How do we disincentize car ownership?
How do we disincentize car ownership?
My original question was "How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs" but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?
don't discourage people from owning personal cars. most of the time this mentality is just a tax on the poor.
Flip the idea. Encourage people to not use cars instead.
- not just bike lanes, but bike storage & lockers
- not just public transport, but better connections between transport modes (buses with bike carriers, train stations with better car parking and bike lockers and bus connections)
- more small car parking bays with all large truck bays further away from the stores
- more motorcycle parking bays
- cheaper motorcycle registration, etc.
it's all about spending money and effort in the areas you want it. Not about being restrictive.
it's a slower method of conversion, but more effective.
Public transportation should be provided for the public by the public. Quit wasting time with ticket booths and all that shit. Just free transportation. We aren’t charged per use for roads so people drive. Make public transport free so transportation is equally accessible by all social classes.
Even with cheap fares now, moving a family is still more expensive by bus than vehicle. I don’t drive for my sake. I drive for the others that need me to drive for them.
For me the only answer is good, fast, cheap public transit.
Gosh I took the railroad from Long Island, NY into NYC and back. Each way was about 40 min but the total cost was like $19 per person! If I was going with 3/4 friends, it could literally be cheaper and about as fast to drive into the city and pay for parking. It needs to be more subsidized.
In Japan, car owners are responsible for ensuring they have somewhere to park. Municipalities don’t provide free on-street car storage, or even much in the way of paid parking, so if you really want a car, you’ll need to sacrifice some space to store it, or make other private arrangements at your own expense. You’ll need proof of this when you buy a car.
Singapore goes one step further, with car owners needing to purchase a licence for keeping a car (which is separate from a driver’s license). This costs about as much as the car itself. Though by some accounts, this has made having even a mediocre car into a status symbol.
Ultimately, we need alternatives, people will take alternatives if they are faster and affordable. We need a rich public transit system.
Good public transportation, good bike roads, a train system that works well.
I’m firmly on the side of it being unreasonable to discourage driving until there is a reasonable alternative.
- There are a handful of us cities where there is enough of an alternative and they already make it expensive to have a car and getting more expensive all the time (see NYC proposed congestion fees, Boston record prices for a parking spot, Cambridge street restrictions)
- even then, there should be a better way to support people who think they need a car but don’t use it everyday. It shouldn’t need to be in everyone’s way
However for most of the US, that’s just alienating people who would be on our side if there was a choice
Where I live we don't even have sidewalks on most roads, so that would be a start.
Honestly though? Great public transit. I really miss living somewhere that allowed me to be car free because the transit was pretty good. Not even great, but just pretty good. Something like Singapore public transit would be great.
Not much you can do without them reacting the opposing way.
One solution is for example 15 minute cities. I've never felt like I wanted a car living in Montréal because it's literally faster and more convenient to just walk there. I rarely even needed to use the metro. Genuinely healthier way of life.
And then the F350 owners all go that's just the first step, they won't allow you to go outside of your city, blah blah blah.
The thing is it's been drilled into so many people's heads that a car is essential that everything that deviates from driving your car wherever you go is seen as a direct attack on personal freedoms, your right to go wherever you want and all that.
People also seem to rely a lot on their cars as a status symbol. Look, I'm broke AF but I got a brand new giant boat of an SUV... to go work in an office on a computer everyday. So many trucks have perfect mint condition never used truck beds. But you gotta have a truck to show you're a hard working manly man.
There's nothing you can do to change those people. They'll make a F950 and run it coal just to spite you. We'll be stuck with the status quo as long as egocentric people exist. Because you can't inconvenience them for the sake of others, they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Towns and cities should restructure more to a self sustainable way, so people don't have to travel as far as often.
My personal example is that I live in a very bicycle friendly city, but at the same time we don't have a bicycle shop anymore to buy tires and chains and shit..
We need a bike shop here!
This is why a culture war is forming between bikers and drivers.
It's not just reallocation of resources, you are actively plotting to disrupt a means of income, safety, or accessibility for the majority.
Biking and public transit are very valid modes of transportation and for some journeys, practical. News flash, I use them too. The same goes for vehicles.
What isn't necessary for you, may be for someone else. That's a fact lots of folks here don't want to acknowledge.
So to answer your question, make something better, faster, cheaper than cars and people will come. But if your recipe for success is making a working system suck bad enough public transport looks good, everybody loses.
I don't have a massive truck and my 20yo Honda is no status symbol, but I love the act of driving and the skills I've developed over my lifetime. It's freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away. Now imagine if bikes were taxed and licensed... Not so fun now.
We have to work together in a community. I'm tired of fractions picking fights.
You want to discourage people from buying cars? Then don't buy one. Be the example you seek. But for heavens sake, don't be a jerk to others.
replace public parking with green spaces, add more barriers to slow cars down in high pedestrian traffic areas, and more goddamn trains.
Step 1: defeat the car lobby Step 2: take over city land use planning Step 3: allocate trillions to city road design Step 4: allocate trillions to to public transportation Step 5: adjust the culture to accept commercial near residential Step 6: ? Step 7: you know the rest
Imho the best policy is to require a permanent parking space close to the main residence of the person owning the car. With permanent access I mean that the space is only to be used for the car and has to be either rented or owned by the person using it. This is rather easy to do in a rural setting, but much harder the more urban the area becomes.
The next part is making access worse for cars. Place parking further away from interesting destinations then bicycle parking and public transport access. Like having bicycle racks right next to the shop doors. That also includes just removing parking as much as possible. Besides handicap spots obviously. Also modal filters to block cars to move through certain streets, but allow bicycles and pedestrians to use those. That can also mean one directional roads.
