WP: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

[GuitarStv]

I bike to work in the winter here in Toronto (regularly gets into negative temperatures, but not below -10 very often).  I won't take the bike if there's been freezing rain, or if there's freezing rain forecasted . . . but the actual cold weather cycling isn't all that bad.  The problem is that you absolutely have to have a shower at the destination.  Even with the best layering approaches to winter bikewear you're going to end up sweating a ton.

You are on a manual bike?  With my ebike I find that I can cruise at ~20 mph and am good with cool down period and a few baby wipes when I get into the office (our small office had a shower plumbed but never installed).  But have not ridden with proper winter gear yet.

Yes, a bicycle.  Not one of those electric motorcycles with pedals.  :P

[chemistk]

To all the "we can't do it like the Netherlands" people here, that's just a load of crap.

The greater Toronto area is notably terribly for pedestrians and commuting vs. NL and yet compare the mass transit options and the pedestrian and bike focus that some of downtown and even certain parts of greater TO have, and it's vastly, vastly better than the US.

The point isn't to get rid of all the cars on the road, or to re-house everyone closer to the city center. Those two things are certainly some of the better solutions, but right now our public transportation and pedestrian/bike safety is absolutely atrocious.

If the US could just do four things over the next 40 years, coupled with the nearly inevitable dominance of electric mobility, we'd be in a totally different, better, more equitable transportation environment.

1) Rework zoning laws that allow for and even incentivize development of denser residential and mixed-use neighborhoods.
2) Invest in regional public transportation that would enable inter- and intra-city travel to become an affordable and attractive option and not just something "that the poors ride".
3) Encourage and incentivize, where possible, the reconfiguration of town and city centers to promote foot and bike transportation over car transportation
4) Discourage and disincentivize restrictive commercial property zoning, especially requirements for parking, lot green-space, and lot setbacks. Bonus points for strongly discouraging stupid strip malls.

In all but the most rural areas, each and every one of these is not only feasible, but would bring stability and profitability over the long term to dying economic centers. Nobody needs to move today, period. Nobody should be told they need to abandon their current lifestyle. But we should all recognize that we can't keep pretending that the way we approach urban planning, mobility, infrastructure, and construction cannot proceed in perpetuity.

[AlanStache]

...

Yes, a bicycle.  Not one of those electric motorcycles with pedals.  :P

:-)  Mine is pedal assist so I have to put in some work.  Got passed like I was standing still by a fat tire mini electric motorcycle the other day.

[mm1970]

A house closer to work that is a 3/2, 1400 sf, bottom of the housing market just sold yesterday for $1.8M. 

It's insane if a 1400sf house is "bottom of the market".  That's a big (social and environmental) problem, that you don't have smaller homes than that, even more than the price.

Well, it really depends on the town.  There are a lot of little areas in my town that vary.

The town near work (Goleta) was mostly built in the 1960s, so that kind of ranch home is the norm.  That is what you will mostly find.  There are attached condos also, but I was referring to the "single family home" market.  Though condos really start at $800k now.

Where I live now (Santa Barbara), there are houses that were built in the 1920's and 1940's, in addition to newer.  So, my house is 1100 sf no garage.  My house is the "bottom of the SFH market" in my town.  Similar houses in my hood could be a 1920's house that is 2BR/1BA 950 sf with a single car garage.  These are $1.4M.

Then there's Montecito, where Oprah and the Royals live.  You (and I) don't want to know what the "bottom of the market" is there.

[mm1970]

But what about all the single people, the couples without children, the older people wanting to downsize? Not everyone lives in a "traditional" family unit and even those who do don't live in them all their lives.   People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

The market issue for builders can be taken care of through proper urban planning, using it to create a mix of housing types and ownership models.  It's a big mistake to think that a nuclear family in a suburban SFH on a lot of a certain size is the only or best way to go.

Older couples moving to downsize are more likely to be looking to switch to a single level home, and something with less maintenance. That generally means newer construction which is probably going to be 1600 sf at least, unless built in an affordable housing situation.
I'm not really sure why you have such inflexible ideas about how things should be for others, but I could name a ton of reasons why a couple (or even a single person) might want a home larger than a 800 sf, 2br /1ba house. Having a roommate, having family out of day trip distance, having frequent guests, grandchildren who sleep over due to a parent's schedule, having a personal office, a home gym, working remotely, having a hobby that lends itself to lots of space (sewing, art etc). I can say at a bare minimum I'm never going to purchase a property with 1 bathroom, its a non starter for many people.

Yep...there are three people in my house (four or five for most of the summer), and two of us work 100% from home.  A tiny house is a non-starter.

