6 ms·

The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much fa

by gress 13y ago

The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather, and are much less tiring than trying to lug bags from one place to another on buses or other public transport. They also place far fewer constraints on when you can travel. Of course it's possible to structure one's life so as to deal with all of the issues. I have lived half of my adult life without a car, including 4 years in the SF Bay Area, and I managed. But let's stop pretending that there isn't a trade off. Cars are very very convenient. The key to reducing the need for cars is not just good public transport - it's services that reduce the reliance on traveling to get chores done. Things like grocery deliveries, laundry pickup, and amazon.com. It would be a lot easier to rely solely on public transport if you never had to carry anything.

GuiA 13y ago
Self driving electric cars that people pay for on a subscription model (rather than ownership) are the future I'd like to see. I hope it happens during my lifetime.
- jowiar 13y ago
  Taxis are a reasonable "turking" of this concept.
  - samolang 13y ago
    And zipcar.
    - jowiar 13y ago
      Zipcar is great - I love it. But as far as a "self-driving car network" goes, one of the big advantages is that you don't need to worry about parking on either end. A higher percentage of cars are in the process of getting someone from point A to point B rather than taking up space somewhere.
  - chriswarren 13y ago
    Taxis in general don't fully turk the concept, at least not in areas without reliable taxi volume. It's reasonable as long as you can rely on the taxi to show up within a decent amount of time of requesting it or expect to see one in passing in a short amount of time. Uber et al. have done a lot to help with this in my experience, but I've had many times where I'm in a location that taxis aren't typically in the immediate vicinity. Calling the cab company has often led to lots of waiting, not knowing when the car will get there, with cars sometimes never showing up at all. Knowing that the car is definitely coming to you (whether it's a self driving car, Uber, or any other service that tracks the vehicle's location) help remove that uncertainty and definitely makes it an acceptable option in more areas. That reliability and knowledge justify the extra cost for taking Uber (or requesting a self driving car some day) to me, more than the comfort or style of a town car compared to a cab.
    - jowiar 13y ago
      Agreed on all parts - for me, I live in DC, in a neighborhood with good cab density, and Uber is in the cab business as well as the swanky car business. I'll launch the app, hail a cab, and by the time I ride down the elevator of my building, there's a cab parked out front waiting for me. It's a reasonable approximation of the future.
  - GuiA 13y ago
    True; although one major problem is that for n taxis, you have to pay for n cars and n human salaries, and human salaries end up being the biggest proportion in the final price. How much will the cost be reduced when we don't have to pay for human drivers anymore? Will we see 50$ a month (2013 dollars) plans for 50 hours of "chauffeuring"? (a quick google search shows that the average american spends ~40h driving a year)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      In some areas, rent to medallion holders might end up being the biggest proportion in the final price...
      - lambda 13y ago
        According to [this resarch](http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf), 57% of the fare (including tip) goes to the driver, 24% to vehicle and gas, 15% to the owner, and 4% to other expenses. So, the driver is a pretty substantial portion of that. Taking the driver out of the equation would substantially reduce the costs. If you increased medallion availability as well, and the owners were able to work with lower margins (or they were cooperatively owned), you could get the cost down even further, to maybe 1/3 of what taxis currently cost. That would be a huge difference in affordability for everyday use.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Nice! "That would be a huge difference in affordability for everyday use." Very true.
  - lambda 13y ago
    Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. The driver takes something like 60% of the fare you pay for a taxi; I'm sure insurance eats up another sizeable chunk, and if self-driving cars are ever allowed on the streets, they will have to be safer than human drivers, and thus will have lower insurance costs. Furthermore, eliminating the driver means that you could use even smaller, cheaper cars, or fit more people or belongings per car, making self-driving cars more efficient. Taxis drivers also really frustrating to deal with (the majority in my city, at least); I can't count the number of taxi drivers who haven't been able to find my house, so I've had to play phone tag with dispatch while waiting 45 minutes for a cab that should have been there in 10, then finally hike down the hill, get in, and had them start the meter while they drove up it to pick up my belongings.
