4 ms·

Vehicle tires are a deep, integral part of daily economic and socio-economic activity. Deeper than even cigarettes used to be (in North America). There was a t

Vehicle tires are a deep, integral part of daily economic and socio-economic activity. Deeper than even cigarettes used to be (in North America). There was a time when people couldn't imagine a day without a cigarette. Now think about a future state where living without a personal motor vehicle is both a sane and practical choice. It will similarly take a long time to combat vested interests and change consumers' habits.

kettlecorn 2y ago
It could help us reconsider the routing and design of highways, particularly in dense urban environments.
pastage 2y ago
Maybe the US should start making it possible to live without a car? No one loose if you do that.
- yearolinuxdsktp 2y ago
  What country do you live in and what is its population density?
- adamc 2y ago
  Given that most cities are built and the distances are set, that isn't going to be easy. Yes, they could run more buses, but.
  - darkwizard42 2y ago
    Taxing the previously subsidized usage of those roads is a start. See NYC's recent starter congestion tax. It still has a long way to go, but we can certainly improve the world slowly!
    - adamc 2y ago
      The politics of that in most areas are impossible.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      NYC has a workable public transit system. People who are driving there are likely doing so in a way that allows them to either absorb costs or pass them on to others. Kansas City, for example, does not have a workable public transit system. If you charge a congestion tax to reduce traffic on interstates, it means real pain because there is no alternative. There are far more Kansas Cities in the US than there are New York Cities.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        Yeah people seem to think that driving costs up for driving will change behavior and build infrastructure. The reality is it will just hook the local government or authority to the tax.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Yeah people seem to think that driving costs up for driving will change behavior and build infrastructure. You say this as if you have a highly compelling argument against the claim: what is it?
        Spooky23 2y ago
        It’s not a marginal cost issue. Few people are going to change their commuting or living situation because of a marginal increase in cost. Transit lines are massive new capital costs that are hard to build. We live in an era where people are still fighting cell towers.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Well sure, if you're now sneaking in the qualifier that the costs are marginal. But obviously there is some price at which people do change their behavior.
        Spooky23 2y ago
        Well, yeah. If magically people are going to change their behavior, marginal cost matters. If it costs me $10 to drive to a destination, and you introduce a tax that adds $5, there’s a $5 marginal cost difference. For the commuter, there’s a few options in most places: take a bus if available and save money at the cost of time, wfh, complain and get the company to move, move to a closer locale, or pay. Making a fast convenient transit system is not happening in 2025, and most of the field of dreams thinking about bike lanes isn’t working. In NYC, it’s a scheme to prop up the MTA, whose labor contracts consume all oxygen — the organization is broke after imposing a regional sales tax that affects people living as far north as Poughkeepsie. And frankly, as awesome as NYC is, it’s fucked long term - it’s no longer a diversified economy, and the biggest industry is slowly attriting away. You need transit, and everyone is priced out of areas that are transit accessible. Many buildings in Manhattan are essentially vacant today. In my city, a $6M budget hole prompted a sudden concern for child safety. We lowered the speed limit to 25, 20 in school zones, and setup a network of cameras. The busiest corridor attracted 15,000 tickets in a week. Guess what else happened? People in that corridor made alternate choices, and three busy retailers in the strip announced they were closing. The difference is elasticity - the marginal cost and hassle of getting a toll/ticket will lead me to another CVS. My office Christmas party can be outside of the city line. But my employer is more sticky.
  - asdff 2y ago
    A lot of it is self inflicted wounds. Americans thanks to the car can live like 30-40 miles from work and have an acceptable commute. Thats hard to do in a timely fashion on public transit anywhere, which seems to work best up to a 5-15 mile radius or so. People have to be willing to live closer (and often it is cheaper to live close to the center of town as that is where the recent immigrant minority populations find their cheaper housing, than in the newer construction suburbs full of doctors and lawyers and private schools).
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      Rail suburbs do this relatively easily. The issue isn't distance; public transport can go faster than cars in any case - the issue is sufficient density to achieve a reasonable occupancy rate. Plenty of countries have commuter suburbs/towns that are dense enough to justify 35-40 miles of public transit at high speeds and that built it as a result, and there's quite a few places in the US that could justify it but don't.
      - asdff 2y ago
        Even if you started building it you pick winners and losers with which town gets a rail station. A dozen commuter lines extending out in a 35 mile radius would be seriously impressive as a new network anywhere in the world really, yet that only means a dozen towns 35 miles out see a connection, the rest don’t. This also demands high speed rail to compete with cars; a typical american commuter rail going 70mph top speed with a dozen stops of some interval including acceleration and decelleration plus a potential transfer to a local line or bus to get to work from that commute rail station is some serious time to make up, compared to the case in all but a handful of american cities where even during rush hour a more or less fully built out freeway dual ring and feeder network is flowing at 70mph with no stops in between.
Zigurd 2y ago
American roads and streets are crazy wide, due to standards set in the 1950s. This created more sprawl. OTOH it also provides a lot of room for adding bike lanes. E-bikes can then replace most local driving.
zelphirkalt 2y ago
> Now think about a future state where living without a personal motor vehicle is both a sane and practical choice. I interpret this to mean "a future state in the US", since there are many places all over the world, where it is already sane and practical to live without a car or motorbike or similar vehicle.
schiffern 2y ago
> Vehicle tires are a deep, integral part of daily economic and socio-economic activity. We should be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of good, such as mandates to reduce tire wear[1] and elimination / substitution of the most harmful tire additives.[2][3] [1] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2024/03/14/pew-applauds-eus-first-of-its-kind-legislation-to-tackle-microplastics-emissions-from-tyres https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-... [2] https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022006420 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...