We had 4 at home full time in a 2BR, 1BA house for a full year during COVID.  Two parents WFH, 2 kids virtual school.  No garage, no basement, no attic.  It was fucking hell.  I took conf calls in the car.  We literally didn't have enough rooms for people.  Now when DH and I both work from home (like the last 2 weeks), at least the kids were in school.  So my "office" is the bedroom.   I can literally touch the bed and pet the dog sleeping on it from where I'm sitting. DH's "office" is the living room.  I can totally see how the "kind of house that works when you are away from 8 to 5" is totally different from the kind you need when you are at home all the time.

[Cranky]

I would like to think that high gas prices would push people to make better environmental choices, but frankly, I think it's just going to give us another round of Trump in the White House.

I belong to an online group of conventionally aged retirees, and it's all - gas prices have never been so high! My retirement account has never been so low! No one can afford groceries!

And it's like not only have they forgotten the 1980s, but they were in a coma in 2008...

[PDXTabs]

I would like to think that high gas prices would push people to make better environmental choices, but frankly, I think it's just going to give us another round of Trump in the White House.

I belong to an online group of conventionally aged retirees, and it's all - gas prices have never been so high! My retirement account has never been so low! No one can afford groceries!

And it's like not only have they forgotten the 1980s, but they were in a coma in 2008...

"When it comes to oil shocks, we have the memory of goldfish." - Henry Grabar.

I don't think that it is just the retirees. We are doomed.

[ChpBstrd]

I would like to think that high gas prices would push people to make better environmental choices, but frankly, I think it's just going to give us another round of Trump in the White House.

I belong to an online group of conventionally aged retirees, and it's all - gas prices have never been so high! My retirement account has never been so low! No one can afford groceries!

And it's like not only have they forgotten the 1980s, but they were in a coma in 2008...

But they don't have commutes, right?

[maizefolk]

I would like to think that high gas prices would push people to make better environmental choices, but frankly, I think it's just going to give us another round of Trump in the White House.

I belong to an online group of conventionally aged retirees, and it's all - gas prices have never been so high! My retirement account has never been so low! No one can afford groceries!

And it's like not only have they forgotten the 1980s, but they were in a coma in 2008...

The oil embargo in the 1970s gave us a generation of more fuel efficient (and smaller) cars. We even saw reductions in highway speed limits to conserve fuel. It's just that when prices came down, a lot of those changes faded with time.

I don't see any reason not to expect similar changes in the medium term if prices stay high again. It's just a question of whether we'll sustain them or abandon them when/if fuel prices come back down.

[PDXTabs]

This happened to pop up in my social media feed today:
During this year’s budget process, Cheh proposed overhauling the city’s vehicle regulation framework. Annual fees for machines under 3,500 pounds would remain at $72/year, while those from 3,500 to 5,000 pounds would now cost $175. The fee for registering a car between 5,000 and 6,000 pounds would rise to $250. The biggest hit is aimed at a new category created for SUVs and trucks weighing over 6,000 pounds: Their owners would now have to shell out $500 per year.
...
European lawmakers, on the other hand, are already targeting truck bloat. Last year the mayor of Tübingen, Germany, proposed a 600% increase in parking fees for SUVs, to €180, declaring that “there should be a noticeable difference between the fees small city cars and big sport utility vehicles have to pay, which actually aren’t needed in the city.” In France, new non-electric cars are taxed an extra €10 for each kilogram over 1,800 kilograms (about 4,000 pounds). - Bloomberg: A City Fights Back Against Heavyweight Cars

[fuzzy math]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

90% of the threads that former player participates in are solely for the purpose of saying how much they hate Americans... Its not that I take it personally, I'm just sick of seeing it. Get a new schtick.

[alsoknownasDean]

When I lived in the SE, my coworkers sometimes made fun of me for driving a Corolla instead of a pick-up truck.

There are definitely areas of the US where driving a smaller car will get comments.  I periodically have to travel (in my Honda Fit) to more rural areas for my job and the folks I work with in those locations overwhelmingly drive much larger vehicles and I always get at least one remark about my "tiny car" and guys saying they "need something bigger than that to be comfortable".  Which is ridiculous because I'm a 5'9" female, I'm as tall or taller than many of these dudes.  And it's not like the Dutch are known for their huge cars.

Not just the US I think. I had comments when I was driving a small 3 door hatchback like 'how do you fit in it?' (FWIW I'm a 5'11" male and fit just fine). I ended up replacing it with a bigger car* in late 2020 and subsequently had comments like 'that's a man's car'.

*Long story short, the hatchback needed work and I inherited this car. Next car will be electric :)

There's always the whole discretionary travel vs non-discretionary travel issue.

[PDXTabs]

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

90% of the threads that former player participates in are solely for the purpose of saying how much they hate Americans... Its not that I take it personally, I'm just sick of seeing it. Get a new schtick.

Canadians are Americans* too, at least in the sense that the live in the Americas and have very similar consumption and urban planning patters to the people in the USA.

