Debate About a Plan to Eliminate Private Vehicles

[Revoltingest]

**** trains.
**** planes.
Nice to have a car/truck that I can drive where
I want to go with what I want to take. No worries
about being rendered immobile by striking unions
paralyzing the country.

 

[Heyo]

I worry about what will happen in big cities when self-driving cars get good enough (and when the laws change to allow them to operate without a driver on board). When that happens, there's suddenly going to be a cross-elasticity between driving and paid parking.

If you, say, drive into Manhattan or downtown Toronto for lunch, parking will probably cost on the order of $10-20/h. If your autonomous electric car costs a buck an hour or less to run, the economically rational decision would be to get your car to just drive around instead of paying to park it.

There will also be a sweet spot of less expensive parking somewhere on the perimeter of the inner city.
And it is likely that there will be huge no-drive zones in the city anyway, with self-driving taxis as shuttle service.

 

[Kathryn]

By the way, shoes are overrated, I do fine without.

A person after my own heart. I hate shoes. I wear them as little as possible.

 

[Father Heathen]

It wouldn't work in the USA due to our public transportation being either **** poor or non existent (plus it has a negative stigma). Bike routes are very few and even sidewalks are limited in many areas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There will also be a sweet spot of less expensive parking somewhere on the perimeter of the inner city.
And it is likely that there will be huge no-drive zones in the city anyway, with self-driving taxis as shuttle service.

I don't see cars being banned from any North American downtown core in the foreseeable future.

This thread started out with an alarm call about a voluntary program to trade driver's licenses for transit passes. I've seen plenty of people freak out at the idea of London-style congestion charges being implemented in North America. Recently, Toronto and the province struck a deal for more provincial funding on the condition that the City never put tolls on the Gardiner or the DVP (the two City-owned expressways that feed the downtown).

I think there's no political appetite for something like that even if it makes sense.

 

[PureX]

Truth be told most of us could do everything we need to do transportation-wise with a glorified (weatherized) electric golf cart. They'd cost $10k brand new and would be very reliable and perpetually repairable. Longer trips could easily be handled using commuter trains and buses.

But none of this is about what's wise. It's all about what's profitable to those who make all the decisions. And wise transportation is not profitable transportation. Not profitable enough, anyway. So we won't be seeing any wise transportation decisions being made anytime soon.

 

[Heyo]

I don't see cars being banned from any North American downtown core in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, that was more about Europe. Every town that has more than three shops in a row, has a pedestrian zone, and they will get bigger in bigger cities. America is far behind us in that aspect, but it will come.

This thread started out with an alarm call about a voluntary program to trade driver's licenses for transit passes. I've seen plenty of people freak out at the idea of London-style congestion charges being implemented in North America. Recently, Toronto and the province struck a deal for more provincial funding on the condition that the City never put tolls on the Gardiner or the DVP (the two City-owned expressways that feed the downtown).

I think there's no political appetite for something like that even if it makes sense.

It makes sense for city planners. A pedestrian zone is a big, open air mall. Where they are, people are less likely to flee the inner city and property value stays high.

 

[Alien826]

Spoiler: Survival Lilly video about a plan to eliminate personal autos

I have a source video above (which you need not watch) which says that there is a plan among the very wealthy and those in influential circles to discourage personal ownership of vehicles. I myself didn't watch the whole video, however I would like to discuss this and whether its a good idea or is a scary idea. The video says its a loss of freedom. I am sympathetic to this view, however perhaps some people feel comfortable with little to no private car ownership. Perhaps there are reasons why autos should be discouraged?

From the video: In Europe it currently costs about 850 Euro (she says) to get a driving license. Lately Germany is offering drivers to trade that in for a permanent train pass. A clip is shown of someone at a podium talking about turning highways in LA into public parks. Sounds nice.

USA citizens can almost survive without autos, but we often have long distances between ourselves and our jobs and markets. Everything is sprawled. Partly this is because autos have been available, and so towns have fallen into disuse. I can imagine towns reviving in USA once we can no longer get to the next city and back home inside 2 hours. We'll have to shop in town. That's the possible upside that I can imagine.

