How do we disincentize car ownership?

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.

You have to do both I'm afraid
- no, you really, absolutely don't.
  more importantly, you missed the part where being anti-car is just a tax on poor people. It's also ableist. We still need cars, and punishing people who need them isn't helpful.
  "poor people, like people on disability payments, shouldn't be able to afford to drive, but rich people can do whatever they want" is a horrible dystopia.
People are in engrained car habits. That's why alternatives to driving are important, but people are unlikely to switch unless we ALSO make driving less appealing
- The solution seems to be, build those public transit options first. Let people get used to them, know they exist, etc. even if they're not massively used, their presence makes implementing some kind of penalty for driving WAY more likely to work - there's already an alternative in place, we don't have to worry about what we're gonna do now, were just gonna take the bus.
- address how this stance of yours isn't just a tax on poor people and how it isn't ableist.
Anti-tobacco campaigns proved to be very useful. Anti-car campaigns could be equally useful. Won't happen in the EU sadly because Germany relies too much on automotive industry.
- well, sure, because that's just because vaping didn't exist then. Once vaping became a thing, soooo many people switched over from smoking to vaping.

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.

Long ago my city made all public transit free on spare the air days. (Days where particulate concentrations were predicted to be high) I do miss those, they were actually kinda fun. I would like them to come back someday.
- This is so backwards. They wait til the the air is already fucked up to provide the cleaner alternative. Wouldn't it be better to always provide that then have less bad air days because less people are driving and spewing particulates?
Not to say that you're wrong, but driving does cost money in the form of registration, excise tax, gas taxes, and inspection. It's still heavily subsidized, but drivers don't pay nothing to use the roads
- Many of those are fixed costs. That means that if you use the car more, it becomes more worth it.
  Instead of making cars more expensive, we should make public transport cheaper. And it should also reach outside of cities.
  If you want to go outside of a city for whatever reason (maybe you even live outside a city!) the options for public transport are very few, very expensive, and very time consuming.
Well there are fees in registration, and gas, but it isn't enough.
- If we want people to switch, time and money are the best motivators to broadly apply. Making transit both faster and cheaper than a car (or free) will increase ridership and decrease car usage.

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.

Car driving also needs to be less subsidised.

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.

I think you’re on to something. If we stopped providing free street parking in cities, in addition to removing the parking requirements for new buildings, the problem would slowly resolve itself. Unfortunately that would mean that residents currently benefiting from free street parking would have to vote to take away their own subsidy, so we’d have to find a way to make it worth it to them.

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

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.

The problem with 15 minute cities is the last few thousand years of people giving an inch and the government taking every mile they can. People who took history class and have pattern recognition skills often see that pattern in things.
Do you really think that 15 minute cities wont be enshittified?
- People who know history are aware that "15 minute cities" were the norm before car-centric infrastructure appeared.
- yes.
The problem with 15 minute cities is the last few thousand years of people giving an inch and the government taking every mile they can. People who took history class and have pattern recognition skills often see that pattern in things.
Do you really think that 15 minute cities wont be enshittified?
- We've had 15 minute cities centuries before the USA became the USA.
  Cars are responsible for destroying them in the first place, because why open a small shop when people can just drive 20 minutes to get to your mega warehouse sized store instead.
  The only thing restricting in 15 minute cities is that some places contemplated making the roads toll roads for outsiders. Which isn't all that different than every fucking highway having a lane permanently allocated to toll service and nearly every destination charging $12/h for parking and requires a credit card to even get to the parking lot.
  The 15 minute cities are great for poorer people, and solves most transportation problems that keep them in poverty. No beater cars to get repaired every week. No expensive gas. No stupidly long bus rides. Much better for the environment. Here my windows get covered in soot from trucks and I'm not even on a main road, while in Montréal the air was mostly fresh because few are dumb enough to bring a diesel truck in the city.
  The point of 15 minute cities isn't to take your car away. It's that you shouldn't feel the need for a car in the first place, because you just don't need one. The traffic and pollution problem solves itself.
- @Kaboom @MaxP Do you really think that car-centric two hour cities in which a typical grocery shopping trip involves sitting in a traffic jam aren’t already enshittified?

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.

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!

With enough cycling investment, i could see denser areas having emergency bike shops along major routes. Offering fast repairs like a tire or chain during rush hours.

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.