I don't agree with former player on everything, but I agree with them on this. Along those lines if North Americans don't want to be criticized for hoarding resources and destroying the environment maybe they should stop. Seriously, it's like their schtick. I write that as a natural born US citizen.

* - In some parts of the world it is still mildly offensive to call yourself "American" to refer to US citizenship. Like we own two fucking continents.

EDITed to add quote from the above:
In Europe, around 36 kg of resources are extracted per person per day, excluding the unused resource extraction, whereas 43 kg are consumed per person per day (see Figure 9). Europeans therefore need resources imported from other world regions to maintain their level of consumption.

Consumption is even higher in other world regions. An average North American consumes around 90 kg per day; inhabitants in Oceania about 100 kg per day. On average, in comparison to Europe, people in these continents have larger houses, eat more meat and drive bigger cars. These differences in lifestyle increase resource consumption. Far fewer resources are consumed in other world regions. In Asia, resource consumption is about equal to resource extraction at around 14 kg per person per day. The average resource consumption of an African is only 10 kg per day (compared to the extraction of 15 kg per day).

[former player]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

90% of the threads that former player participates in are solely for the purpose of saying how much they hate Americans... Its not that I take it personally, I'm just sick of seeing it. Get a new schtick.

Again, I don't hate Americans (mostly meaning US Americans) but your politics in the matter of climate change, guns and abortion are disfunctional and harmful (in the case of abortion mainly to yourselves, in the case of guns to yourselves and your neighbours, and in the case of climate change to the whole world) and I don't see a problem in pointing that out in political threads.

[Shane]

Another natural born US citizen here, who doesn't 'hate' Americans, just the lifestyle choices many seem to be doubling down on, rather than changing in the face of new information. It's not okay for North Americans to hog up multiples more than our fair share of the planet's resources. We should just stop already.

[maizefolk]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

90% of the threads that former player participates in are solely for the purpose of saying how much they hate Americans... Its not that I take it personally, I'm just sick of seeing it. Get a new schtick.

Canadians are Americans* too, at least in the sense that the live in the Americas and have very similar consumption and urban planning patters to the people in the USA.

I don't agree with former player on everything, but I agree with them on this. Along those lines if North Americans don't want to be criticized for hoarding resources and destroying the environment maybe they should stop. Seriously, it's like their schtick. I write that as a natural born US citizen.

* - In some parts of the world it is still mildly offensive to call yourself "American" to refer to US citizenship. Like we own two fucking continents.

You dropped one of my quotes of the person in question, which I have inserted back in as it is important to understand my reason for posting. If former player just wants to call americans* resource hoarders and deal with the blowback that is their decision to make.

The behavior I was calling out was that they were misrepresenting what they'd actually said in this thread to "take it personally" response. My impression is that they were doing this in order to make more deprecating remarks targeted based on national origin (or if you prefer based on origin on either of two continents, although this would require the person we're discussing to be quite ignorant of the difference in car culture between the US and, for example, Brazil).

And I strongly dislike that sort of manipulation and pseudo-gas lighting. In an oral conversation this sort of behavior runs the risk of degenerating into genuine gaslighting "Why are you acting so angry? The only thing I said was that it's possible to live in a smaller house." But in the written medium of the forum it is easy to point to the written record of what was actually said to prompt the same emotional reactions from other people

*There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

[former player]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

90% of the threads that former player participates in are solely for the purpose of saying how much they hate Americans... Its not that I take it personally, I'm just sick of seeing it. Get a new schtick.

Canadians are Americans* too, at least in the sense that the live in the Americas and have very similar consumption and urban planning patters to the people in the USA.

I don't agree with former player on everything, but I agree with them on this. Along those lines if North Americans don't want to be criticized for hoarding resources and destroying the environment maybe they should stop. Seriously, it's like their schtick. I write that as a natural born US citizen.

* - In some parts of the world it is still mildly offensive to call yourself "American" to refer to US citizenship. Like we own two fucking continents.

You dropped one of my quotes of the person in question, which I have inserted back in as it is important to understand my reason for posting. If former player just wants to call americans* resource hoarders and deal with the blowback that is their decision to make.

The behavior I was calling out was that they were misrepresenting what they'd actually said in this thread to "take it personally" response. My impression is that they were doing this in order to make more deprecating remarks targeted based on national origin (or if you prefer based on origin on either of two continents, although this would require the person we're discussing to be quite ignorant of the difference in car culture between the US and, for example, Brazil).