kettlecorn 2y ago

It could help us reconsider the routing and design of highways, particularly in dense urban environments.

pastage 2y ago

Maybe the US should start making it possible to live without a car? No one loose if you do that.

yearolinuxdsktp 2y ago
What country do you live in and what is its population density?
adamc 2y ago
Given that most cities are built and the distances are set, that isn't going to be easy. Yes, they could run more buses, but.
- darkwizard42 2y ago
  Taxing the previously subsidized usage of those roads is a start. See NYC's recent starter congestion tax. It still has a long way to go, but we can certainly improve the world slowly!
  - adamc 2y ago
    The politics of that in most areas are impossible.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    NYC has a workable public transit system. People who are driving there are likely doing so in a way that allows them to either absorb costs or pass them on to others. Kansas City, for example, does not have a workable public transit system. If you charge a congestion tax to reduce traffic on interstates, it means real pain because there is no alternative. There are far more Kansas Cities in the US than there are New York Cities.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      Yeah people seem to think that driving costs up for driving will change behavior and build infrastructure. The reality is it will just hook the local government or authority to the tax.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Yeah people seem to think that driving costs up for driving will change behavior and build infrastructure. You say this as if you have a highly compelling argument against the claim: what is it?
        Spooky23 2y ago
        It’s not a marginal cost issue. Few people are going to change their commuting or living situation because of a marginal increase in cost. Transit lines are massive new capital costs that are hard to build. We live in an era where people are still fighting cell towers.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Well sure, if you're now sneaking in the qualifier that the costs are marginal. But obviously there is some price at which people do change their behavior.
        Spooky23 2y ago
        Well, yeah. If magically people are going to change their behavior, marginal cost matters. If it costs me $10 to drive to a destination, and you introduce a tax that adds $5, there’s a $5 marginal cost difference. For the commuter, there’s a few options in most places: take a bus if available and save money at the cost of time, wfh, complain and get the company to move, move to a closer locale, or pay. Making a fast convenient transit system is not happening in 2025, and most of the field of dreams thinking about bike lanes isn’t working. In NYC, it’s a scheme to prop up the MTA, whose labor contracts consume all oxygen — the organization is broke after imposing a regional sales tax that affects people living as far north as Poughkeepsie. And frankly, as awesome as NYC is, it’s fucked long term - it’s no longer a diversified economy, and the biggest industry is slowly attriting away. You need transit, and everyone is priced out of areas that are transit accessible. Many buildings in Manhattan are essentially vacant today. In my city, a $6M budget hole prompted a sudden concern for child safety. We lowered the speed limit to 25, 20 in school zones, and setup a network of cameras. The busiest corridor attracted 15,000 tickets in a week. Guess what else happened? People in that corridor made alternate choices, and three busy retailers in the strip announced they were closing. The difference is elasticity - the marginal cost and hassle of getting a toll/ticket will lead me to another CVS. My office Christmas party can be outside of the city line. But my employer is more sticky.
- asdff 2y ago
  A lot of it is self inflicted wounds. Americans thanks to the car can live like 30-40 miles from work and have an acceptable commute. Thats hard to do in a timely fashion on public transit anywhere, which seems to work best up to a 5-15 mile radius or so. People have to be willing to live closer (and often it is cheaper to live close to the center of town as that is where the recent immigrant minority populations find their cheaper housing, than in the newer construction suburbs full of doctors and lawyers and private schools).
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    Rail suburbs do this relatively easily. The issue isn't distance; public transport can go faster than cars in any case - the issue is sufficient density to achieve a reasonable occupancy rate. Plenty of countries have commuter suburbs/towns that are dense enough to justify 35-40 miles of public transit at high speeds and that built it as a result, and there's quite a few places in the US that could justify it but don't.
    - asdff 2y ago
      Even if you started building it you pick winners and losers with which town gets a rail station. A dozen commuter lines extending out in a 35 mile radius would be seriously impressive as a new network anywhere in the world really, yet that only means a dozen towns 35 miles out see a connection, the rest don’t. This also demands high speed rail to compete with cars; a typical american commuter rail going 70mph top speed with a dozen stops of some interval including acceleration and decelleration plus a potential transfer to a local line or bus to get to work from that commute rail station is some serious time to make up, compared to the case in all but a handful of american cities where even during rush hour a more or less fully built out freeway dual ring and feeder network is flowing at 70mph with no stops in between.

Zigurd 2y ago

American roads and streets are crazy wide, due to standards set in the 1950s. This created more sprawl. OTOH it also provides a lot of room for adding bike lanes. E-bikes can then replace most local driving.

zelphirkalt 2y ago

> Now think about a future state where living without a personal motor vehicle is both a sane and practical choice. I interpret this to mean "a future state in the US", since there are many places all over the world, where it is already sane and practical to live without a car or motorbike or similar vehicle.

schiffern 2y ago

> Vehicle tires are a deep, integral part of daily economic and socio-economic activity. We should be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of good, such as mandates to reduce tire wear[1] and elimination / substitution of the most harmful tire additives.[2][3] [1] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2024/03/14/pew-applauds-eus-first-of-its-kind-legislation-to-tackle-microplastics-emissions-from-tyres https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-... [2] https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022006420 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...