    - ghaff 13y ago
      >Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. But they have the advantage of actually existing. Whatever relatively near-term possibilities there may be for cars to operate on "autopilot" on certain highways, an urban environment where taxis are most common is probably one of the last places you'll see self-driving cars.
      - lambda 13y ago
        Sure. I'm just pointing out how these hypothetical self driving taxis/car shares would be a substantial improvement over actual taxis, enough so that they would be able to displace more than just the niche that taxis currently occupy but also car sharing programs like Zipcar and probably a substantial portion of car ownership. I think that I'll see them in my lifetime; I don't know if it'll be in 5 years (though I think that would be pushing it), 10 years, or 30 years, but I'm pretty sure they will come about, and will be a huge improvement over our current system of letting distracted, impatient people try to pilot cars through chaotic conditions.
- lambda 13y ago
  Yep. I've used Zipcar in lieu of a car before (and now own a car that I use maybe once every two weeks), but there was just enough friction due to having to walk to the nearest available car (the closest location to us wasn't always available, so we'd have to walk a few blocks further for the closest available car), having to pay for the time when the car is just parked at your destination before you return it, and not being suitable for the kind of longer range, weekend or week long trips that are a lot of what we need a car for. If the cars were self-driving, however, that would solve the majority of those problems. No need to hike to find the closest car, it would come to you. No need to pay for the time that it's parked while at your destination, it could be used by other people, and another car could come pick you up when you needed to leave. No need to return the car to where you picked it up, it would just go back to the closest available station and they'd rebalance themselves automatically.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Subscriptions sure are convenient (and lucrative), but there's also something to be said for the certainty of an owned asset that will always be there, even if you run out of money later.
Shivetya 13y ago
when electric cars, or alternative fuels, become more prevalent and we have the ability for self driving cars the effect will become even more pronounced. With self driving cars and dedicated roads or lanes for them; we already have special toll lanes in many cities; the distance one lives from work may become a non factor. Throw in better tools for telework and cities may simply become the home to two groups, those who can afford their secure enclaves and those trapped by government subsidies. Cars gave freedom to many people, freedom to move about as they want, freedom to shop where they want, and freedom to live where they want and still do work. Automation will increase all of those options. Cities will need to reinvent themselves to be relevant.
tdees40 13y ago
The odd thing to me about cars is that people pick the most unusual use cases and then buy their cars off of that. So my dad likes to haul plywood once in a while, so he bought a pick-up. But 99.99% of the time he could use a subcompact. Likewise everyone knows people who have two kids and buy a van/SUV because they want an extra seat or two. You can always rent a car if you get into these sorts of situations, and it would be much cheaper than buying a huge car that runs with one person in it 90%+ of the time.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It may not be unreasonable if the overhead to rent is high. It's coming down, though I have no idea what ranges are "too high" or where things currently stand relative to that.
  - msandford 13y ago
    It's not even the monetary cost of renting, it's the time cost. If I have a pickup truck the time cost for me to buy something off of CL is driving there, inspecting it and then buying it. Done. If I have to rent a pickup to transport it back then I've got two choices. I can either rent the vehicle prior to looking at the item or after I decide to buy it for sure. If I always-rent then I'll kill at least 2hrs per CL purchase due to having to go to somewhere to rent said vehicle. If I rent-after-inspection I'll save those 2hrs when I don't buy at the expense of making two trips every time I do buy. Neither one is an attractive option. Two hours according to what they pay me is no joke in terms of cash so in either case if this happens say twice a month I've paid for the total difference between owning a subcompact and a pickup truck: note, gas, insurance, etc. I don't actually own a pickup truck and most of the time the things I pick up fit in my Forester just fine. But it's not unreasonable to make such a decision when you think through how much of a disaster it is to try and rent a vehicle on a semi-regular basis.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "It's not even the monetary cost of renting, it's the time cost." Absolutely. I'd definitely meant for that to be a part of "overhead" but it probably is worth calling out explicitly.