And I strongly dislike that sort of manipulation and pseudo-gas lighting. In an oral conversation this sort of behavior runs the risk of degenerating into genuine gaslighting "Why are you acting so angry? The only thing I said was that it's possible to live in a smaller house." But in the written medium of the forum it is easy to point to the written record of what was actually said to prompt the same emotional reactions from other people

*There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

Was that to me?  Here's the full text of the post to which people first started objecting -

But what about all the single people, the couples without children, the older people wanting to downsize? Not everyone lives in a "traditional" family unit and even those who do don't live in them all their lives.   People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

The market issue for builders can be taken care of through proper urban planning, using it to create a mix of housing types and ownership models.  It's a big mistake to think that a nuclear family in a suburban SFH on a lot of a certain size is the only or best way to go.

I stand by that post.  I don't think it "insulted a large group of people" as it was accused of doing.  But my apologies if anyone who objected to my subsequent reply felt insulted by my calling them "American".

[bacchi]

Another natural born US citizen here, who doesn't 'hate' Americans, just the lifestyle choices many seem to be doubling down on, rather than changing in the face of new information. It's not okay for North Americans to hog up multiples more than our fair share of the planet's resources. We should just stop already.

We'll eventually stop but, sadly, it'll be far too late.

[fuzzy math]

It WOULD be possible for people to live in smaller homes, if it was actually possible...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/upshot/housing-market-slow-moving.html

[PDXTabs]

There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

I look forward to meeting one IRL. IRL I've never had anyone get offended by referring to people who are from the Americas as American. I look forward to hearing from Amerigo Vespucci if he has a different take on it. I have however met multiple people on multiple continents that think that referring to US citizenship as "American" is offensive.

[OtherJen]

There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

I look forward to meeting one IRL. IRL I've never had anyone get offended by referring to people who are from the Americas as American. I look forward to hearing from Amerigo Vespucci if he has a different take on it. I have however met multiple people on multiple continents that think that referring to US citizenship as "American" is offensive.

I'm genuinely curious what label we should use instead. "United Statesian" doesn't roll off the tongue, and Mexico is also a "United States."

[Cranky]

I would like to think that high gas prices would push people to make better environmental choices, but frankly, I think it's just going to give us another round of Trump in the White House.

I belong to an online group of conventionally aged retirees, and it's all - gas prices have never been so high! My retirement account has never been so low! No one can afford groceries!

And it's like not only have they forgotten the 1980s, but they were in a coma in 2008...

But they don't have commutes, right?

That doesn't mean they aren't accustomed to driving a big old truck 30 miles/day.

[GuitarStv]

There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

I look forward to meeting one IRL. IRL I've never had anyone get offended by referring to people who are from the Americas as American. I look forward to hearing from Amerigo Vespucci if he has a different take on it. I have however met multiple people on multiple continents that think that referring to US citizenship as "American" is offensive.

I'm genuinely curious what label we should use instead. "United Statesian" doesn't roll off the tongue, and Mexico is also a "United States."

We're more of an "America Lite - same great problems, half the firearms".

[PDXTabs]

There are plenty of Canadians who find it genuinely offensive to be called "Americans".

I look forward to meeting one IRL. IRL I've never had anyone get offended by referring to people who are from the Americas as American. I look forward to hearing from Amerigo Vespucci if he has a different take on it. I have however met multiple people on multiple continents that think that referring to US citizenship as "American" is offensive.

I'm genuinely curious what label we should use instead. "United Statesian" doesn't roll off the tongue, and Mexico is also a "United States."

I usually rephrase the answer and say "I'm from The States" or "I'm a US citizen." When I was in high school Spanish I was told to describe my citizenship as estado-unidense which does pretty well translate to United Statesian but it is true that Mexico is technically Estados Unidos Mexicanos. But, Mexicans call themselves mexicano so it isn't confusing or offensive AFAIK.

[PDXTabs]

We're more of an "America Lite - same great problems, half the firearms".

Give yourself a little credit. You have a parliamentary system, health care, affordable university, a carbon tax, graduated licensing for firearms, and that's just off the top of my head. If you could just stop mining for tar sands oil and designing your cities to look like US cities you would be top notch AFAICT. You're way further along than the USA. Oh, and the cheese embargo. Don't forget the great Canadian cheese embargo.

[Arbitrage]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather. 

[Paper Chaser]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather.

Sure, people can learn to deal with the weather. And they can learn to deal with hauling goods from a shopping trip in a basket or trailer. And they can learn to moderate their spending and invest. And they can learn to eat healthy foods and exercise. People can learn many, many things. But they have to be motivated to do it. Reality is, that a bike, or e bike requires compromise that most people would find inconvenient or undesirable. The only way that change really takes hold is if the new option is better than the previous option, not when it requires more compromise.

I'm not saying that it's not worth investing in better planning and infrastructure. I'm not saying that personal vehicles are always better than other options. All I'm saying is that if you want the status quo to change, then you have to present an  option that is clearly better, or people have to be really motivated to deal with the drawbacks. I don't see people on a large scale being very motivated to give up their climate controlled vehicles so they can learn to deal with the weather.

