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?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
I agree with you, it’s not fair, but afaik the research and data shows that in order to get people to use their cars less there has to be more downsides to using it as well as easier alternative transportation.
Otherwise people will just keep driving
You can own your car and drive it from time to time, ideally not in the city. Those aren’t what we want to discourage. Discourage driving daily, driving in the city. Make those things simply easier, faster, and cheaper to do than using a car, and, while it won’t KILL cars completely, it’ll reduce them enough to make a noticeable difference.
After that’s successful, and the working class hasn’t completely shit themselves, we can start with making cars less desirable than they are right now. Once only the enthusiasts and most stubborn own a car, we can add some kinds of taxes, so that at the end, we’re left with only the enthusiasts, which I think is a perfectly reasonable goal.
Yes, but you must also do things like add tolls, rush surcharges, etc to actually get the car usage down.
Simply making the alternative better alone won’t make the majority drop the comfort of their own car because it will never be as good as driving yourself.
no, you don’t. that’s all a poor tax, again.
and remember: most of the people who need cars (for mobility reasons) are among the poorest.
So taxing people through tolls and such is just punishing the disabled. ie ableist.
You do if you actually want the traffic to go down and you want to afford the public transportation infrastructure that will be required.
Pretty sure my second paragraph, starting with the word “after” (that word does a LOT of lifting) addresses that aspect.
It usually happens at the same time, you increase cost. Then you use that cost directly to build and maintain the public infrastructure required.
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.
I totally understand why you say this. But at the same time:
-
Be a politician
-
Do the right thing and invest billions in an amazing public transport system knowing it won’t be used properly until much later
-
Lose your job for wasting billions on a system nobody uses. Ensure that every other politician in the world cannot henceforth invest in public transport because “Look what happened when that other guy tried it”.
-
There is no Step 4
This is why I propose moving in sloooooow steps. One or two small changes at a time, and eventually we’ve “snuck” some stuff by and moved in the right direction.
The way I look at it, it’s as likely to happen if we do it right as if we do it wrong. Either we’re going to get rid of cars, or we’re not. I’d rather make steps towards doing it right.
-
address how this stance of yours isn’t just a tax on poor people and how it isn’t ableist.
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?
It takes a really, really prolonged inversion later to trigger a spare the air day from just smog. That alone is fairly rare. Bigger culprates are BBQ’s and fireplaces. By far, the #1 trigger is wildfires. That was the first spare the air month I’ve experienced!
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.
The one tied to increased use is linked, not fixed.
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.
I remember a study from Denmark that pointed towards convenience dwarfing every other reason (including cost) for choice of transport.
Basically people took bikes rather than cars because it was quicker and easier to take the bike. In places where cars where more convenient, people would drive, even if it was outrageously expensive.
Very few people were driven by health/environmental benefits, cost, fun, etc
No disagreement. Was just clarifying misinformation.
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.
Good public transportation, good bike roads, a train system that works well.
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.
Ultimately, we need alternatives, people will take alternatives if they are faster and affordable. We need a rich public transit system.
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.
I’d rather implement stronger options for free/cheap transportation BEFORE we increase the cost of car ownership. A lot of cities don’t have proper transit options, mine included, and if I was suddenly exposed to the “full cost” of owning a car, I’d be SOL until a bus route near enough for me to walk to gets put in place.
I think this is the essence of what you’re replying to is getting at. It’s a great idea, later, right now we need something that doesn’t kill the working class.
That’s not necessarily possible. Good public transit and bikable neighborhoods are made possible by the low land usage. Low land usage requires having fewer roads and smaller parking lots. Those, in turn, require fewer people to be driving.
The midway transitionary option is buses. But buses are only convenient if they don’t have much traffic to battle. We need fewer people driving.
There are options available. More heavy subsidation for buses comes to mind. Subsidize it enough it’s practically free, and expand their routes. Add more priority lanes for buses. That much is doable today. Then we have a bit of infrastructure so we’re not just pulling the rug out from under people. From there, slowly introduce things to discourage car driving. Gas taxes, more strict emissions requirements, more expensive registration, harder license exams, etc.
You may not have read the second paragraph. People won’t even ride free buses when they don’t arrive and are slower than walking.
Money alone does not solve the issue. You can’t engineer a faster engine for a bus that’s stuck in traffic. Even adding more buses to the route does not help.
It doesn’t matter if they’re riding them right now. Get that infrastructure in place before you pull the rug out. When the rug is pulled, they’ll ride. Yes, it’s a bit of throwing money at the problem, but it doesn’t leave people fucked in the interim period. Do what you can to get infrastructure in place BEFORE tackling cars.