rayiner 13y ago
I lived car-dependent in Atlanta, without a car in Chicago and New York, and am car-dependent again in Wilmington, DE. The burden of carrying things never matched the hassle of circling around somewhere looking for a parking spot. Indeed, living in the New York City suburbs with a baby and no car (but on a train line) was way more convenient than living in Wilmington with a car. Running down the block to the store and shoving some items in the stroller basket is infinitely easier than putting the baby in a car seat, folding the stroller into the trunk, driving 12 miles to the strip mall, taking the baby out of the car seat, unfolding the stroller out of the trunk, putting the baby back in the car seat, folding the stroller into the trunk, driving 12 miles back from the strip mall, then finally taking the baby back out of the car seat and unfolding the stroller out of the trunk. It's as inconvenient and frustrating as it sounds. People have preferences, sure, but I'm sick of subsidizing suburbanization with my tax dollars. The public sector spends about $150 billion per year building and maintaining highways: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12043/01-19-highwayspending_brief.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x.... That's not counting local roads and streets. Nobody blinks an eye at that. But they freak out that Amtrak has been given $13 billion in federal subsidies in the 40 years since 1972. And don't get me started on the tax breaks for mortgages that disproportionately benefits suburbanites, etc. My wife and I have no problem with how much taxes we pay, but it drives us crazy that my parents pay a substantially lower rate despite making more money because they can deduct fully deduct the interest on their $1 million mortgage for their suburban McMansion. Meanwhile, my wife and I are phased out of student loan and childcare deductions despite making less money.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  > People have preferences, sure, but I'm sick of subsidizing suburbanization with my tax dollars. The public sector spends about $150 billion per year building and maintaining highways: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x... http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x.... That's not counting local roads and streets. Nobody blinks an eye at that. But they freak out that Amtrak has been given $13 billion in federal subsidies in the 40 years since 1972. Wow, never thought about it like that. Thanks for the comment.
astrodust 13y ago
> Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather... If only there was such a thing as a car that you could call on-demand, make use of when you wanted it, and then got rid of it when you were done. Even better, what about one that comes with a driver? A crazy idea, I know. If you live in the right neighborhood, a car is a nuisance. I can go somewhere and just walk right in. I don't have to spend time finding a parking spot, paying for parking, dealing with parking tickets, and all that related nuisance. Having owned a car, I found it shapes your decisions a lot. Things are only convenient if they're convenient to get to in a car. Considering how much money I'm not spending on a car, a cab is a bargain. If I need more than that, rent a van by the hour.
- nilkn 13y ago
  The following page estimates the true cost of car ownership at approximately $1.38/mile: http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html That's still quite a bit cheaper than taxi fares or the minimum $2.75 that Uber charges. Assuming that you spend $20k on purchasing the car, you'd make up for the cost of the car in just under 15,000 miles driven compared to taking Uber at the quoted rate.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yeah, I don't really understand why people figure that self-driving cars/taxis/Uber/ZipCar would ever be cheaper per mile. They pay to operate their vehicles same as you do, except they also need to have some profit on top.
    - tedsanders 13y ago