[Weisass]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather.

Sure, people can learn to deal with the weather. And they can learn to deal with hauling goods from a shopping trip in a basket or trailer. And they can learn to moderate their spending and invest. And they can learn to eat healthy foods and exercise. People can learn many, many things. But they have to be motivated to do it. Reality is, that a bike, or e bike requires compromise that most people would find inconvenient or undesirable. The only way that change really takes hold is if the new option is better than the previous option, not when it requires more compromise.

I'm not saying that it's not worth investing in better planning and infrastructure. I'm not saying that personal vehicles are always better than other options. All I'm saying is that if you want the status quo to change, then you have to present an  option that is clearly better, or people have to be really motivated to deal with the drawbacks. I don't see people on a large scale being very motivated to give up their climate controlled vehicles so they can learn to deal with the weather.

I’m at the point where I think the only way you’re going to get folks to utilize public transit biking walking and running a little bit more is if you make cars less convenient. That means taking away some driving infrastructure to make space for bike lanes and other accomodations for folks who aren’t in a car. Not that I see any interest in that especially in the suburbs, but I don’t see it happening any other way at least not anytime soon.

[PDXTabs]

I’m at the point where I think the only way you’re going to get folks to utilize public transit biking walking and running a little bit more is if you make cars less convenient. That means taking away some driving infrastructure to make space for bike lanes and other accomodations for folks who aren’t in a car. Not that I see any interest in that especially in the suburbs, but I don’t see it happening any other way at least not anytime soon.

I think that the other way is making cars/petrol more expensive. We saw this in 2008. Of course adding accommodations for non-car users helps too.

[Shane]

Yeah, like, how about, if you want to drive your car from your acre lot out in the exurbs into the city center, it'll cost you $1/mile driven, and parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking, will set you back $65. Whereas, riding a bike into the city center would be free, along with free indoor parking. Wonder if that would get some people out of their cars and onto bikes?

BTW, anyone else on https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/?

[Paper Chaser]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather.

Sure, people can learn to deal with the weather. And they can learn to deal with hauling goods from a shopping trip in a basket or trailer. And they can learn to moderate their spending and invest. And they can learn to eat healthy foods and exercise. People can learn many, many things. But they have to be motivated to do it. Reality is, that a bike, or e bike requires compromise that most people would find inconvenient or undesirable. The only way that change really takes hold is if the new option is better than the previous option, not when it requires more compromise.

I'm not saying that it's not worth investing in better planning and infrastructure. I'm not saying that personal vehicles are always better than other options. All I'm saying is that if you want the status quo to change, then you have to present an  option that is clearly better, or people have to be really motivated to deal with the drawbacks. I don't see people on a large scale being very motivated to give up their climate controlled vehicles so they can learn to deal with the weather.

I’m at the point where I think the only way you’re going to get folks to utilize public transit biking walking and running a little bit more is if you make cars less convenient. That means taking away some driving infrastructure to make space for bike lanes and other accomodations for folks who aren’t in a car. Not that I see any interest in that especially in the suburbs, but I don’t see it happening any other way at least not anytime soon.

I agree. That's a big reason why so many European cities have higher rates of cycling and walkability.  Fuel is much more expensive. Owning a car is much more expensive. The infrastructure is much different with generally narrower roads and lower speed limits. And there is often viable mass transit as an alternative option.

[PDXTabs]

parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking

Some correctly priced on-street-parking is generally considered a good thing. Cars parked on streets have a traffic calming effect and also provide a physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic.

[AlanStache]

Sure people can learn to drive cars everywhere but first you have to build parking at all the destinations then you have to build stroads that are big enough to carry all them.  Then you have to buy and install all the stop lights to control the intersections.  then you have to devote your police force to making sure everyone obeys the traffic laws and you have to make everyone accept the knockon effects of this in terms of everyone's almost only interaction with law enforcement being a traffic stop and being negative.  Then you get to convince people that they should finance this big metal box that requires continual maintenance, fuel, insurance and taxes.  Then you get to convince everyone that they should pay more so they have a place to store the metal box near there home so it is conveniently available when they want to use it.  And you people to forget  that moving there body can feel good - you need to convince them that sitting in a ultra fast powered wheel chair is the peak of civilization. This could have been even longer too...

[Shane]

parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking

Some correctly priced on-street-parking is generally considered a good thing. Cars parked on streets have a traffic calming effect and also provide a physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic.

If, for some reason, cars had to be parked on streets, I guess parking protected bike lanes wouldn't be all bad, but my strong preference is for people who feel the need to own cars to figure out, on their own, a place to park them on private property. I don't consent to my public streets being used as a parking lot. I feel like picnic tables, jungle gyms, swings, or trampolines would also have a traffic calming effect, without all the negatives associated with parked cars. Japan seems to get along just fine with little to no on street parking.

