this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
96 points (85.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9692 readers
685 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

My original question was "How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs" but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's hard to drive what I don't own.

How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?

And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)

Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.

Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.

At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.

150 million a year is nothing, no shit it's only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you've been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.

but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too

Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.

This policy can't reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.

Then it's bad policy, and your local planners don't know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.

It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn't a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.