      High fixed costs and economies of scale. Cars are high fixed cost capital goods. A taxi will be driven far more over the course of its lifetime than a personal car, so the fixed cost per mile is much lower. Also, economies of scale make purchases and maintenance and repair cheaper. These are two reasons to believe taxis should be cheaper than personal ownership. Finally, let me point to airplanes. It makes far more sense to rent an airplane than buy one because almost no one travels enough to justify the purchase. Cars are analogous. Edit: When I say cars are analogous, I mean that there are analogues between the situations. Both are vehicles with high fixed cost that can be either bought or rented. The situation is comparable, though obviously not the same. All I'm saying is that it's conceivable that someday the conditions could change so that it's more sensible to rent than buy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dionidium 13y ago
Everybody knows this is true, of course. I live three miles from work. To get here this morning I could have walked 3 blocks to the light rail station near my apartment, then another 4 or so blocks from the destination station to my office. This is pretty convenient, especially in St. Louis, where the vast, vast majority of residents don't have options nearly that good. But I didn't do it. It was 16F degrees when I left the house this morning. I drove my car.
- dionidium 13y ago
  I'll add that I'm a supporter of our transit system. I moved to my current apartment in part to be near it (and it plays a role in deciding where I'd like to work). But even after configuring my life about as much as is possible in this city to make the train an option, the car is still very often the most convenient, hassle-free option.
- droob 13y ago
  Ha! I was going to write almost this exact post -- I can travel from Maplewood to Washington Ave every day by bus in about an hour, or by car in about half an hour.
- eru 13y ago
  Put on some proper clothing and take your bike?
  - jchrisa 13y ago
    I'm carfree in Portland Oregon and I LOVE biking in the icy mornings. What a great way to wake up.
  - dded 13y ago
    Perhaps you're being facetious, but on the off change that you're just not familiar with 16F (-9C), understand that that's cold. I'm a runner, but I don't go out if it's below 20F--I can't take it no matter what I wear. And a given temperature feels much colder on a bike. Of course, if it's 16F, there's likely some ice and snow about, and riding a bicycle is treacherous in that. And St. Louis is on the eastern edge of the central time zone, so it'll be pitch dark out when he gets off work, also treacherous given traffic.
phaer 13y ago
Cars are convenient for an individual, but that is because you do out-source most of the negative aspects of them to the society around you. Just image how green, quiet and open streets (the space between buildings) could be without cars or with cars which deliver goods only, especially in bigger cities. The air would be a lot better too, roads need a lot of maintenance, cars need a lot of fuel, create a lot of pollution etc
- ars_technician 13y ago
  How do you envision goods being delivered to people then?
  - VLM 13y ago
    They would subsist merely on great clouds of smug, rainbow baths, meditation, and unicorn droppings. The rest of us, of course, will drive a car.
    - phaer 13y ago
      Wow, wheres the argument? I guess you are a very rational, thoughtful person compared to naive hippies like me, so why don't you use your skills?
      - VLM 13y ago
        OK I admit I didn't answer anything. They'd probably bum rides off their friends with cars, just like I did as a kid. Which doesn't scale and is very inconvenient and economically devastating. There are some interesting real estate issues such that you'd essentially be implementing feudalism where a peasant comes with the land and cannot leave it for other employment. Or the parasitic FIRE sector would have to back off a bit so housing is more of a commodity. Either way isn't happening without much unhappiness.
    - gress 13y ago
      Unicorns are GMOs and would never be permitted in the same city as rainbow baths.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I lived the earlier part of my adult life with a car (15-30), and have now been car free for 8 years or so. I live in a dense city where you have to win a lottery to buy a car. So I take a taxi most places, which is just as convenient and environmentally probably the same impact (sans the need for parking, taxis are nice in that way). Our city also has great delivery services, which my wife takes advantage of. She ordered some stuff one morning on Taobao and they were delivered that afternoon, no quadrocopter drone necessary. > It would be a lot easier to rely solely on public transport if you never had to carry anything. Amen. American public transit advocates should start looking at this aspect: even if we get density to enable public transport, there are a bunch of other services that are necessary to make car-less practical (local grocery stores, deliveries, etc...)