[Villanelle]

parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking

Some correctly priced on-street-parking is generally considered a good thing. Cars parked on streets have a traffic calming effect and also provide a physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic.

If, for some reason, cars had to be parked on streets, I guess parking protected bike lanes wouldn't be all bad, but my strong preference is for people who feel the need to own cars to figure out, on their own, a place to park them on private property. I don't consent to my public streets being used as a parking lot. I feel like picnic tables, jungle gyms, swings, or trampolines would also have a traffic calming effect, without all the negatives associated with parked cars. Japan seems to get along just fine with little to no on street parking.

Japan is really interesting.  In order to register a car, you must prove you have a specific, reserved place to park it.  You literally have to submit the Make/Model of your car and the address and location of your specific parking spot, and someone comes out and measures (supposedly, though I never saw it happen, but was told it does).  They not only make sure you have a spot, but that is is large enough for your specific car.  Again, that is part of the registration process, so essentially you can't buy a car without having a space.  (Caveat: I don't know if this happens in all prefectures.)  I think this is fantastic.  It could even be implemented without the measuring.  You submit your car info and the details and measurements of your space, perhaps with a lease or ownership documents showing your right to the space.  That would likely be close enough, while removing some of the bureaucracy. 

No set space to park, no car. 

[PDXTabs]

parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking

Some correctly priced on-street-parking is generally considered a good thing. Cars parked on streets have a traffic calming effect and also provide a physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic.

If, for some reason, cars had to be parked on streets, I guess parking protected bike lanes wouldn't be all bad, but my strong preference is for people who feel the need to own cars to figure out, on their own, a place to park them on private property. I don't consent to my public streets being used as a parking lot. I feel like picnic tables, jungle gyms, swings, or trampolines would also have a traffic calming effect, without all the negatives associated with parked cars. Japan seems to get along just fine with little to no on street parking.

Japan is really interesting.  In order to register a car, you must prove you have a specific, reserved place to park it.  You literally have to submit the Make/Model of your car and the address and location of your specific parking spot, and someone comes out and measures (supposedly, though I never saw it happen, but was told it does).  They not only make sure you have a spot, but that is is large enough for your specific car.  Again, that is part of the registration process, so essentially you can't buy a car without having a space.  (Caveat: I don't know if this happens in all prefectures.)  I think this is fantastic.  It could even be implemented without the measuring.  You submit your car info and the details and measurements of your space, perhaps with a lease or ownership documents showing your right to the space.  That would likely be close enough, while removing some of the bureaucracy. 

No set space to park, no car.

Yes, and I think that's great. But they don't have zero on street parking. They just have zero free overnight on-street parking. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html

Also, apparently it has been like that for longer than I've been alive.

[Arbitrage]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer. 

[Cranky]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather.

I think Seattle has very mild weather - generally not too sunny, but not especially cold or snowy, and not often 100 degrees, either.

But I definitely think that people will drive less and use public transit more only by making individual cars less convenient and more expensive. Big cities have better public transit because driving is so expensive and parking is so painful, not because public transit is cheap and convenient.

[Jon Bon]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

I think that while there are vast swaths of the USA that aren't feasible to convert to majority walk/bike/public transit, that's just the sparsely populated areas.  More than 80% of the US population resides in urban areas.  >80% of the USA population is in 3% of the area, and could do this if they actually wanted to.

E-bikes and other personal electric vehicles mitigate many of the common complaints about how their area isn't as perfect as the Netherlands for biking (hills, weather, whatever).  Also, climate in the Netherlands is a lot like the climate in Seattle (a bit worse, actually).  Most of the people in the USA seem to think Seattle has bad weather, so I don't empathize that much with the weather argument.  People can learn to deal with weather.

I think Seattle has very mild weather - generally not too sunny, but not especially cold or snowy, and not often 100 degrees, either.

But I definitely think that people will drive less and use public transit more only by making individual cars less convenient and more expensive. Big cities have better public transit because driving is so expensive and parking is so painful, not because public transit is cheap and convenient.

My theory on this (totally stolen from some article I found a while ago) Edit, found it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-29/the-commuting-principle-that-shaped-urban-history

Basically people are willing to commute up too 30 mins to get to their jobs. This is pretty true throughout history.
So first was walking cities. You can cover 2 miles in 30 mins, so a 4 mile city is a big as you can get as there is really no other mode of transportation (ancient Rome)
Then you had railroads, say they went 20 miles an hour, so a city that is 20 miles is the natural limit. (Old London)
Next is street car cities say 30 MPH so a 30 mile city. (Chicago)
Now you have cars cities can be up to 60 miles wide. (Atlanta)

My addition to that article is my theory that it is nearly impossible for a city to change its infrastructure more than a single step. You can probably go from a Streetcar city to a Car city. But you cannot go from a Walking city to a Car city. The corresponding cost to change the infrastructure basically requires you to build an entirely new city.

