5 ms·

Your car gives you a private benefit at a public cost. That's the problem. Car infrastructure is ruinously expensive and the effects of driving harm everyone,

Your car gives you a private benefit at a public cost. That's the problem. Car infrastructure is ruinously expensive and the effects of driving harm everyone, either from the pollution generated in the long-term or in the short-term when statistically you are 100-300x more likely to kill someone than if you were on a bicycle.

hcurtiss 3y ago
Maybe. It seems to me that the development of cars has coincided with radical improvement of human wellbeing on every conceivable measure. Yes, you would pollute less if you rode a bike. And even less if you walked. And even less if you never left the house. But having a car opens up a world of possibilities and luxuries that a hundred years ago were simply unimaginable. Most reasonable people would agree that those extraordinary benefits merit some trade-offs.
- fnimick 3y ago
  > having a car opens up a world of possibilities and luxuries that a hundred years ago were simply unimaginable. [citation needed] Many wonderful cities and regions around the world are perfectly enjoyable with no need for cars. Or are you telling me that people living in central Paris, or London, or New York, or Valencia are suffering a substandard life because they use public transit and walk or bike to their destinations instead? Even regional travel can be easily done without a car - I recently traveled from Edinburgh, to Glasgow, all the way up to Fort William, then back from Skye all the way back to Edinburgh with no car. At no point did I wish I had one. Why is this so hard for us in the US to accomplish?
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    Having just returned from both London and Paris -- yes, having the ability to tow my motorboat to the reservoir is awesome! And having the ability to just drive out of the city whenever I want is awesome! And having the ability to get to work in a/c without dressing for the weather is awesome. Traveling around without being in close proximity to sick people is awesome! Having cars, and the infrastructure to support them, is decidedly better in my assessment than relying on an e-bike, mass transit, and rental services. I think most people would agree with me.
    - chasd00 3y ago
      > And having the ability to just drive out of the city whenever I want is awesome! This is what does it for me. And a rental just doesnt cut it. My family and I enjoy road trips, even just weekend getaways, and owning a vehicle makes that possible. Also, just regular things like getting kids to rowing practice after school makes all alternatives impractical. There’s no way to get them there on time with public transit and it’s def. too far for an e-bike to get there on time.
      - jeffbee 3y ago
        The period of one's life during which one needs to drive the kids to rowing practice passes by fairly rapidly, in the course of the entire life. Structuring our entire society around the use cases of the very few isn't a good idea. Indeed, it would be highly beneficial to busy parents of busy kids if everyone else would get the hell off the road. Most of the people on the road have little reason to be there, other than that we've made it the default choice and outlawed everything else. If people could easily walk to the grocery store, or bicycle to the dentist, or ride a bus to their office, your trip to the boathouse would be ever so much easier.
      - kiba 3y ago
        Why not long train ride in the countryside? Or a train tour through the mountain peak. If we're talking luxuries, it's possible to make trains luxurious. They have sleeper trains for example. A lot of thing are possible or the equivalent in a train oriented society.
    - pastage 3y ago
      Your argument does not scale. There can never be enough car infrastructure, the more you have the longer you have to drive to get outside the city. Luxury is very much about perception, it is not obviously true that having your own steel cage with a/c is better. For me living near other people and the rich human culture that comes from that is luxury. If you need a car for that you might just have made other choices in life, they are still choices.
    - barnabee 3y ago
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Because the American dream includes a spacious single family home with land. That plus a growing population and rising housing costs means plummeting density that is infeasible to cover with public transportation. You can try to fight the river here but but this aspect of our culture is so deeply ingrained that it practically defines the American experience. Any "solution" that necessitates taking this away is never going to happen. Despite what the special relationship might imply the US and Europe are culturally very different once you leave "urban cores." We are a country of homesteaders. Living in an apartment is the "thing young people do until they can afford their own house" rather than a kind of permanent residence. I personally don't see this as a good or bad thing, just a cultural difference that necessitates a different approach like electric cars over public transportation.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > Any "solution" that necessitates taking this away is never going to happen. The solution is 'if you want it, pay for it'. It should be immensely more expensive to drive long distances to do everything and even though it isn't, it surely isn't getting any cheaper. If you can afford it and don't care about the effects, then do it, but it I don't think most people realistically can much longer.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        I think the issue with this kind of argument is that we are paying for it right now. That money doesn't come from nowhere, the roads are paid for by the property and gas taxes of those burbs. There's no substance to this plan other than "disincentivize a lifestyle I don't approve of by imposing artificial costs." Such a plan will go nowhere because most people want this lifestyle. Compared to living in a house becoming an apartment dweller is seen as a massive step down in quality of life (and I think they're right, having land, space, no shared walls or landlord is awesome I'm saving for a house and super jealous of my friends who already own). Even my friends who live in the city are planning to move out and settle down eventually. Tanking property values is also a fast track to another recession. No one will vote for your plan. This is what I mean by it being part of our culture. Anything that takes away like the goal for most Americans will be dead on arrival.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
I accept that we should remove the subsidies to cars (but somehow the same people think it’s fine to subsidise public transport?). Car owners should pay for pollution and parking. Then we can let the market sort it out.
- fnimick 3y ago
  Great! Now do roads. The same people who complain about subsidies to public transport don't bat an eye at hundreds of millions spent on extra highway lanes. The typical argument there is "the economic benefit of mobility pays for it!" Yet that same case doesn't apply to public transit, somehow, where the costs are lower and the number of people moved is higher. (and good luck on the parking, considering my neighbors are up in arms over a proposal to increase yearly parking sticker fees from $40ish to $70ish and the true cost of a parking space is more like $500...)
blq10 3y ago
Point of order, all infrastructure in the United States is ruinously expensive. There are zero forms of transport infrastructure other than private shuttles that maintain fare box equilibrium

hcurtiss 3y ago

Maybe. It seems to me that the development of cars has coincided with radical improvement of human wellbeing on every conceivable measure. Yes, you would pollute less if you rode a bike. And even less if you walked. And even less if you never left the house. But having a car opens up a world of possibilities and luxuries that a hundred years ago were simply unimaginable. Most reasonable people would agree that those extraordinary benefits merit some trade-offs.