Public transport here is minimal and is not hygenic or comfortable, does not feel safe either. Taxis are cost prohibitive. They are not for daily use, because the distances are long. Its not 1 mile but 20 at least in each direction. (32 km x 2) That is a hefty taxi charge to pay daily.

Autos double as lockers, which we often cannot get at the workplace or where we shop; but I'm sure that if personal cars are greatly reduced that public lockers will become more common due to being more of a necessity. At the moment I can barely imagine surviving without a car. Its like having no shoes.


So I'm putting up a vote, and its for people who live anywhere not just EU or USA.

I live in a small city in the USA. We sometimes, not often, visit friends and relatives in a neighboring state, which involves an 8-hour drive, one way.

We had a car each up to a couple of years ago, when we decided to just have one. We're both retired, so traveling to work is not involved. I did some arithmetic and decided that the expense saved (it costs a lot to own a car, purchase price, insurance, maintenance) would be more than taking a Uber on the rare occasions where we both needed the car at the same time.

It has worked out very well. In over two years I've used Uber once.

So how about getting rid of the one car and having none? Public transport exists (buses) but they don't always go where we want to go when we want to. It's that "last mile" that's the problem, especially when returning from shopping with many packages. I have trouble walking even relatively short distances. For the long trips, flying is an option, but there is still getting to and from the airport. And flying has become a pain. Railroad travel would be good, but there's not so much of it these days. Amazon (and others) has made shopping possible without leaving the home, but there are things that doesn't cover.

What could be done to make it better? Much better local public transportation would be a good start. Improved long distance transport that didn't involve flying (coaches?) also. I think we're near enough practically to consider self driving cars that come to your house to pick you up and return to a central depot at the end of the trip. The self driving could be just when the car is empty if that makes people feel more comfortable.

 

[anna.]

I like the idea of the 15 minute city and wherever it could be implemented I think it would be beneficial.

15-minute_city

The 15-minute city (FMC[2] or 15mC[3]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city.[4] This approach aims to reduce car dependency, promote healthy and sustainable living, and improve wellbeing and quality of life for city dwellers.[5]


Unfortunately, the conspiratorial jumped on the concept as tyrannical, and naturally, death threats ensued.

Climate of conspiracy: How 15-minute cities became a conspiratorial talking point

Pallavi Sethi investigates how an urban planning concept became a conspiratorial talking point.

www.logicallyfacts.com

However - I live in the suburbs and want and need my car. But if I could park it near a city center and walk from there I'd certainly do that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Spoiler: Survival Lilly video about a plan to eliminate personal autos

I have a source video above (which you need not watch) which says that there is a plan among the very wealthy and those in influential circles to discourage personal ownership of vehicles. I myself didn't watch the whole video, however I would like to discuss this and whether its a good idea or is a scary idea. The video says its a loss of freedom. I am sympathetic to this view, however perhaps some people feel comfortable with little to no private car ownership. Perhaps there are reasons why autos should be discouraged?

From the video: In Europe it currently costs about 850 Euro (she says) to get a driving license. Lately Germany is offering drivers to trade that in for a permanent train pass. A clip is shown of someone at a podium talking about turning highways in LA into public parks. Sounds nice.

USA citizens can almost survive without autos, but we often have long distances between ourselves and our jobs and markets. Everything is sprawled. Partly this is because autos have been available, and so towns have fallen into disuse. I can imagine towns reviving in USA once we can no longer get to the next city and back home inside 2 hours. We'll have to shop in town. That's the possible upside that I can imagine.

Public transport here is minimal and is not hygenic or comfortable, does not feel safe either. Taxis are cost prohibitive. They are not for daily use, because the distances are long. Its not 1 mile but 20 at least in each direction. (32 km x 2) That is a hefty taxi charge to pay daily.

Autos double as lockers, which we often cannot get at the workplace or where we shop; but I'm sure that if personal cars are greatly reduced that public lockers will become more common due to being more of a necessity. At the moment I can barely imagine surviving without a car. Its like having no shoes.


So I'm putting up a vote, and its for people who live anywhere not just EU or USA.

