pan handle or beg. And no, it isn't my problem to care or deal with them. Once I got enough money to ride in my own car to and from work, I stopped public transit and never looked back. If I somehow become stupid rich(doubt), I would charter private jets for the same reason. I see you're from Italy and will concede that European public transit is better when it comes to frequency so there's less waiting but that's about it. Still have the drug addict schizos and cleanliness problems. I still owned a car when I lived in Europe and if I do it again I'll be owning another, especially now with kids.
  • ryandrake 3y ago
    Have an upvote. For public transport to really replace personal vehicles, it has to beat personal vehicles in at least a few, if not all, of the killer features: 1. It has to take me directly from the front of my (rural) house to directly in front of my destination. My vehicle does this. 2. It has to do this as fast as or faster than my vehicle. 3. It has to be available in the time that it takes to find my vehicle's keys. 4. It has to be as comfortable as my vehicle. 5. It has to smell as nice and be as clean as my vehicle. 6. It has to not put me in more contact with crazy people than my vehicle does. 7. It has to be as cheap or cheaper per mile than my vehicle. 8. It has to be able to haul my belongings when I need to move them, with at least the capacity of my vehicle. A few alternative to cars can check a few of those boxes, but nobody gets them all: Walking and Bicycles: 1, 3, 7 Busses: 7 (maybe) Trains: 2, 7 (if long distance) Taxis: 2 Rideshare: 1, 2, 4 (maybe), 5 (maybe), 6 (maybe) Car/Truck rental: 2, 6, 8
    • wizofaus 3y ago
      Just for reference, as someone who doesn't live rurally, the only point that a bicycle can't reasonably fulfill above is 8., and indeed, when I do need to move heavy belongings around (pretty rare), or take other people (not too often thankfully) I'll use a car. Most of the journeys I take on my bike would take twice as long in a car, including time to find parking, walking to/from where car is parked etc., so a bike easily wins on 2. But sure, on 4. it loses out in rainy/cold weather. Otherwise the physical pleasure of riding a bike far exceeds that of driving a car. I'm curious why you come across so many crazy people riding bikes, or why your bike would smell so bad... EDIT: on my commute to the office I managed to think of at least 4 other reasons people prefer driving over riding: prestige, safety, theft risk and restrictions around suitable clothing (particularly when there's a lack of end-of-trip facilities).
• m463 3y ago
  This might be like trying to save yourself rich.