by gress 13y ago

GuiA 13y ago

Self driving electric cars that people pay for on a subscription model (rather than ownership) are the future I'd like to see. I hope it happens during my lifetime.

jowiar 13y ago
Taxis are a reasonable "turking" of this concept.
- samolang 13y ago
  And zipcar.
  - jowiar 13y ago
    Zipcar is great - I love it. But as far as a "self-driving car network" goes, one of the big advantages is that you don't need to worry about parking on either end. A higher percentage of cars are in the process of getting someone from point A to point B rather than taking up space somewhere.
- chriswarren 13y ago
  Taxis in general don't fully turk the concept, at least not in areas without reliable taxi volume. It's reasonable as long as you can rely on the taxi to show up within a decent amount of time of requesting it or expect to see one in passing in a short amount of time. Uber et al. have done a lot to help with this in my experience, but I've had many times where I'm in a location that taxis aren't typically in the immediate vicinity. Calling the cab company has often led to lots of waiting, not knowing when the car will get there, with cars sometimes never showing up at all. Knowing that the car is definitely coming to you (whether it's a self driving car, Uber, or any other service that tracks the vehicle's location) help remove that uncertainty and definitely makes it an acceptable option in more areas. That reliability and knowledge justify the extra cost for taking Uber (or requesting a self driving car some day) to me, more than the comfort or style of a town car compared to a cab.
  - jowiar 13y ago
    Agreed on all parts - for me, I live in DC, in a neighborhood with good cab density, and Uber is in the cab business as well as the swanky car business. I'll launch the app, hail a cab, and by the time I ride down the elevator of my building, there's a cab parked out front waiting for me. It's a reasonable approximation of the future.
- GuiA 13y ago
  True; although one major problem is that for n taxis, you have to pay for n cars and n human salaries, and human salaries end up being the biggest proportion in the final price. How much will the cost be reduced when we don't have to pay for human drivers anymore? Will we see 50$ a month (2013 dollars) plans for 50 hours of "chauffeuring"? (a quick google search shows that the average american spends ~40h driving a year)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    In some areas, rent to medallion holders might end up being the biggest proportion in the final price...
    - lambda 13y ago
      According to [this resarch](http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf), 57% of the fare (including tip) goes to the driver, 24% to vehicle and gas, 15% to the owner, and 4% to other expenses. So, the driver is a pretty substantial portion of that. Taking the driver out of the equation would substantially reduce the costs. If you increased medallion availability as well, and the owners were able to work with lower margins (or they were cooperatively owned), you could get the cost down even further, to maybe 1/3 of what taxis currently cost. That would be a huge difference in affordability for everyday use.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Nice! "That would be a huge difference in affordability for everyday use." Very true.
- lambda 13y ago
  Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. The driver takes something like 60% of the fare you pay for a taxi; I'm sure insurance eats up another sizeable chunk, and if self-driving cars are ever allowed on the streets, they will have to be safer than human drivers, and thus will have lower insurance costs. Furthermore, eliminating the driver means that you could use even smaller, cheaper cars, or fit more people or belongings per car, making self-driving cars more efficient. Taxis drivers also really frustrating to deal with (the majority in my city, at least); I can't count the number of taxi drivers who haven't been able to find my house, so I've had to play phone tag with dispatch while waiting 45 minutes for a cab that should have been there in 10, then finally hike down the hill, get in, and had them start the meter while they drove up it to pick up my belongings.
  - ghaff 13y ago
    >Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. But they have the advantage of actually existing. Whatever relatively near-term possibilities there may be for cars to operate on "autopilot" on certain highways, an urban environment where taxis are most common is probably one of the last places you'll see self-driving cars.
    - lambda 13y ago
      Sure. I'm just pointing out how these hypothetical self driving taxis/car shares would be a substantial improvement over actual taxis, enough so that they would be able to displace more than just the niche that taxis currently occupy but also car sharing programs like Zipcar and probably a substantial portion of car ownership. I think that I'll see them in my lifetime; I don't know if it'll be in 5 years (though I think that would be pushing it), 10 years, or 30 years, but I'm pretty sure they will come about, and will be a huge improvement over our current system of letting distracted, impatient people try to pilot cars through chaotic conditions.
lambda 13y ago
Yep. I've used Zipcar in lieu of a car before (and now own a car that I use maybe once every two weeks), but there was just enough friction due to having to walk to the nearest available car (the closest location to us wasn't always available, so we'd have to walk a few blocks further for the closest available car), having to pay for the time when the car is just parked at your destination before you return it, and not being suitable for the kind of longer range, weekend or week long trips that are a lot of what we need a car for. If the cars were self-driving, however, that would solve the majority of those problems. No need to hike to find the closest car, it would come to you. No need to pay for the time that it's parked while at your destination, it could be used by other people, and another car could come pick you up when you needed to leave. No need to return the car to where you picked it up, it would just go back to the closest available station and they'd rebalance themselves automatically.
nitrogen 13y ago
Subscriptions sure are convenient (and lucrative), but there's also something to be said for the certainty of an owned asset that will always be there, even if you run out of money later.

Shivetya 13y ago

when electric cars, or alternative fuels, become more prevalent and we have the ability for self driving cars the effect will become even more pronounced. With self driving cars and dedicated roads or lanes for them; we already have special toll lanes in many cities; the distance one lives from work may become a non factor. Throw in better tools for telework and cities may simply become the home to two groups, those who can afford their secure enclaves and those trapped by government subsidies. Cars gave freedom to many people, freedom to move about as they want, freedom to shop where they want, and freedom to live where they want and still do work. Automation will increase all of those options. Cities will need to reinvent themselves to be relevant.

tdees40 13y ago

The odd thing to me about cars is that people pick the most unusual use cases and then buy their cars off of that. So my dad likes to haul plywood once in a while, so he bought a pick-up. But 99.99% of the time he could use a subcompact. Likewise everyone knows people who have two kids and buy a van/SUV because they want an extra seat or two. You can always rent a car if you get into these sorts of situations, and it would be much cheaper than buying a huge car that runs with one person in it 90%+ of the time.

