5 ms·

The Beginning of the End of Private Cars in American Cities

13 points by jseliger 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Much like how people now prefer streaming services over cable, these subscriptions may cost nearly the same as leasing or owning a car some months, but they’ll provide a better experience than owning a car, especially if cities prioritize mobility options over private cars. Except now that they've won the war, the streaming services are merrily raising prices, adding advertisements, and enshittifying in various other ways.
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
  And isn’t leasing a car very expensive compared to buying one?
  - rickydroll 2y ago
    Only if you replace your car every two or three years. If you're like me, buying a used car and keeping it for 7 to 10 years, then owning a car is much more cost-effective. Most of my cars have made it 150,000 to 200,000 miles.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. I am not interested in car models at all but I like owning a car, even in a city. It solves a lot of problems and I believe a development to less individual traffic is an illusion. Mabybe it happens due to economic reasons, but otherwise it will stay as it is. Even with combustion cars should EV prove to expensive. Any market regulation would quickly evaporate as well and maybe just kill the local industry.
- piva00 2y ago
  > I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. Public transport doesn't work if it's not somewhat punctual and high traffic, meaning it needs to be reliable and run often, not like those "commuter" trains around North America running only mornings/afternoons schedules, or having a train departing every 1-2 hours. I'm originally from a country where you are almost 100% dependent on a car, moved to a place where I simply do not need a car unless I need to move houses and for that I can just rent a van for 4h-24h on the cheap. I wouldn't choose being dependent on a car to do my daily chores ever again, I much prefer taking the metro, train, bus, or my bike rather than dealing with all the headaches car ownership brings.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.
    - Bluestrike2 2y ago
      > If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
jasonvorhe 2y ago
I don't think the comparison of streaming and cable is actually helping her case here. Just look at most streaming services right now: They keep on increasing prices, they restrict account sharing and thus forcing every individual to either purchase their own subscription or risk losing access while the content is being spread over a growing amount of streaming services and almost all are ramping up on the amount of advertising they serve unless you opt-out by switching to a higher tiered subscription. If streaming is any indicator, you'll soon have to rent a car from a specific "car as a service" provider to access or park in certain districts of the city you live in while you have to endure advertising before you can start the engine or while you wait in traffic. You don't want to rely on a car subscription service if you want to remain mobile and you don't have that much money to spend. Not to forget that this pays heavily into the "you'll own nothing and be happy" WEF agenda. (And I don't even own a car or license and just do everything by bicycle so I'm not even directly affected by this.)
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I don't buy her position at all. But... If she's right that she could save $7500 a year by renting a car when she needs one, she could in fact own nothing (or at least, not a car) and be happy - or at least $7500/yr happier. I wrestle with buying a boat or an RV. Buying feels like buying an "asset", whereas renting feels like throwing money away. But the actual fact is that, for as often as I would use either one, renting is by far the better move. It just doesn't feel like it to me. The WEF is not an organization that I trust, but in this particular kind of case, the numbers may work out in favor of their position.
the_snooze 2y ago
I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where I can do all my day-to-day things (e.g., work, gym, groceries) without a car. Bike, bus, and walking can get me almost everywhere I want to go within 5 miles of my home, which would otherwise account for the majority of my car trips [1]. I still own a (small) car, but it's relegated to weekend pleasure driving and occassional big-things-transport. It's amazing not having to stress about parking, gas prices, or being stuck in traffic alongside everyone else commuting via single-occupant cars. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
jmclnx 2y ago
I hope she is right, and in a way she may be. The main reason is how expensive it is to buy a car, insure and maintain a car in the US. Insurance rates in many places are raising a lot, people blame the expense of repairing EVs and some blame tracking of people's driving habits via many internet connected autos. With new proposed mandatory "dodads" like automatic breaking, rear cameras I can see Auto prices will continue to increase. And in cities you can have parking fees, the slow elimination of parking on the street, never mind rent and housing costs. Something will need to give. So the end result for people in cities, stop using a car and rely on Public Transportation, Bicycling, Walking and things like uber and taxis.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Well... About repairing I've conducted a very casual and limited assessments between friends, colleagues, families etc on ICE vs BEV MTBF and while absolutely not statistically meaningful the result is that even with the crappy crapload of crapware BEV have they are already more reliable than ICE counterparts. So well, repairing in case of incidents will be more expensive, but in current usage they tend to fail less. About costs: if you look at China or India cheap-but-reasonable BEV (400km/250miles) well, they seems not to be more and more expensive but less and less. It's here in the west that, perhaps thanks to decades of destruction of substantial research and development "to maximize profits", we see price going higher and higher while we resell more and more Chinese stuff rebranded. Long story short: it's here that the Green tech fail, not all other the world. As a result people in cities became more and more poor to a point they simply can't own a car anymore. It's not a "nice evolution thanks to" but a "forced regression".
chiffre01 2y ago
These kind of articles always come off as short sighted to me in terms of ownership. Sure, short term transportation rentals (bikes scooters) are nice now and then, but they have external costs. They have to be moved/charged, people throw them in the river, they are mostly operated by independent contractors getting exploited etc. Having said that, I fully support sidelining cars in urban areas, but a bunch of rental services and Uber are not great replacements.
hfiejrnfio33385 2y ago
[flagged]
siliconc0w 2y ago
The problem with subscription services is enshittification. They get users habitually using them and once the alternatives are dead they crank the levers to extract value. I always thought be interesting for an app to organize an neighborhood to share its cars with themselves. This gets away from a lot of problems with rentals - the car always lives in the same place, you can get the same set of familiar cars, and you'd have more of a sense of ownership and personal liability. The problem is that people use their cars as storage plus non-linear spikey demand and everyone wanting to use cars at the same time.
kkfx 2y ago
That's one of the reason why I'm against smart cities https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ but I'm still convinced that such push will fail simply because it's unsustainable as the original Fordlandia or the modern Neom, Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera, ... As a result I expect cities became a hub of poor and desperate, while those who can have already or will do at an exponentially higher price, flee the city. Those inside will have no cars simply because they will be unable to own one.