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
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
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?
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.
Where I live currently I have to drive at least 15-20 minutes to get groceries or food or whatever. And they charge for the parking too. 100% already super enshittified. There’s no public transport here, it’s been gutted by republicans into uselessness. “A bus every 2 hours ought to be enough for those car-less peasants!” And one lane of the highway is permanently a toll road. It fucking sucks. Now I just do gigantic costco trips like everyone else just so I can be done with it for the next week or two.
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.
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.
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.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
Exactly. Yet the entirety of humanity has congregated around the car as if that is that one-size-fits-all solution you’re admitting doesn’t exist.
You know, back before the car, humanity congregated around ports and railroad stations too, right? It’s kinda human nature.
Right, and we built tracks out to every building anyone might conceivably want to visit.
Wait, no we didn’t. The popularity of the car in some countries is VERY artificial. Driven by early auto-industry advertising that solidified into culture.
But it didn’t take hold world-wide.
There’s a train station in Tokyo through which the entire population of my country passes DAILY.
A design for a highway interchange that can get 5 million people where they need to go within less than 24 hours, does not exist.
Gotta apologize on my previous comment. I think I misread what you said. My reply doesn’t really make sense anymore now that I re-read the context.
I respect the hell out of that!
The car, when used for all transport, is wildly inefficient. Multimodal transport where whatever mode is most efficient is used, isn’t applied enough.
You like driving. If the goal is to enjoy the pleasure of driving, then no other option serves that purpose. Hence, driving is what YOU should be doing.
But cars are used to achieve so many other goals that do have more efficient options, simply because it is the existing standard.
There are people who VEHEMENTLY HATE commuting by car. They shouldn’t be driving, but doing so might still be the least offensive option. Providing these people a way not to drive, also fits the description of “discouraging” car ownership.
Cultural knee-jerk reactions like yours, as well as the barrier of existing infrastructure, make improvement difficult. OP is specifically asking how to change things in a way that would make people want the change, rather than have it be forced on them.
They didn’t ask how to stop people from owning cars. Discourage means discourage. If you’ll never sell your car no matter what, that means you’re one of the people who can’t be discouraged, but that doesn’t mean people who can, and even should be, don’t exist.
You admit to using transit systems, when applicable, which means you’re already accepting the solution. Would it really be so bad if you could use transit to get more places, and more people could use it for all their needs, even if you aren’t one of them?
as somebody who does some of this work: roads are expensive and environmentally damaging. The fact road costs are so effectively hidden from drivers is one of the great frustrations about communication on the subject.
Without oodles and oodles of public grants and funds there would be almost no roads. The reality here is that consumers don’t make the decision to have roads and cars, the government does. End of discussion.
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?
No.
discourage ≠ stop
In the same way that “discouraging” someone from over-eating for their own health, doesn’t mean starving them to death.
As a society, we get places with, and design entire cities for, cars. A lot of people who wouldn’t mind either way, own a car simply because “it’s just what everyone does”.
Suburbia and personal vehicles aren’t sustainable, because suburban infrastructure literally cannot pay for itself. It’s built on subsidies, and then maintained by subsidies, except countries like the US are finding that now that most people live in suburbs, there aren’t enough profitable urban areas to take those subsidies from.
Car ownership has to be reduced. So how do we achieve that? How can we change things so that FEWER (not none) people want or need cars?
As a bonus, that means the remaining people who HAVE to drive get to do so on more open roads than ever.
“Discourage from ownership” sort of means stop. It’s hard to drive what I don’t own.
And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)
People like me who had to drive may have open roads again, but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too. And a lot of us are hurting really bad. I have friends in flooring, windows, and electrical. 2 have retired, one is accepting they will have to work until they die. It’s harsh on this side, getting worse, and no one is talking about it.
This policy can’t reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.
It’s hard to drive what I don’t own.
How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?
And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)
Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.
Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.
At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.
150 million a year is nothing, no shit it’s only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you’ve been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.
but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too
Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.
This policy can’t reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.
Then it’s bad policy, and your local planners don’t know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.
It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn’t a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
As a former sound engineer, I am well aware of the dangers of volume and exposure limits.
If a liesurly drive way in the mountains gives you hearing damage, your bigger concern is why you’re being dragged behind a car.
deleted by creator
Dude, I already tore a similar article a new one weeks ago.
If it’s anything like the last article, they cherry picked data and exaggerated results…
See if this applies: linky
Ohh … Turtle is done laying eggs and running away! Got to go!
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
replace public parking with green spaces, add more barriers to slow cars down in high pedestrian traffic areas, and more goddamn trains.
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.