NYC was built as a rail/street car city, so it is very dense. Same with Chicago and most of the east coast American cities. However anything west of the Appalachian mountains basically matured into a car city. Its near impossible to go back 2 -3 steps to a walking/rail city.

So the issue is not really Americans, its that no where else in the world are there American style cities. Most cities are at least 500 years old right? So when you have a city that has really only developed in the past 100 years it is going to fundamentally completely different from something built around traveling via human feet.

Again this is my theory I am not passing anything off as fact. It is just in part why I believe it is so hard from Americans to break up with cars.

My solution (impossible as it is) Would basically be to cease urban sprawl and lock the boarders to cities as where they are now (I believe Lexington Kentucky has done this)  This puts you at odds with the exurbs who love all that sweet tax revenue from the development and also labels you as an evil gentrify-er who kicks people out of their falling down houses to build a much denser/better development on the same plot of houses/apts etc.

Perhaps some sort of federal law of when a city hits a certain threshold of size a rail/subway system will be required? Then maybe local politicians would think more then 5 mins ahead when approving the next giant suburban development if a rail track will need to go thru it in 3-5 years? Again no idea, but politicians do not want to put time and money into a project that they will be long gone and out of office when it is completed.

[Villanelle]

parking in a garage, because of course there's no street parking

Some correctly priced on-street-parking is generally considered a good thing. Cars parked on streets have a traffic calming effect and also provide a physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic.

If, for some reason, cars had to be parked on streets, I guess parking protected bike lanes wouldn't be all bad, but my strong preference is for people who feel the need to own cars to figure out, on their own, a place to park them on private property. I don't consent to my public streets being used as a parking lot. I feel like picnic tables, jungle gyms, swings, or trampolines would also have a traffic calming effect, without all the negatives associated with parked cars. Japan seems to get along just fine with little to no on street parking.

Japan is really interesting.  In order to register a car, you must prove you have a specific, reserved place to park it.  You literally have to submit the Make/Model of your car and the address and location of your specific parking spot, and someone comes out and measures (supposedly, though I never saw it happen, but was told it does).  They not only make sure you have a spot, but that is is large enough for your specific car.  Again, that is part of the registration process, so essentially you can't buy a car without having a space.  (Caveat: I don't know if this happens in all prefectures.)  I think this is fantastic.  It could even be implemented without the measuring.  You submit your car info and the details and measurements of your space, perhaps with a lease or ownership documents showing your right to the space.  That would likely be close enough, while removing some of the bureaucracy. 

No set space to park, no car.

Yes, and I think that's great. But they don't have zero on street parking. They just have zero free overnight on-street parking. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html

Also, apparently it has been like that for longer than I've been alive.

Interesting article.  I don't buy that the "no overnight parking" is what prevents corruption in the proof-of-parking policy.  I suspect that is almost entirely due to Japanese culture.  It isn't that there are many examples of corrupt police regarding other polices.  (And just to clarify, I wasn't the one who said there is zero on-street parking.  I know there is some, but it is pretty unusual.)

Also, while street parking may be legal, there is no place to do it nearly all of the time, so it's almost a moot point.  Most streets are just too tight to allow for it. --Again, that in the parts of Japan I spent much time, which were certainly more densely populated than the more remote, rural areas.

[habanero]

An interesting podcast episode on the benefits of public transport and how to design a system that works

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/missing-the-bus/

The typical general-purpose lane of traffic in a city can carry around 1,000-2,000 people per hour. If you create a bus-only lane, that number jumps up to 4,000-8,000 per hour. If you give over more of the street to transit and create a transitway that goes up to 10,000-25,000 people per hour. Higashide says that in cities like London where planners have prioritized public transit, the fastest way to get around is often by bus. That’s rarely true in US cities.

[fuzzy math]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

[Jon Bon]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

Very true,

But also the plan most likely to actually work?

Car ownership is expensive, if the poor can get by without a car  because there are decent substitutes everyone wins right?

This is what Europe does, which everyone keeps holding up as the example.

[PDXTabs]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

1. That is short term thinking.
2. Pro-car policies (maybe) help "poor" people who can afford cars but hurt poor people who can not.
3. Some anti-car/carbon policies such as a revenue neutral carbon tax rebated per-capita would help poor people because they would get back more than they put in. This is because poor people use less carbon than the rest of the population.

[Arbitrage]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

The ‘more expensive’ part is potentially regressive, depending on how it is implemented.  Certainly could be implemented in a non-regressive or progressive way.  You did ignore all the other points I made in my post that were in no way regressive.  Make car ownership and use annoying and more inconvenient than other options, except on specialized cases.  Enhance public transit across the board.  Focus on walkability, bike-ability, and safety/convenience/cost of non-driving options.

