4 ms·

>You can also tax cars until demand decreases Ideas like this disproportionately affects poor people and minorities. Sure, you've reduced traffic, but now only

>You can also tax cars until demand decreases Ideas like this disproportionately affects poor people and minorities. Sure, you've reduced traffic, but now only the Right Kind Of People can afford to drive. Not a great look.

selectodude 3y ago
Driving is, in fact, a luxury. Only the right kind of people can vacation in Vail and I don’t see anyone flipping out about that.
- digging 3y ago
  Not in the vast majority of North America. It's a necessity
  - estebank 3y ago
    And the argument is that in cities, it shouldn't be.
    - digging 3y ago
      I fully agree but that's 3-4 decades away if it's ever coming for most cities.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    The vast majority of America by acreage has squirrels and deer, water, or crops by sq ft. 4 in 5 citizen lives in an urban area where one could with sufficient investment live without a car.
    - digging 3y ago
      > The vast majority of America by acreage has squirrels and deer, water, or crops by sq ft. Very clever, you sure got me. > 4 in 5 citizen lives in an urban area where one could with sufficient investment live without a car. Most definitely not. Americans living in a typical suburb have no option except to drive or walk for perhaps hours (often with no sidewalks) to get basic necessities. Even within the vast majority of US cities, typically it's a minority of neighborhoods well serviced by walkable amenities and transit, and the rest are still car-dependent. Again, walking 45+ minutes for basic errands is not a reasonable ask. Bike infrastructure is usually lacking or absent and is forbiddingly dangerous to people who aren't strong and confident bicyclists.
- calamari4065 3y ago
  > Driving is, in fact, a luxury. Yes, being able to get to the only grocery store several miles away is a luxury. Driving 45 minutes to work because there's no jobs in walking distance other than fast food is a luxury. Going to the only doctor that takes your insurance/medicaid on the other side of town is a luxury. You're either not from the US or you're so privileged that you cannot conceive the kind of life anyone less fortunate than you leads. Our entire society is built around the assumption that everyone drives. If you don't, then fuck you, get a car you bum. It's your own fault you're suffering. Get some bootstraps and buy a car already, you're just lazy. If you are in the US, just try going without a car for a month. You won't last more than three days. Then come back and tell me what a luxury it is.
  - dublinben 3y ago
    Now imagine how someone less fortunate than yourself, who can’t drive because they’re too young, or too old, or too poor, or too disabled is supposed to survive in a society built around the assumption that everyone drives.
    - calamari4065 3y ago
      Wow, you're right, that should be a central argument in the case for better public transit or something! I can't believe you're the first person ever to raise this point. Good job!
  - estebank 3y ago
    The current conversation is about cities. I lived in SF without a car for 7 months. Getting out of the city was a pain in the neck because the weekend Caltrain schedule is terrible (going from Paris to Brussels is faster than San Francisco to Mountain View), getting groceries was inconvenient because I was in the outer sunset, where it is only residential (it hadn't occurred to me that there wouldn't be a suoermarket withing walking distance when looking for housing), and commuting downtown had a monthly delay because of some car getting stuck trying to go into the tunnel in west portal. All of those things are problems that need solving. I now still live in SF, on the other side of GGP, with a supermarket a block away, multiple restaurants and a direct bus line to downtown with a dedicated bus lane. The difference is night and day. I still use the car once a day, but never use it to commute. Cities can be improved. If you live in a suburb and work on an office park, nothing in this conversation will ever affect you, except maybe a potential future where the most radical changes to the city cause you to park on the outskirts and take transit, or pay a premium to drive in in order to go to some event or night out.
dublinben 3y ago
This isn’t actually true. Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses, which get stuck in traffic behind cars. Driving more is positively correlated with higher income. Lower income people disproportionately suffer the consequences of the current car-centric system like air pollution, noise pollution, traffic violence, etc.
- digging 3y ago
  > Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses This feels like a totally theoretical idea, or one from a place very different from the US. I think a lot of posters here are from the US where having a car is almost mandatory and you'll only take the bus if you're literally too poor for a car. Most low income people in most US cities can afford cars, it's just a massive burden, but without a car they would have so much less time because transit is bad.
- underlipton 3y ago
  A tax would promote a positive long-term shift for PoC, statistically. The ones who survive their means of keeping in house, food, and job becoming significantly more expensive in the short-term, of course. Or, we could induce that positive long-term shift without (figuratively) throwing the least-able to weather the change under the bus. Somehow, I think it's possible to make cars more expensive for the rich people who shaped the current system while keeping automobiles a viable option for the less-well-off who need them in this status quo that they didn't ask for.