fnimick 3y ago
> having a car opens up a world of possibilities and luxuries that a hundred years ago were simply unimaginable. [citation needed] Many wonderful cities and regions around the world are perfectly enjoyable with no need for cars. Or are you telling me that people living in central Paris, or London, or New York, or Valencia are suffering a substandard life because they use public transit and walk or bike to their destinations instead? Even regional travel can be easily done without a car - I recently traveled from Edinburgh, to Glasgow, all the way up to Fort William, then back from Skye all the way back to Edinburgh with no car. At no point did I wish I had one. Why is this so hard for us in the US to accomplish?
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  Having just returned from both London and Paris -- yes, having the ability to tow my motorboat to the reservoir is awesome! And having the ability to just drive out of the city whenever I want is awesome! And having the ability to get to work in a/c without dressing for the weather is awesome. Traveling around without being in close proximity to sick people is awesome! Having cars, and the infrastructure to support them, is decidedly better in my assessment than relying on an e-bike, mass transit, and rental services. I think most people would agree with me.
  - chasd00 3y ago
    > And having the ability to just drive out of the city whenever I want is awesome! This is what does it for me. And a rental just doesnt cut it. My family and I enjoy road trips, even just weekend getaways, and owning a vehicle makes that possible. Also, just regular things like getting kids to rowing practice after school makes all alternatives impractical. There’s no way to get them there on time with public transit and it’s def. too far for an e-bike to get there on time.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      The period of one's life during which one needs to drive the kids to rowing practice passes by fairly rapidly, in the course of the entire life. Structuring our entire society around the use cases of the very few isn't a good idea. Indeed, it would be highly beneficial to busy parents of busy kids if everyone else would get the hell off the road. Most of the people on the road have little reason to be there, other than that we've made it the default choice and outlawed everything else. If people could easily walk to the grocery store, or bicycle to the dentist, or ride a bus to their office, your trip to the boathouse would be ever so much easier.
    - kiba 3y ago
      Why not long train ride in the countryside? Or a train tour through the mountain peak. If we're talking luxuries, it's possible to make trains luxurious. They have sleeper trains for example. A lot of thing are possible or the equivalent in a train oriented society.
  - pastage 3y ago
    Your argument does not scale. There can never be enough car infrastructure, the more you have the longer you have to drive to get outside the city. Luxury is very much about perception, it is not obviously true that having your own steel cage with a/c is better. For me living near other people and the rich human culture that comes from that is luxury. If you need a car for that you might just have made other choices in life, they are still choices.
  - barnabee 3y ago
- Spivak 3y ago
  Because the American dream includes a spacious single family home with land. That plus a growing population and rising housing costs means plummeting density that is infeasible to cover with public transportation. You can try to fight the river here but but this aspect of our culture is so deeply ingrained that it practically defines the American experience. Any "solution" that necessitates taking this away is never going to happen. Despite what the special relationship might imply the US and Europe are culturally very different once you leave "urban cores." We are a country of homesteaders. Living in an apartment is the "thing young people do until they can afford their own house" rather than a kind of permanent residence. I personally don't see this as a good or bad thing, just a cultural difference that necessitates a different approach like electric cars over public transportation.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > Any "solution" that necessitates taking this away is never going to happen. The solution is 'if you want it, pay for it'. It should be immensely more expensive to drive long distances to do everything and even though it isn't, it surely isn't getting any cheaper. If you can afford it and don't care about the effects, then do it, but it I don't think most people realistically can much longer.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      I think the issue with this kind of argument is that we are paying for it right now. That money doesn't come from nowhere, the roads are paid for by the property and gas taxes of those burbs. There's no substance to this plan other than "disincentivize a lifestyle I don't approve of by imposing artificial costs." Such a plan will go nowhere because most people want this lifestyle. Compared to living in a house becoming an apartment dweller is seen as a massive step down in quality of life (and I think they're right, having land, space, no shared walls or landlord is awesome I'm saving for a house and super jealous of my friends who already own). Even my friends who live in the city are planning to move out and settle down eventually. Tanking property values is also a fast track to another recession. No one will vote for your plan. This is what I mean by it being part of our culture. Anything that takes away like the goal for most Americans will be dead on arrival.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

I accept that we should remove the subsidies to cars (but somehow the same people think it’s fine to subsidise public transport?). Car owners should pay for pollution and parking. Then we can let the market sort it out.

fnimick 3y ago
Great! Now do roads. The same people who complain about subsidies to public transport don't bat an eye at hundreds of millions spent on extra highway lanes. The typical argument there is "the economic benefit of mobility pays for it!" Yet that same case doesn't apply to public transit, somehow, where the costs are lower and the number of people moved is higher. (and good luck on the parking, considering my neighbors are up in arms over a proposal to increase yearly parking sticker fees from $40ish to $70ish and the true cost of a parking space is more like $500...)

blq10 3y ago

Point of order, all infrastructure in the United States is ruinously expensive. There are zero forms of transport infrastructure other than private shuttles that maintain fare box equilibrium