6 ms·

A car is more expensive generally because it is a lot more convenient. We shouldn't aim to have everyone take a less convenient mode of transportation just so e

by bko 2y ago

A car is more expensive generally because it is a lot more convenient. We shouldn't aim to have everyone take a less convenient mode of transportation just so everyone is equally inconvenienced. We should try to lift the poorest among us. Try to make driving less expensive. Not sure why car insurance doubled in the last few years but that's one thing to look at, in addition to other car expenses.

softwaredoug 2y ago
I would not consider a car in downtown Manhattan convenient.
- bko 2y ago
  There are other cities other than Manhattan. This comment was about "car centric urban design". Obviously Manhattan is not car centric, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Taters91 2y ago
I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. You have to find parking, you have to navigate traffic (pedestrian, car, and e-bike), and then you have to find gas stations. With public transportation, you don't need any of that. The only inconvenience is that sometimes where you're going is a bit of a walk. Car insurance is expensive, because cars cause a lot of damage and are easy to get damaged.
- bko 2y ago
  Right, because New York is not car-centric (bike lanes, very dense, few gas stations) "Bit of a walk" is a nice way of saying it but in reality it means you are very limited with things like shopping. You're kind of stuck with the nearest walkable grocer. If you're luck enough to live by a cheap ones like Trader Joes, they are ridiculously crowded so you're paying in a different form. Or you can try your luck with Bodegas but they're often sell expired food, are overpriced and rarely have anything fresh . Then you're stuck with how much you can carry or try to use one of those granny pushers. Kids could be very difficult to wrangle as well and there are plenty of unpleasant things you have to explain to them or ignore. It's very dehumanizing My point is that having a car is nice and I want people to have nice things. They don't belong everywhere, like NY. But overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation.
  - wpm 2y ago
    > ut overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation. Then you maybe haven't spent too long thinking about it. Climate change is a big one. Microplastics from tire wear. Asthma rates in children. Obesity rates. Etc etc etc. Car centric design makes us poorer, fatter, less healthy. It makes our cities and towns poorer, less resilient, and uglier. I can go on.
    - alexlesuper 2y ago
      Not mention that less cars on the road means improved travel times for those that are obligated to use their car.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      I'm not sure "lose your freedoms because it's better for you and less ugly" is a winning pitch. It'd be better to make sure that people can still access the things they want conveniently while minimizing the harms. I think it's a good thing to improve and promote public transportation by making them the more attractive option rather than just punish drivers and restrict their options until they have no choice but to settle for something less than what they have.
      - consteval 2y ago
        The idea that driving a car increases freedoms is a uniquely American ideal. It doesn’t, it does the opposite. It pushes everything further away which means you no longer have the freedom to not have a car. It, quite literally, redesigns our cities to become dependent on them. It’s like heroin. Sure, it feels good, but at what cost? How do we stop now?
        bko 2y ago
        By this logic, not being in a wheelchair doesn't make things easier. It pushes accessibility down. Entire cities are redesigned so that you're dependent on your legs. Yes, society should help those in wheelchairs, but shouldn't we aim to give everyone use of their legs?
- autoexec 2y ago
  > I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. I'd argue that if you were correct people would have already been using alternatives and there'd have been no need to punish people for driving. When you give people a better option they take it. NYC could have improved alternatives to make them more attractive, but they choose to make driving worse instead forcing people who can't afford it to use less convenient ways to get around.
  - ARandumGuy 2y ago
    Humans are not perfectly rational actors, and will often make the "wrong" decision when better options are available. Especially when a given decision may not be bad individually, but adds up when a bunch of people make the same decision. In these cases, you have to not only incentivize the behavior you want, but disincentivize the behavior you don't want.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    People were using alternatives, but you still need to penalize driving because it's a multiagent system. Here's why. The convenience of driving depends on traffic. If you're the only car on the road then it's very convenient. In gridlock, it's very inconvenient (but also takes the convenience of buses down with it). So you reach some equilibrium of traffic levels where the marginal person opts for walking / subway rather than driving in all that traffic. But if you could magically reduce traffic, then driving becomes the better option and people take it. If you want to sustain an equilibrium of lower traffic, you need to add a penalty to driving to stabilize the convenience of being the marginal driver in that equilibrium. There are knock-on benefits to doing so, including that it makes alternatives to driving such as busses more effective.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      It says a lot that most of people using public transportation are the ones who have no other choice. They can't afford a car and the associated costs. If they had the ability to not use public transportation they wouldn't use it. Road congestion is only one factor. If you ignore all the other things that keep people from wanting to use public transportation then punishing drivers is just going to piss people off. People want to do what works best for them. Make public transportation work best for them and they'll use it no matter how deserted the streets are. Better yet, as traffic dies down, roads and parking lots can be reclaimed and nobody will care. Start closing roads and parking lots without solving the problems public transportation has, and people will be upset.
cryptopian 2y ago
The issue with cars isn't that they're not convenient in isolation, but that they cause issues at scale more than other modes of transport, especially when they're the default option for journeys. An efficiently run metro line can shift tens of thousands of people per hour in each direction, but you'd need a multi-lane highway running at maximum throughput to even get close.