It's freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away.
We literally don't. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.
We're specifically out to make that the only reason anyone needs to drive.
- What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?
  We literally don't. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.
  Um, yes?
You're arguing here for continuing to prop up sprawl, is what it sounds like. You're open to moving people away from car dependency, but not from suburbs, is my impression. I would love to be wrong about this, so please feel free to assure me you're not proposing that people just live wherever the hell they want, no matter how unsustainable it might be.
- There are times and places for high density cities, and there are times and places for rural living. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
  Today, I made a makeshift bahn mi burger for dinner. I snagged a French roll and a carrot from the store. I bbq'd a steak burger with Vietnamese marinade and added cucumber, Thai basil, mint, and cilantro that I grew in my garden. Also slapped together a quick salad with tomatoes, peas, and more cucumber also from my garden.
  My hobbies are hiking, camping, and backpacking. Right now, I am sitting under two absolutely massive 10' sunflowers watching my pet turtle bury a clutch of eggs.
  You have this impression I'm somesort of eco-terrorist because I like to drive. I know sustainable, I love to grow my own food, I'm aware of my footprint.
  But I am all for sprawl and not because I drive. I rent so this will all go away someday because I can't afford to buy a $1.2 million 2-bedroom starter home or a high density concrete box.
  So yeah, my choices are the fringes. Public transport (and bicycling) are going to be sketchy.
  My job up until last year was home repair (not going to get too specific because this is the internet) and I did need a truck full of tools. That was my employment; my income.
  Changing city policies harmed blue collar workers like me making it difficult to travel between worksites. Every major road to my residence has engineered in congestion as a means of traffic control whether it was appropriate or not. Time is money and being unable to fill one or two appointments daily due to lost time was devastating.
  I have a local public transit card I use. It's great for going to popular destinations like sports, restaurants, and zoos. It is not great to visit friends and family. For that, I use a car (plus I almost always have a passenger) and save money and time.
- your hobby is giving me tinnitus and is infringing upon mine
  Ha! Not a chance. My car is totally stock and doesn't produce anywhere near the levels of sound pressure to damage hearing. Not even close, dude.
  And I have my dashcam videos of bicycles behaving badly too.
the word here is sprawl. The vehicles actually don't matter as much as the parking. The more space dedicated to parking the harder it is for people realistically walk to any destination.
We need more than anything to end parking minimums' which create large, poorly utilized space with high stormwater runoff and think about putting in parking maximums
The differences between car use between countries is a clear indication that it’s not just about necessity or consumer preferences. Societies actively choose how to plan cities and traffic, and doing the same thing as last year is not neutral.

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).

the first point makes it sound like you either don't want cities or you love vast amount of space being wasted. it would just be more reasons for developers to not build homes and new businesses, while also complete inflating parking lots everywhere.
instead, scrap the bit in zoning laws where businesses have to allocate space and funds for parking lots in their designs. denser setting incentivizes walking or biking. in line with this, make mixed use development more apparent-- shops on bottom floor with apartments on top. capitalism will say to developers that they could fit another 2 or 3 stores in a lot that was previously going to be dedicated to parking
reduce the number of road lanes and make them narrower in cities while opting for curb-raised and separated bike paths. ditch the grid based road map for a more natural one. the visual clutter on and around the road will make drivers go slow. ensure there is proper daylighting for points of conflict. get large trucks back onto rural roads, and incentivize, both to consumers and corporations, a return of small vehicles. we should be able to find a happy medium where if you need a car, be it for hauling furniture or going on a camping trip, it should still be convenient enough to do so.
let there be a priority bus or emergency vehicle lane in the center of the road. that way busses and emergency vehicles don't get stuck behind any car traffic
- to developers that they could fit another 2 or 3 stores in a lot that was previously going to be dedicated to parking
  That is exactly my point. Underground parking adds 35-50% to a mid rise building construction cost. That means people have the choice between larger or cheaper units without a parking spot and more expensive ones with a parking spot. Even with underground parking mid rise buildings are already cheaper then single family housing. Especially ifthe area we are talking about has high land prices, like pretty much every city.

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.

Weird, of the people I know that have had their licence suspended, I don't think any of them actually stopped driving.

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.

In a world where there are no viable alternatives, like much of the US, this ends up putting additional financial pressure on the poor and the rich can simply carry on. This ultimately just increases the cost of ownership, and forces people to pay it.
Studies also show that people will take faster more robust alternatives if they exist, regardless of price. If driving means you sit in traffic for an hour, but taking the bus means you get there in 35 minutes, people will take the bus.
- The point is, the poor can still successfully use mass transit now that there’s not much traffic for buses and crosswalks.
Oh you can also just give a clear preference to other modes of transportation via traffic rules. Let's say there are traffic lights that only allow bikes to pass more often than they allow cars to pass that's pretty neat

Spend trillions on infrastructure.

Better specify, the right kind of infrastructure, not just more highways.
Basically this. Make it so that people live in places conducive to not owning a car. If people live places where it is miles between their needs and there is no accessible form of alternative transport, you're stuck with cars.

An even more highly infectious and dangerous pandemic.

wouldn't that discourage public transport?
- Wasn't part of the assignment. We have pretty good data suggesting it has the potential to reduce car usage, and so eventually ownership if it were persist. Keep eating animals and we get to find out!

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.