13 points by jseliger 2y ago

> Much like how people now prefer streaming services over cable, these subscriptions may cost nearly the same as leasing or owning a car some months, but they’ll provide a better experience than owning a car, especially if cities prioritize mobility options over private cars. Except now that they've won the war, the streaming services are merrily raising prices, adding advertisements, and enshittifying in various other ways.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
And isn’t leasing a car very expensive compared to buying one?
- rickydroll 2y ago
  Only if you replace your car every two or three years. If you're like me, buying a used car and keeping it for 7 to 10 years, then owning a car is much more cost-effective. Most of my cars have made it 150,000 to 200,000 miles.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. I am not interested in car models at all but I like owning a car, even in a city. It solves a lot of problems and I believe a development to less individual traffic is an illusion. Mabybe it happens due to economic reasons, but otherwise it will stay as it is. Even with combustion cars should EV prove to expensive. Any market regulation would quickly evaporate as well and maybe just kill the local industry.

piva00 2y ago
> I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. Public transport doesn't work if it's not somewhat punctual and high traffic, meaning it needs to be reliable and run often, not like those "commuter" trains around North America running only mornings/afternoons schedules, or having a train departing every 1-2 hours. I'm originally from a country where you are almost 100% dependent on a car, moved to a place where I simply do not need a car unless I need to move houses and for that I can just rent a van for 4h-24h on the cheap. I wouldn't choose being dependent on a car to do my daily chores ever again, I much prefer taking the metro, train, bus, or my bike rather than dealing with all the headaches car ownership brings.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.
  - Bluestrike2 2y ago
    > If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.

jasonvorhe 2y ago

I don't think the comparison of streaming and cable is actually helping her case here. Just look at most streaming services right now: They keep on increasing prices, they restrict account sharing and thus forcing every individual to either purchase their own subscription or risk losing access while the content is being spread over a growing amount of streaming services and almost all are ramping up on the amount of advertising they serve unless you opt-out by switching to a higher tiered subscription. If streaming is any indicator, you'll soon have to rent a car from a specific "car as a service" provider to access or park in certain districts of the city you live in while you have to endure advertising before you can start the engine or while you wait in traffic. You don't want to rely on a car subscription service if you want to remain mobile and you don't have that much money to spend. Not to forget that this pays heavily into the "you'll own nothing and be happy" WEF agenda. (And I don't even own a car or license and just do everything by bicycle so I'm not even directly affected by this.)

