Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The US probably should move away from a car centric society for a variety of reasons (or rather, provide robust opportunities for those who want to live a car free or car less life). You dissuade people from car ownership by building non car friendly urban areas [2] [3] and attracting productive members of society there (retirees are also an option of course, different market to market to though ["Sun City", "The Villages", etc). A superior option becomes the default or desired option. With stagnant wages, economically crippled younger generations, etc is ~$700/month in car payments [1] plus operating costs sustainable? Probably not. That's earned income that can go towards more productive uses for citizens (who choose to live a car free experience).

If people want cars, there are still ~82 million SFH existing housing units (+ whatever comes online over time) where that dream can be realized. That's not to say you can't still love your car, policy simply wouldn't cater to it.

Tangentially, think in systems.

[1] https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-ca...

[2] https://culdesac.com/

[3] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/

> You dissuade people from car ownership by building non car friendly urban areas

One of the things that amazes me about Tokyo is how many cars there are. For being the best public transportation system in the world.. people still have cars. To the point of installing parking lifts in their (tiny) homes!

If you can't convince even the Japanese to give up cars, your cause is lost. The best we seem to be able to do is to convince them to drive smaller K cars.

> and attracting productive members of society there

I agree that suddenly things are easier if you can exclude the poor, homeless, handicapped and so on. Unfortunately that's illegal, immoral and impractical.

> That's earned income that can go towards more productive uses for citizens (who choose to live a car free experience).

Except people overwhelming DO choose cars. This isn't because they've been hoodwinked into it.

> If people want cars, there are still ~82 million SFH existing housing units (+ whatever comes online over time) where that dream can be realized.

And those businesses who fail to provide parking will not attract customers. Apartments without parking will have trouble finding renters (or those renters will park nearby on roads or in parking lots).

People are not cattle. You can't just tweak their pen until they do what you want. They will dissassemble and modify it to accomodate their needs.

> One of the things that amazes me about Tokyo is how many cars there are. For being the best public transportation system in the world.. people still have cars. To the point of installing parking lifts in their (tiny) homes!

Tokyo has a similar number of cars per capita to NYC (~450) - which is still almost 50% less than the U.S. average (~830). The size of the cars also makes an enormous difference to safety (pedestrian and driver) as well as environmental and road maintenance costs.

> Except people overwhelming DO choose cars. This isn't because they've been hoodwinked into it.

From my perspective it's not "hoodwinked" so much as 70 years of car dependent infrastructure development and car companies practicing capitalism. Most Americans don't think twice about it. Maybe we would if we had a viable alternative... Ironically, developing for cars was supposed to make us more free, but now it's the only option in most of the US.

Notjustbikes has an interesting video about car size in America - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo TLDR: they're getting bigger, more expensive, and less safe, with little extra utility.

> From my perspective it's not "hoodwinked" so much as 70 years of car dependent infrastructure development and car companies practicing capitalism.

And Cuba has cars because...? Every country where people can afford cars, they buy them. If they can't afford them, they make a car they can afford.

Parent brought up people spending $700/mo to own a car. You can get a car much cheaper. Why do people buy nice cars? The person who hates mowing their lawn doesn't buy a fancy lawnmower. People buy nice cars because they like nice cars and want nice cars.

Personal vehicles solve a lot of problems that public transportation doesn't. If you only view cars as a way from point A to point B, you won't ever understand why cars are so critically important, desired and fought for.

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I think that the degree to which America is car dependent is ridiculously stupid for our safety, solvency of our cities, and enjoyment of everyday life. In Europe, many people are comparably rich but there are far fewer cars. There is also significantly better public transit.

If your entire city is designed for cars, and there are some buses that sit in traffic with everyone else, I'm not surprised that people buy cars. It doesn't mean that's what they want - it's just the only option.

In the end I think viable alternatives should be available. I think it's stupid to drive 15 miles into a city on the same 8 lane highway as everyone when 1 or 2 train tracks could meet the same demand and function (and a streetcar/subway/walk for the rest of the journey).

I do not think cars shouldn't exist. I think they're completely necessary for tons of people at the moment, but I think we should invest in other options that are working extremely well in other places.

> when 1 or 2 train tracks could meet the same demand and function

They can't.

You are treating cars as a way to get from point A to point B. Trains and buses are ways to do that. If cars were just a way to go from your home to downtown, you can in fact replace them with a train.

Yet if you build even very nice, very expensive trains that run frequently.. a bunch of people will still use cars. The train does not replace the car.

A car is both a set of abstract things (freedom, status, privacy) and practical things (storage, functional space, a moddable thing).

Build all the trains you want. Have high quality protected cyclist lanes. Have functional bus programs.

None of those things will replace personal vehicles.

> None of those things will replace personal vehicles.

Unless you mean in an abstract sense, They do, and they have. By replacement I mean "if there were a train to get me to work, I would take it instead of driving". I don't feel as free or private in a train, but I am using one instead of a car, and I would call that a replacement.

I am treating cars as a way to get from point A to point B because this is what they are to most people, and it's exactly why many people would and do use viable alternatives as a replacement: because getting from point A to point B is a more valuable function in many cases than freedom, status, privacy, storage, functional space, and mods. Europeans do not have 830 cars per capita because they have other methods of transportation that are a replacement for cars. I feel like this goes without saying, but just because a car is more private than a train etc does not mean trains shouldn't exist, which has essentially been the development ideology in America for the past 70 years, and what I'm arguing should change.

> People are not cattle. You can't just tweak their pen until they do what you want. They will dissassemble and modify it to accomodate their needs.

Walkable cities and natural density curves have been around for 1000s of years, if anything car-centric society is the tweak not the other way around. This form of urban development (including cars) currently exists throughout Europe and is by most measures very successful so I'm not sure why people feel the need to consternate about it as if its never been tried.

>With stagnant wages, economically crippled younger generations, etc is ~$700/month in car payments [1] plus operating costs sustainable?

This is like the most ridiculous example of unaffordability you could have cooked up. When I was young and poor, I bought a used 17-year old honda accord for $1000 and drove it around for nearly a decade. It worked fine. So yeah, a $700 car payment would have been absurd, but... I never subjected myself to that artificial constraint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com