5 ms·
If somethings got to go, the obvious choice is cars. Indeed, that's what cities like London have aimed to do with initiatives like congestion pricing, which att
by alexqgb 12y ago
If somethings got to go, the obvious choice is cars. Indeed, that's what cities like London have aimed to do with initiatives like congestion pricing, which attach a prohibitively heavy cost to driving during the most congested times of day.
Rather, they attach an accurate price, forcing drivers to pay some of the costs that they generally impose on the public. I mean, the amount of space required per driver is wildly disproportionate with the demand on a public resource that every other form of transportation requires. Then there are the environmental costs, which include both noise and pollution. Again, these are way out of proportion in terms of the number of drivers vs. non drivers. They also do damage to commerce, in that pedestrian friendly zones are far more amenable to shopping, dining, etc. than streets that give preference to the needs of drivers. And of course, cars are basically lethal, whereas pedestrians, bikes, and even busses (especially when they have their own lanes) generally aren't.
Basically, cars are a bad deal for cities, and the 21st Century is going to see a sharp and concerted effort to push them out. Letting them in was a mistake. It's time to undo that error.
- jimmaswell 12y agoCars are a vital part of most people's lives and the economy. Most people don't want to be a slave to public transportation, including me. Getting rid of cars would be ridiculous.
- valleyer 12y ago“slave”?
- jimmaswell 12y agoYes, as in I don't get to choose when I go or exactly where to, can't just drive around, and I don't control the radio, among a multitude of other reasons that using your own car gives you more freedom. I'd rather not revolve my transportation around someone else's timetables.
- iamwithnail 12y agoYeah, that's not being a slave. In fact, the argument can be made that by insisting on driving to avoid any real - or perceived - inconvenience, you're making everyone else's journey that little bit less slick (I.e. Asserting your "freedom" impinges negatively on everyone else's ability to effectively do the same). Also,cars are an important part of most economies, but less so in bigger cities - and it points to the fact that a)they weren't always so and b) might not always need to be, maybe there's a better way, which is what some posters are suggesting. If you Remove the necessity of a car for some people, and make alternatives better, then there are probably a lot of benefits (pollution, construction costs, congestion, safety) to it. But no one (or very few, I guess, since this is HN and lots of opinions) is suggesting arbitrarily and unilaterally getting rid of cars.
- alexqgb 12y agoUm, that's not the definition of "slave". It's not even in the same ballpark as the definition of "slave". This is free advice, so you can take it for what it's worth, but if you've ever found yourself suffering from a limited amount of trust or respect from others, consider that it may be due to your apparently limited respect for the truth. Or basic English.
- jimmaswell 12y agoI think you are the one with deficiency in the language. "Slave" is used in that kind of nonliteral sense all the time. Slave to gas prices, slave to the weather, slave to fashion.
- MBlume 12y agoOk, but as parent says you are demanding public resources and not paying for them. Pay for them, and we can talk.
- jimmaswell 12y agoI do so with taxes already. I don't like the sound of extra fines for "congestion".
- TulliusCicero 12y agoCar use is heavily subsidized in many ways, so no, you really don't. Extra fees for congestion make sense, because the land that roads and parking use in the middle of cities is much more valuable than the land in suburban or rural areas. Gas taxes don't account for that difference. They treat every mile the same (or similarly), even when the cost of that infrastructure differs drastically.
- alexqgb 12y agoCongestion pricing is a fee, not a fine. Again, there's a difference. Let's keep the conversation honest, okay?
- alexqgb 12y agoPart of the reason that public transit is so bad is because it's having to compete with cars in areas that cars really don't belong. In cities where cars are not such a big part of the mix, public transit gets a lot better. And of course, where density drops sharply and public transit becomes unviable, cars make sense. In any case, this is not about "getting rid of cars", so it's dishonest of you to reframe the argument in those terms. As very specifically noted, this is about sharply limiting to getting rid of cars in dense urban cores. Big, big difference.