selectodude 3y ago

Driving is, in fact, a luxury. Only the right kind of people can vacation in Vail and I don’t see anyone flipping out about that.

digging 3y ago
Not in the vast majority of North America. It's a necessity
- estebank 3y ago
  And the argument is that in cities, it shouldn't be.
  - digging 3y ago
    I fully agree but that's 3-4 decades away if it's ever coming for most cities.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  The vast majority of America by acreage has squirrels and deer, water, or crops by sq ft. 4 in 5 citizen lives in an urban area where one could with sufficient investment live without a car.
  - digging 3y ago
    > The vast majority of America by acreage has squirrels and deer, water, or crops by sq ft. Very clever, you sure got me. > 4 in 5 citizen lives in an urban area where one could with sufficient investment live without a car. Most definitely not. Americans living in a typical suburb have no option except to drive or walk for perhaps hours (often with no sidewalks) to get basic necessities. Even within the vast majority of US cities, typically it's a minority of neighborhoods well serviced by walkable amenities and transit, and the rest are still car-dependent. Again, walking 45+ minutes for basic errands is not a reasonable ask. Bike infrastructure is usually lacking or absent and is forbiddingly dangerous to people who aren't strong and confident bicyclists.
calamari4065 3y ago
> Driving is, in fact, a luxury. Yes, being able to get to the only grocery store several miles away is a luxury. Driving 45 minutes to work because there's no jobs in walking distance other than fast food is a luxury. Going to the only doctor that takes your insurance/medicaid on the other side of town is a luxury. You're either not from the US or you're so privileged that you cannot conceive the kind of life anyone less fortunate than you leads. Our entire society is built around the assumption that everyone drives. If you don't, then fuck you, get a car you bum. It's your own fault you're suffering. Get some bootstraps and buy a car already, you're just lazy. If you are in the US, just try going without a car for a month. You won't last more than three days. Then come back and tell me what a luxury it is.
- dublinben 3y ago
  Now imagine how someone less fortunate than yourself, who can’t drive because they’re too young, or too old, or too poor, or too disabled is supposed to survive in a society built around the assumption that everyone drives.
  - calamari4065 3y ago
    Wow, you're right, that should be a central argument in the case for better public transit or something! I can't believe you're the first person ever to raise this point. Good job!
- estebank 3y ago
  The current conversation is about cities. I lived in SF without a car for 7 months. Getting out of the city was a pain in the neck because the weekend Caltrain schedule is terrible (going from Paris to Brussels is faster than San Francisco to Mountain View), getting groceries was inconvenient because I was in the outer sunset, where it is only residential (it hadn't occurred to me that there wouldn't be a suoermarket withing walking distance when looking for housing), and commuting downtown had a monthly delay because of some car getting stuck trying to go into the tunnel in west portal. All of those things are problems that need solving. I now still live in SF, on the other side of GGP, with a supermarket a block away, multiple restaurants and a direct bus line to downtown with a dedicated bus lane. The difference is night and day. I still use the car once a day, but never use it to commute. Cities can be improved. If you live in a suburb and work on an office park, nothing in this conversation will ever affect you, except maybe a potential future where the most radical changes to the city cause you to park on the outskirts and take transit, or pay a premium to drive in in order to go to some event or night out.

dublinben 3y ago

This isn’t actually true. Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses, which get stuck in traffic behind cars. Driving more is positively correlated with higher income. Lower income people disproportionately suffer the consequences of the current car-centric system like air pollution, noise pollution, traffic violence, etc.

digging 3y ago
> Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses This feels like a totally theoretical idea, or one from a place very different from the US. I think a lot of posters here are from the US where having a car is almost mandatory and you'll only take the bus if you're literally too poor for a car. Most low income people in most US cities can afford cars, it's just a massive burden, but without a car they would have so much less time because transit is bad.
underlipton 3y ago
A tax would promote a positive long-term shift for PoC, statistically. The ones who survive their means of keeping in house, food, and job becoming significantly more expensive in the short-term, of course. Or, we could induce that positive long-term shift without (figuratively) throwing the least-able to weather the change under the bus. Somehow, I think it's possible to make cars more expensive for the rich people who shaped the current system while keeping automobiles a viable option for the less-well-off who need them in this status quo that they didn't ask for.