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?

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      “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.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.