by bko 2y ago

softwaredoug 2y ago

I would not consider a car in downtown Manhattan convenient.

bko 2y ago
There are other cities other than Manhattan. This comment was about "car centric urban design". Obviously Manhattan is not car centric, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Taters91 2y ago

I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. You have to find parking, you have to navigate traffic (pedestrian, car, and e-bike), and then you have to find gas stations. With public transportation, you don't need any of that. The only inconvenience is that sometimes where you're going is a bit of a walk. Car insurance is expensive, because cars cause a lot of damage and are easy to get damaged.

bko 2y ago
Right, because New York is not car-centric (bike lanes, very dense, few gas stations) "Bit of a walk" is a nice way of saying it but in reality it means you are very limited with things like shopping. You're kind of stuck with the nearest walkable grocer. If you're luck enough to live by a cheap ones like Trader Joes, they are ridiculously crowded so you're paying in a different form. Or you can try your luck with Bodegas but they're often sell expired food, are overpriced and rarely have anything fresh . Then you're stuck with how much you can carry or try to use one of those granny pushers. Kids could be very difficult to wrangle as well and there are plenty of unpleasant things you have to explain to them or ignore. It's very dehumanizing My point is that having a car is nice and I want people to have nice things. They don't belong everywhere, like NY. But overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation.
- wpm 2y ago
  > ut overall I don't understand this push to public transportation for the sake of public transportation. Then you maybe haven't spent too long thinking about it. Climate change is a big one. Microplastics from tire wear. Asthma rates in children. Obesity rates. Etc etc etc. Car centric design makes us poorer, fatter, less healthy. It makes our cities and towns poorer, less resilient, and uglier. I can go on.
  - alexlesuper 2y ago
    Not mention that less cars on the road means improved travel times for those that are obligated to use their car.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I'm not sure "lose your freedoms because it's better for you and less ugly" is a winning pitch. It'd be better to make sure that people can still access the things they want conveniently while minimizing the harms. I think it's a good thing to improve and promote public transportation by making them the more attractive option rather than just punish drivers and restrict their options until they have no choice but to settle for something less than what they have.
    - consteval 2y ago
      The idea that driving a car increases freedoms is a uniquely American ideal. It doesn’t, it does the opposite. It pushes everything further away which means you no longer have the freedom to not have a car. It, quite literally, redesigns our cities to become dependent on them. It’s like heroin. Sure, it feels good, but at what cost? How do we stop now?
      - bko 2y ago
        By this logic, not being in a wheelchair doesn't make things easier. It pushes accessibility down. Entire cities are redesigned so that you're dependent on your legs. Yes, society should help those in wheelchairs, but shouldn't we aim to give everyone use of their legs?
autoexec 2y ago
> I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. I'd argue that if you were correct people would have already been using alternatives and there'd have been no need to punish people for driving. When you give people a better option they take it. NYC could have improved alternatives to make them more attractive, but they choose to make driving worse instead forcing people who can't afford it to use less convenient ways to get around.
- ARandumGuy 2y ago
  Humans are not perfectly rational actors, and will often make the "wrong" decision when better options are available. Especially when a given decision may not be bad individually, but adds up when a bunch of people make the same decision. In these cases, you have to not only incentivize the behavior you want, but disincentivize the behavior you don't want.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  People were using alternatives, but you still need to penalize driving because it's a multiagent system. Here's why. The convenience of driving depends on traffic. If you're the only car on the road then it's very convenient. In gridlock, it's very inconvenient (but also takes the convenience of buses down with it). So you reach some equilibrium of traffic levels where the marginal person opts for walking / subway rather than driving in all that traffic. But if you could magically reduce traffic, then driving becomes the better option and people take it. If you want to sustain an equilibrium of lower traffic, you need to add a penalty to driving to stabilize the convenience of being the marginal driver in that equilibrium. There are knock-on benefits to doing so, including that it makes alternatives to driving such as busses more effective.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    It says a lot that most of people using public transportation are the ones who have no other choice. They can't afford a car and the associated costs. If they had the ability to not use public transportation they wouldn't use it. Road congestion is only one factor. If you ignore all the other things that keep people from wanting to use public transportation then punishing drivers is just going to piss people off. People want to do what works best for them. Make public transportation work best for them and they'll use it no matter how deserted the streets are. Better yet, as traffic dies down, roads and parking lots can be reclaimed and nobody will care. Start closing roads and parking lots without solving the problems public transportation has, and people will be upset.

cryptopian 2y ago

The issue with cars isn't that they're not convenient in isolation, but that they cause issues at scale more than other modes of transport, especially when they're the default option for journeys. An efficiently run metro line can shift tens of thousands of people per hour in each direction, but you'd need a multi-lane highway running at maximum throughput to even get close.