I've got bad knees, many roads here aren't ADA compliant and are in bad condition, the sun burns me in a few minutes during summer, I often have to travel to other towns (especially for medical stuff) and American cities are designed with a car in mind and public transportation is sparse and typically unavailable in rural areas.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Once I saw the ads for common pick up trucks to be sold for six figures new, it kind of makes sense that the goal is to get private vehicles out of the hands of the commoners and only for the wealthy.

I seriously think people are trying to regress the society back into the horse and buggy days. Granted it won't affect the Amish.

It will, to some extent. While they do not own or drive cars, they sometimes, out of necessity, catch a ride with their non-Amish friends.

 

[Quagmire]

Only problem with my pleasant sunshine fresh air, blue sky fantasy is when the weather turns and the snow and the blizzards will put quite a significant damper to that wonderful beautiful pleasant scenario

People have been dealing with weather since long before our personal rolling fortresses ever showed up.

If anything it would be a lot easier now considering some of the technologies that we have at our disposal that are ancestors didn't.

It wouldn't be that difficult to construct covered, heated bike paths, or bike paths with warming stations set along the way.

And of course there's always public transportation in the cities and suburbs.

As an aside, upper Michigan has some of the harshest weather in the United States, but it also hosts one of the few (non Amish) car-free communities in the country, Car-Free History and Horses – Mackinac Island

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I have a source video above (which you need not watch) which says that there is a plan among the very wealthy and those in influential circles to discourage personal ownership of vehicles. I myself didn't watch the whole video, however I would like to discuss this and whether its a good idea or is a scary idea.

Public transport here is minimal and is not hygenic or comfortable, does not feel safe either. Taxis are cost prohibitive. They are not for daily use, because the distances are long.

I have some complicated views on how modern transportation works. I think car driving seems like one of the most dangerous things we do, yet it is also one of the most essential, not only to get to work but do get to a lot of things in life that are enjoyable when you aren't at work, unless you just like to stay home

I think that if private vehicles were eliminated, it might seem possible that all public transportation fees would increase. If you find a taxi to cost a lot now, it might cost more when more pressure is put on the service to perform even more

I may need to return to the thread, because there is a lot to sort out about this

 

[crossfire]

Bad idea if the politicians decide to try to disenfranchise voters by making the polling places far away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would be terrific in Europe.

Not unless there is a 1000% increase in budget for public transport, with also a window for "on demand" public transport (so on YOUR schedule instead of the schedule of the transport operator).

People who think this is a good idea either haven't thought it through, or they work a 5 minute walk from where they live and have lost touch with actual reality.

Here's an example of my wife....
By car, she's at the office where she works in about 35 minutes.

Without a car, she would have to do the following:
- Get to the nearest train station (25min by bike; no bus lines available)
- After a 20min train ride, get off and get to the bus stop within 3 minutes to catch the required bus (28 minutes if you miss it)
- After a 10-ish minute busride, walk for another 4 km to the office.

So, assuming all goes well and she manages to catch that bus within 3 minutes (undoable if the train is just a bit late), she's looking at a home-work travel time increasing of ~220%.

And her office in Antwerp is still fairly close to home compared to people who work in Gent, Brussels, etc.

I used to do a job in the heart of Brussels as a consultant. Normally it's a 45min drive. During rush hours, off course, that became ~90min
I still drove. Taking public transport would have amounted to at least 140 minutes. Bike drive to the station, a train, a bus, a tram and then a 10min walk to get to the office.

And let's go a step further now....
Even with all those people on the roads in their cars during rush hour, even THEN busses, trains and trams to big cities are pretty much packed. To the point that you sometimes wonder "how on earth am I going to fit on that?" on certain lines.

Now imagine all those 10s of thousands of car drivers no longer having a car and also having to take those busses, trains and trams.


Perhaps if you design a city from scratch with "good" public transport in mind from the ground up, that would be feasible....
But in countries with existing cities that have grown over the centuries, sometimes millenia, and of which the traffic situations and public transport networks are all based on the assumption that most people have their own private transport?

Simply an idea so crazy that it's barely worth mentioning...