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I don't buy her position at all. But... If she's right that she could save $7500 a year by renting a car when she needs one, she could in fact own nothing (or at least, not a car) and be happy - or at least $7500/yr happier. I wrestle with buying a boat or an RV. Buying feels like buying an "asset", whereas renting feels like throwing money away. But the actual fact is that, for as often as I would use either one, renting is by far the better move. It just doesn't feel like it to me. The WEF is not an organization that I trust, but in this particular kind of case, the numbers may work out in favor of their position.

the_snooze 2y ago

I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where I can do all my day-to-day things (e.g., work, gym, groceries) without a car. Bike, bus, and walking can get me almost everywhere I want to go within 5 miles of my home, which would otherwise account for the majority of my car trips [1]. I still own a (small) car, but it's relegated to weekend pleasure driving and occassional big-things-transport. It's amazing not having to stress about parking, gas prices, or being stuck in traffic alongside everyone else commuting via single-occupant cars. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...

jmclnx 2y ago

I hope she is right, and in a way she may be. The main reason is how expensive it is to buy a car, insure and maintain a car in the US. Insurance rates in many places are raising a lot, people blame the expense of repairing EVs and some blame tracking of people's driving habits via many internet connected autos. With new proposed mandatory "dodads" like automatic breaking, rear cameras I can see Auto prices will continue to increase. And in cities you can have parking fees, the slow elimination of parking on the street, never mind rent and housing costs. Something will need to give. So the end result for people in cities, stop using a car and rely on Public Transportation, Bicycling, Walking and things like uber and taxis.

kkfx 2y ago
Well... About repairing I've conducted a very casual and limited assessments between friends, colleagues, families etc on ICE vs BEV MTBF and while absolutely not statistically meaningful the result is that even with the crappy crapload of crapware BEV have they are already more reliable than ICE counterparts. So well, repairing in case of incidents will be more expensive, but in current usage they tend to fail less. About costs: if you look at China or India cheap-but-reasonable BEV (400km/250miles) well, they seems not to be more and more expensive but less and less. It's here in the west that, perhaps thanks to decades of destruction of substantial research and development "to maximize profits", we see price going higher and higher while we resell more and more Chinese stuff rebranded. Long story short: it's here that the Green tech fail, not all other the world. As a result people in cities became more and more poor to a point they simply can't own a car anymore. It's not a "nice evolution thanks to" but a "forced regression".

chiffre01 2y ago

These kind of articles always come off as short sighted to me in terms of ownership. Sure, short term transportation rentals (bikes scooters) are nice now and then, but they have external costs. They have to be moved/charged, people throw them in the river, they are mostly operated by independent contractors getting exploited etc. Having said that, I fully support sidelining cars in urban areas, but a bunch of rental services and Uber are not great replacements.

hfiejrnfio33385 2y ago

[flagged]

siliconc0w 2y ago

The problem with subscription services is enshittification. They get users habitually using them and once the alternatives are dead they crank the levers to extract value. I always thought be interesting for an app to organize an neighborhood to share its cars with themselves. This gets away from a lot of problems with rentals - the car always lives in the same place, you can get the same set of familiar cars, and you'd have more of a sense of ownership and personal liability. The problem is that people use their cars as storage plus non-linear spikey demand and everyone wanting to use cars at the same time.

kkfx 2y ago

That's one of the reason why I'm against smart cities https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ but I'm still convinced that such push will fail simply because it's unsustainable as the original Fordlandia or the modern Neom, Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera, ... As a result I expect cities became a hub of poor and desperate, while those who can have already or will do at an exponentially higher price, flee the city. Those inside will have no cars simply because they will be unable to own one.