Slow down cars as much as possible. When cars are as fast as bicycles, cars loose a massive advantage. This has to be done using built infrastructure and not just street signs, but those are an important start. So narrow roads, little viewing space and speed bumps. Also traffic lights are a good option. Give priority to other forms of transport(default green for pedestrians and bicycles for example).
When a drivers license is taken or suspended, especially for speeding in cities, give an easy option to directly... lease(?)1 an e-bike. And then suspend licenses for a lot more of the dangerous behaviors we currently just accept.
A relative got her license suspended for a month for speeding, and then simply did not go anywhere. Having an exciting new mode of transport might have just been what she needed, the supermarket is just 2km away.
1: The state can hammer out the details, obviously we don't want to gift them it or it becomes a reward for speeding, and selling them it means they could just resell it afterwards when the goal is that they keep and use it. Maybe like a 5 year ban on reselling it, only one per household. Also, probably keep the model generic and discreet so no shame is cast when just trying to buy groceries.
If people are fully exposed to the real cost of car ownership they will happily choose alternatives. This means no free parking or mandatory minimums, no subsidies, tolls everywhere, and carbon taxes on fuel. Even after all of that some people will still decide that driving is their best option and that's ok.
By making it a poor choice, which you do by providing a better alternative that is cheaper.
Introduce a cheap alternative, get people used to it, then slowly phasing in taxes to make the undesired behavior too expensive to be worth it for the average person, but still give the option.
I have long thought that cars should largely not exist in cities, but (in America at least) they're required for rural living. Inside cities, there should be cheap (maybe even free), readily available, and numerous public transportation options. Convert parking lots into usable land, and install large parking garages on the outskirts of the cities, again cheap or free, and make them hubs for the public transportation options.
Now, people can drive to the city on their own. We don't have to immediately redo the entire country's infrastructure so that rural citizens still have mobility. If you're just passing through the city, or want to keep your car on you, there could be a day pass option. It'd be expensive, but doable. Otherwise, you can park and do whatever you need to, and just return to your car when done.
As far as city dwellers who may want to own a car for trips, allow rental of a space in a parking garage for a reasonable rate. You can store your car there indefinitely, have free access to it, but would still need a day pass to operate inside the city.
Change is slow. We have to accept some half measures in service of getting things more in line with where we want them. Eventually we may be able to phase out cars completely, but I'd personally be fine with a drastic reduction in cars inside cities. Incentivizing alternatives works better than punishing the unwanted behavior, and works even better when the two are used in tandem.
- Tax carbon (and equivalents)
- give back all carbon tax to all citizens, equally
- Increase tax linearly over time, and let folks and business plan their transition predictably.
This will incentivize people to demand affordable transportation, transition to alternatives, get low income citizens a reason to not oppose increased cost of living. Big consumers have to pay, low consumers will pay a little but get more back.
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby.
That will depend a lot from city to city, and also person to person. Some people loathe public transportation, as they see it as something for "the poor". Trading in cars for motorcycles, electric or combustion, is a good step forward, but would just lead to those ultra dense Indian cities.
What works best is not having places you want or need to go so fucking far: school, grocery store, workplace. For me, my job is 30km away from my home, but thankfully I can take a bus. Some people would take buses, but don't, because of: 1- they're overcrowded (because it's more profitable); 2- there's no direct lines that go to where the person wants to go ("low demand", unprofitable); 3- they don't run at the times the person needs (same as 2)
Another user mentions that many drives are less than a mile, for me that's whenever I go buy groceries, as I don't have a bike or anything to carry the bags, so putting them in the car works better.
I view it as sidelining cars to improve public transportation.
- First thing is to eliminate and revise public zoning laws and removing parking minimums. This causes change the slowest but is the most important to start since it will lead to denser population centers, and parking garages can be closer to residence.
- Second move I think is to eliminate extra lanes and trim road widths. This leads to driving being something that takes more focus and is slower. This also frees space for bike lanes and even dedicated bus lanes.
- Slowly phase out free parking across the city. Start with spots directly next to crosswalks so that there is better visibility of pedestrians crossing. Then focus on bus routes to free a dedicated lane when possible. This discourages driving since there's fewer chances you'll be able to park close to the place you are going.
- While this is occurring, you should be introducing public transit as it becomes feasible. More buses or trams, guarded bike lanes, etc.
- MAINTAIN YOUR PUBLIC TRANSIT!! As trains and buses fall into disrepair the number of people willing to ride it will drop off. Also keep the bike lanes and sidewalks clear and smooth.
That's what I've got. It takes decades to break down this infrastructure for new stuff. You also need the to be having accessibility in mind whenever you are thinking about installing public amenities or removing infrastructure.
Lately I've been pointing out that most drives people take regularly are only a mile or two long. It's a hit and miss argument though. Probably more useful for getting people on board with smaller, lighter, cars than getting them out of cars entirely.
Seats made of knives and sandpaper
When a drivers license is taken or suspended, especially for speeding in cities, give an easy option to directly... lease(?)* an e-bike. And then suspend licenses for a lot more of the dangerous behaviors we currently just accept.
My mom got her license suspended for a month for speeding, and then simply did not go anywhere. Having an exciting new mode of transport might have just been what she needed, our go to supermarket is just 2km away.
- The state can hammer out the details, obviously we don't want to gift them it or it becomes a reward for speeding, and selling them it means they could just resell it afterwards when the goal is that they keep and use it. Maybe like a 5 year ban on reselling it, only one per household. Also, probably keep the model generic and discreet so no shame is cast when just trying to buy groceries.
By making it utterly unaffordable.
Fortunately electric cars are coming, and none of them are cheap.
The downside is you have to explain to an entire class why you no longer deem them worthy of owning a car.