dllthomas 13y ago
It may not be unreasonable if the overhead to rent is high. It's coming down, though I have no idea what ranges are "too high" or where things currently stand relative to that.
- msandford 13y ago
  It's not even the monetary cost of renting, it's the time cost. If I have a pickup truck the time cost for me to buy something off of CL is driving there, inspecting it and then buying it. Done. If I have to rent a pickup to transport it back then I've got two choices. I can either rent the vehicle prior to looking at the item or after I decide to buy it for sure. If I always-rent then I'll kill at least 2hrs per CL purchase due to having to go to somewhere to rent said vehicle. If I rent-after-inspection I'll save those 2hrs when I don't buy at the expense of making two trips every time I do buy. Neither one is an attractive option. Two hours according to what they pay me is no joke in terms of cash so in either case if this happens say twice a month I've paid for the total difference between owning a subcompact and a pickup truck: note, gas, insurance, etc. I don't actually own a pickup truck and most of the time the things I pick up fit in my Forester just fine. But it's not unreasonable to make such a decision when you think through how much of a disaster it is to try and rent a vehicle on a semi-regular basis.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "It's not even the monetary cost of renting, it's the time cost." Absolutely. I'd definitely meant for that to be a part of "overhead" but it probably is worth calling out explicitly.

rayiner 13y ago

I lived car-dependent in Atlanta, without a car in Chicago and New York, and am car-dependent again in Wilmington, DE. The burden of carrying things never matched the hassle of circling around somewhere looking for a parking spot. Indeed, living in the New York City suburbs with a baby and no car (but on a train line) was way more convenient than living in Wilmington with a car. Running down the block to the store and shoving some items in the stroller basket is infinitely easier than putting the baby in a car seat, folding the stroller into the trunk, driving 12 miles to the strip mall, taking the baby out of the car seat, unfolding the stroller out of the trunk, putting the baby back in the car seat, folding the stroller into the trunk, driving 12 miles back from the strip mall, then finally taking the baby back out of the car seat and unfolding the stroller out of the trunk. It's as inconvenient and frustrating as it sounds. People have preferences, sure, but I'm sick of subsidizing suburbanization with my tax dollars. The public sector spends about $150 billion per year building and maintaining highways: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12043/01-19-highwayspending_brief.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x.... That's not counting local roads and streets. Nobody blinks an eye at that. But they freak out that Amtrak has been given $13 billion in federal subsidies in the 40 years since 1972. And don't get me started on the tax breaks for mortgages that disproportionately benefits suburbanites, etc. My wife and I have no problem with how much taxes we pay, but it drives us crazy that my parents pay a substantially lower rate despite making more money because they can deduct fully deduct the interest on their $1 million mortgage for their suburban McMansion. Meanwhile, my wife and I are phased out of student loan and childcare deductions despite making less money.

selmnoo 13y ago
> People have preferences, sure, but I'm sick of subsidizing suburbanization with my tax dollars. The public sector spends about $150 billion per year building and maintaining highways: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x... http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x.... That's not counting local roads and streets. Nobody blinks an eye at that. But they freak out that Amtrak has been given $13 billion in federal subsidies in the 40 years since 1972. Wow, never thought about it like that. Thanks for the comment.

astrodust 13y ago

> Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather... If only there was such a thing as a car that you could call on-demand, make use of when you wanted it, and then got rid of it when you were done. Even better, what about one that comes with a driver? A crazy idea, I know. If you live in the right neighborhood, a car is a nuisance. I can go somewhere and just walk right in. I don't have to spend time finding a parking spot, paying for parking, dealing with parking tickets, and all that related nuisance. Having owned a car, I found it shapes your decisions a lot. Things are only convenient if they're convenient to get to in a car. Considering how much money I'm not spending on a car, a cab is a bargain. If I need more than that, rent a van by the hour.