[fuzzy math]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

The ‘more expensive’ part is potentially regressive, depending on how it is implemented.  Certainly could be implemented in a non-regressive or progressive way.  You did ignore all the other points I made in my post that were in no way regressive.  Make car ownership and use annoying and more inconvenient than other options, except on specialized cases.  Enhance public transit across the board.  Focus on walkability, bike-ability, and safety/convenience/cost of non-driving options.

I quoted your post in its entirety. If you want to point me to which other of your comments you're referring to, I'll address those.

I get a lot of what you and PDXtabs are referring to, but both of your views are clouded by where you've lived and currently live. You moved from CA to a WA college town. He lives in Portland. I've lived in / near all 3 of those areas and they're certainly feasible to have transit function well for tons of people. I will say the MAX in Portland was often too full though and therefore was unreliable for me to make it to work on time.
What I'm unsure of is whether either of you have spent any time living anywhere outside those self contained (B-ham), or larger meccas and have ever tried to fathom the sheer amount of miles and insane costs of trying to service areas / states that aren't populated like the I5 corridor.  I now live in Missouri, a state with 6 million people, 70,000 square miles and likely only transit in the 4 largest cities. About a 3rd of the state's people have any access to local transit. How do you plan on imposing your ideas in an area like here, when much of the country is like this? How can you propose raising costs and "making it hard" without a viable alternative to add value to their lives?

[Shane]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

1. That is short term thinking.
2. Pro-car policies (maybe) help "poor" people who can afford cars but hurt poor people who can not.
3. Some anti-car/carbon policies such as a revenue neutral carbon tax rebated per-capita would help poor people because they would get back more than they put in. This is because poor people use less carbon than the rest of the population.

This discussion about equity comes up a lot. IMHO, there are no 'poor' people who can afford cars. None. Because of the way our country is designed, many poor people are forced to purchase and maintain cars they cannot, by definition, afford, but they have to own them, otherwise they can't live a reasonable life. Continuing to allow our cities to be designed in such a way that middle and upper-middle class people can live comfortably, driving everywhere in their cars, is REALLY harmful to poor people. They're the ones being hurt the most by the status quo. It's true that making cars more expensive to own and maintain will also hurt poor people the most, but we still HAVE to do it, because it's the only way for the US to get from where we are now to a marginally better place, where poor people will actually be able to choose to not own a car if they don't want to. Right now, most Americans have very little choice over whether or not they own a car. Almost everyone, especially those living on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, need to own at least one car if they want to have any chance, at all, at living a normal, middle class, American life. Moving forward, there's no path I can see that isn't going to cause some pain for someone, most likely poor people. Public transit in the US will never improve, until driving everywhere in a car becomes more painful for everyone, especially poor people. No pain, no gain.

[Abe]

However, there are options to punish the rich for buying Escalades - How about a progressive federal tax or state road tax based on weight and/or mpg, with a carve-out for people under median income? Of course that won’t happen because most rich people don’t care about the environment and would strangle themselves from all the pearl-clutching.

There’s no government-generated stick that will cow the wanton consumerism of Americans. I live in an epicenter of hedonism and can assure you most of my neighbors are not interested in any change, and their purses control our government. Our only hope is that battery costs come down enough that all this becomes a moot point and Escalades (or G-wagons) become tacky again. I cannot wait!

[alsoknownasDean]

I'd suggest that starting by improving public transport in metro areas is a good start.

It's not going to be possible to turn cities like Atlanta into cities like Amsterdam. However if public transport is a more viable alternative to replace at least some trips (ie commuting) it's a start.

The other issue is that less expensive housing is more likely to have poor quality transit options. How do you avoid making a two-tier city?

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[Shane]

However, there are options to punish the rich for buying Escalades - How about a progressive federal tax or state road tax based on weight and/or mpg, with a carve-out for people under median income? Of course that won’t happen because most rich people don’t care about the environment and would strangle themselves from all the pearl-clutching.

There’s no government-generated stick that will cow the wanton consumerism of Americans. I live in an epicenter of hedonism and can assure you most of my neighbors are not interested in any change, and their purses control our government. Our only hope is that battery costs come down enough that all this becomes a moot point and Escalades (or G-wagons) become tacky again. I cannot wait!

Agree with your suggestions of things that could potentially help, but also agree with you that there is little chance of any of those things actually happening, because the people and corporations with power in our country are unlikely to suddenly become willing to support laws they will perceive as punishing themselves. I mean, they've worked really, really hard, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, to get their Escalades and Hummers. So, why should they give them up? /s

I'm not optimistic that any sort of democratic solution that will make things better is even possible in the US.