So in conclusion: I would say "no... this would not be good for europe at all".
Not even the countries with the best public transport lines would currently be able to accommodate all those extra commuters. Not a chance.
An enormous amount of extra vehicles and additional lines would be necessary.
It would cost many many billions and no matter how good of a job they would do - they would not be able to give people the same "freedom of travel" they enjoy today.

But people here take the car even to go to the park.

Sure, but that some people take the car when it isn't needed, is not an argument for saying that cars aren't needed, full stop.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is way out there, but you *can* simply shut down when it snows, aside from hospitals.

And who's gonna pay for that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What if several people owned a car together to share? Timeshare.

I'ld find that very awkard.

But most of all, I'ld miss being spontaneous.

Like last weekend. We woke up and it was a nice day.
"hey, let's go to coast"
Kids jumpin in the air of joy...
So we grab a bag with some swim clothes, a few soda's, quickly made some sandwiches... and jumped in the car and off we went.

I'ld consider it a real bummer to then having to say "ow, right, we can't... mr whats-his-name has the car today"

And then there's all that source of conflict of the others not having filled up the gastank, or didn't clean up the car, or hit something and didn't tell, or broke something and just left it so, etc.

I'ld absolutely hate "sharing" a car.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And who's gonna pay for that?

We all will, but we will all learn to take advantage of other aspects. Its not so bad, and there are benefits like taking a break. What keeps us going during snow days is extreme competition: if your business is open then mine has to be, to compete. Its like when Walmart used to be 24 hour in order to outcompete every other store. Nobody else could keep workers 24-7; but Walmart could. Therefore it captured more business in those hours. Now it is no longer open 24 hours, yet the world continues to turn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We all will,

But I, as the employer, am the one who's being "shut down". Why should I have to pay for that?

but we will all learn to take advantage of other aspects. Its not so bad, and there are benefits like taking a break.

What you suggested is not just "taking a break". It is more like closing the economy down 3 months (because if you can do it during snowy weather, then you can extend that to every time of "not good" weather, like "too hot" or "too much rain" or "windy" or ... where does it stop?) per year.

Remember what happened last time the economy was "shut down" for even only a small period of time during Covid?
Bankrupcies soared, market value evaporated, debt accumulated, inflation went up, etc. Governments had to pump billions into the economies just to keep them afloat.

Nothing about taking that "break" was good for anyone.

What keeps us going during snow days is extreme competition: if your business is open then mine has to be, to compete.

If my business isn't open, then there is no revenue regardless of what the competition does.
No revenue = no budget for wages.

So you feel link it's to snowy to go to work? Fine, stay home. Just don't expect me to pay you while you make snow angels with your kids in the garden.

Its like when Walmart used to be 24 hour in order to outcompete every other store. Nobody else could keep workers 24-7; but Walmart could. Therefore it captured more business in those hours. Now it is no longer open 24 hours, yet the world continues to turn.

Yeah, that's the same.....

Not being open 24/7 vs complete shutdown of any and all activities. Uhu, very comparable.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But I, as the employer, am the one who's being "shut down". Why should I have to pay for that?



What you suggested is not just "taking a break". It is more like closing the economy down 3 months (because if you can do it during snowy weather, then you can extend that to every time of "not good" weather, like "too hot" or "too much rain" or "windy" or ... where does it stop?) per year.

Remember what happened last time the economy was "shut down" for even only a small period of time during Covid?
Bankrupcies soared, market value evaporated, debt accumulated, inflation went up, etc. Governments had to pump billions into the economies just to keep them afloat.

Nothing about taking that "break" was good for anyone.



If my business isn't open, then there is no revenue regardless of what the competition does.
No revenue = no budget for wages.

So you feel link it's to snowy to go to work? Fine, stay home. Just don't expect me to pay you while you make snow angels with your kids in the garden.


Yeah, that's the same.....

Not being open 24/7 vs complete shutdown of any and all activities. Uhu, very comparable.

I didn't mean to minimize the troubles caused by the Covid shutdown, and I didn't think we were talking about months or about indefinite periods of time like with Covid. I miscommunicated. I was thinking about very short periods of time like 3 days or less or the occasional week.