I don't think there is a "best way" - but increasing costs is one way. Singapore is an example of this - you have pay up 106K SGD for the COE (certificate of entitlement) to even be allowed to own a car.

This punishes the poor in rural areas. Unless you are referring to only cities that will also be improving mass transit at the same time, increasing costs has only downsides.
- I was offering an example. In Singapore it works because it's a tiny country with stable mass transit. Definitely not a model that works in countries with more land.
- Reframing reducing subsidies as increasing costs is what makes people hate the idea. Gradually reducing incentives to drive would give people plenty of time to transition to other lifestyles.

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.

Now that EVs are a thing, taxing carbon may not do what you expect.
- EVs still create a lot of co2 in production so I’d expect it would incentivize people to use and demand more efficient means of transportation. Trains, busses combined with incentives to do better city planning.
  EVs aren’t silver bullets. Will still be cheaper to use an EV than a car running on gas.

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.

Seats made of knives and sandpaper

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.

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.

I can drive a mile or two in a couple minutes, in any weather, at any time of day. I can get a full supply of groceries or heavy bulky items at any moment. Far less common, but I also have extra clothes, a stocked medical bag, and other stuff wherever I go. I can do this all on my time frame in an instant's notice. I can get across town to help when they need to get to urgent care quick, or think someone is breaking in. I can get to the hospital if I need it, I can leave town in a hurry, I can visit my parents 4hrs away at any moment.
I guess if public transit could do that, I would take it. The autonomy of having a car means they are not going anywhere. The absolute best you will possibly do it reduce car use. I rarely grocery shop anymore because our local store has a bizarrely affordable home delivery option. If I can pay $10+cost for groceries, I am not driving 15min to the store on a busy weekend. I would carpool to work, but what if I had to leave early, or had to go to a friend/family emergency...20min for the local cab to even get to me is not acceptable in the second scenario.
Autonomy and convenience are what you are looking to remove/replace. I am not saying there isn't a path. It is worth looking into it, for sure. I just don't see it, yet.
- Autonomy is enjoyable. I understand keeping a car for that purpose in today's cities. However, if there were multiple methods of crossing the city in a similar timeframe, keeping a car is a high expense. It is possible to have light rail and bus services in a city where no one waits at any stop more than a few minutes because of the high frequency. Imagine if you had access to a $5 trip across your city in the same time it takes currently to drive. Sure, I'm being idealistic here, but in that scenario, why drive when you can be driven?
  I assume you took a look at the page I linked, but if not, the figures that 52% of trips are less than three miles are not of all trips ever taken. They are for daily, regularly occurring, expected trips. This removes from consideration that odd trip out of town, those summer trips to the lumber yard, and certainly the emergency hospital visits.
  For all these out of the norm trips, keep your car. With good public transit, you don't even need to check a schedule. Just hop on something that's going towards your destination. Use it for your commute, for your trips to see friends, for going out with your spouse. Use the car when something comes up unexpectedly.
  I'm not trying to rag on you specifically, but I'll go over your examples of non regular trips you either make or are prepared for:
  Going to get groceries on a whim;
  Wouldn't it be nice to live a few minutes walk from a grocery? Everyone should, given we must eat. Imagine if supermarket departments were instead their own shops, distributed through your neighbourhood.
  Bulky purchases;
  Not sure what you had in mind, but furniture, major appliances, lumber, yard mulch, garden stones, etc, can all be delivered. Yes, often at a fee, but if you're buying something like this once or twice a year, it's well cheaper than a car.
  Driving across town to bring someone else to an emergency room;
  If you're talking a scheduled doctors visit, then these aren't on a moments notice events. As far as actual, proper emergencies go, ignoring the existence of ambulance service, even if you no longer had a car, there's probably cars around you. I've waived a stranger down on the road for a trip to the hospital. I've knocked on the door of people I don't know that had a car in the driveway. By and large, people will help you in such a scenario. I'm also sure that coworkers would offer up their car if a family member wound up in the hospital when you'd ridden a bike to work.
  A home burglary
  Here I'm at a disadvantage, given I don't live somewhere the odds of this are even one in a million. I suppose I'll just say that car ownership for this situation seems more costly than a decent security system and maybe life insurance.
  I'll leave off with the suggestion that if you can broaden your horizons, there are a large number of places in existence today that have multiple methods of local - and even high speed regional - transit where the autonomy and convenience people gain in their lives by not being chained to a personal vehicle is undeniable. Cost savings for the car free citizens; cost savings for the municipality or country; better physical health on average; less pollution; less noise.
  Best part about getting people out of cars? Less traffic people who keep their cars.

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.

Make everyone use bikes

RIP people with busted knees I guess

No-one who seriously considers the issue thinks all cars should be done away with.
Cities designed for pedestrians can still be made to accommodate accessibility vehicles, and even more importantly, emergency vehicles.
There are ebikes that don't require pedaling, even some that are more like tiny cars with a roof and doors, etc.