nilkn 13y ago
The following page estimates the true cost of car ownership at approximately $1.38/mile: http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html That's still quite a bit cheaper than taxi fares or the minimum $2.75 that Uber charges. Assuming that you spend $20k on purchasing the car, you'd make up for the cost of the car in just under 15,000 miles driven compared to taking Uber at the quoted rate.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Yeah, I don't really understand why people figure that self-driving cars/taxis/Uber/ZipCar would ever be cheaper per mile. They pay to operate their vehicles same as you do, except they also need to have some profit on top.
  - tedsanders 13y ago
    High fixed costs and economies of scale. Cars are high fixed cost capital goods. A taxi will be driven far more over the course of its lifetime than a personal car, so the fixed cost per mile is much lower. Also, economies of scale make purchases and maintenance and repair cheaper. These are two reasons to believe taxis should be cheaper than personal ownership. Finally, let me point to airplanes. It makes far more sense to rent an airplane than buy one because almost no one travels enough to justify the purchase. Cars are analogous. Edit: When I say cars are analogous, I mean that there are analogues between the situations. Both are vehicles with high fixed cost that can be either bought or rented. The situation is comparable, though obviously not the same. All I'm saying is that it's conceivable that someday the conditions could change so that it's more sensible to rent than buy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dionidium 13y ago

Everybody knows this is true, of course. I live three miles from work. To get here this morning I could have walked 3 blocks to the light rail station near my apartment, then another 4 or so blocks from the destination station to my office. This is pretty convenient, especially in St. Louis, where the vast, vast majority of residents don't have options nearly that good. But I didn't do it. It was 16F degrees when I left the house this morning. I drove my car.

dionidium 13y ago
I'll add that I'm a supporter of our transit system. I moved to my current apartment in part to be near it (and it plays a role in deciding where I'd like to work). But even after configuring my life about as much as is possible in this city to make the train an option, the car is still very often the most convenient, hassle-free option.
droob 13y ago
Ha! I was going to write almost this exact post -- I can travel from Maplewood to Washington Ave every day by bus in about an hour, or by car in about half an hour.
eru 13y ago
Put on some proper clothing and take your bike?
- jchrisa 13y ago
  I'm carfree in Portland Oregon and I LOVE biking in the icy mornings. What a great way to wake up.
- dded 13y ago
  Perhaps you're being facetious, but on the off change that you're just not familiar with 16F (-9C), understand that that's cold. I'm a runner, but I don't go out if it's below 20F--I can't take it no matter what I wear. And a given temperature feels much colder on a bike. Of course, if it's 16F, there's likely some ice and snow about, and riding a bicycle is treacherous in that. And St. Louis is on the eastern edge of the central time zone, so it'll be pitch dark out when he gets off work, also treacherous given traffic.

phaer 13y ago

Cars are convenient for an individual, but that is because you do out-source most of the negative aspects of them to the society around you. Just image how green, quiet and open streets (the space between buildings) could be without cars or with cars which deliver goods only, especially in bigger cities. The air would be a lot better too, roads need a lot of maintenance, cars need a lot of fuel, create a lot of pollution etc

ars_technician 13y ago
How do you envision goods being delivered to people then?
- VLM 13y ago
  They would subsist merely on great clouds of smug, rainbow baths, meditation, and unicorn droppings. The rest of us, of course, will drive a car.
  - phaer 13y ago
    Wow, wheres the argument? I guess you are a very rational, thoughtful person compared to naive hippies like me, so why don't you use your skills?
    - VLM 13y ago
      OK I admit I didn't answer anything. They'd probably bum rides off their friends with cars, just like I did as a kid. Which doesn't scale and is very inconvenient and economically devastating. There are some interesting real estate issues such that you'd essentially be implementing feudalism where a peasant comes with the land and cannot leave it for other employment. Or the parasitic FIRE sector would have to back off a bit so housing is more of a commodity. Either way isn't happening without much unhappiness.
  - gress 13y ago
    Unicorns are GMOs and would never be permitted in the same city as rainbow baths.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

I lived the earlier part of my adult life with a car (15-30), and have now been car free for 8 years or so. I live in a dense city where you have to win a lottery to buy a car. So I take a taxi most places, which is just as convenient and environmentally probably the same impact (sans the need for parking, taxis are nice in that way). Our city also has great delivery services, which my wife takes advantage of. She ordered some stuff one morning on Taobao and they were delivered that afternoon, no quadrocopter drone necessary. > It would be a lot easier to rely solely on public transport if you never had to carry anything. Amen. American public transit advocates should start looking at this aspect: even if we get density to enable public transport, there are a bunch of other services that are necessary to make car-less practical (local grocery stores, deliveries, etc...)