The NYTimes is once again trashing the most promising mobility innovation of the 21st century
The NYTimes is once again trashing the most promising mobility innovation of the 21st century
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16133154
Link to original Tweet: https://x.com/DavidZipper/status/1795048724021862898
You're viewing part of a thread.
Amazing how the existence of a single person who (may possibly) need a car means that everyone gets to drive cars and there is nothing that should be done about cars. Man isn't that convenient for you.
Amazing how that didn't address the question at all, and instead just dismissed it with your own preconceived notions for where this conversation might go.
I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.
A car ban with specific exceptions, like for disabled folk.
There, does that work for you?
Also, everything has positives and negatives, does not mean you should discount them as options entirely.
That sounds like a good place to start to me!
A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?
You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.
In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.
That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.
Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.
Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.
Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though...
Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much and how fast.
Wow. That’s a bunch of great ideas right there!
I really like using federal government to set direction but pushing for local changes ASAP. Honestly that seems like the most logical way to cater to individual needs while moving as quickly as possible.
Obviously we also have to invest heavily in public transport, right? Not only do we need to beef up what existing but we’ll need to create new linkages in order to prevent transportation deserts. Part of the issue with that is it might require some compulsory acquisition of land. That’s always a super tetchy area because I don’t always ascribe to a utilitarian “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” view.
I think another area that needs to be looked at is mandating some level of working from home in roles where that’s possible. Travelling to and from work causes the most congestion both on roads and in public transport, and it’s just silly to be forcing people to travel when they don’t need to all the time. That’s something that will need another top-down approach - probably set down either at State or Federal level and mandated legislatively.
Can I just say thank you so much for your considered and good-faith reply. This is what I come to Lemmy for - the ideas and the opinions that really spark debate and discussion!
I'm going to address work from home first because I think its already settled. Whether companies want to admit it or not, the general public now sees work from home as a benefit that converts to actual money. What this means, is its become an expected benefit in certain industries and its never going back. Companies that force large groups to come onsite arbitrarily are finding the negatives far outweigh the positives, as they now need to hire massively. The one caveat is companies that just use return to office as a way to fire people.
Essentially, its a right we benefit from now, although shitty companies will continue to do shitty things.
For the rest, ive yet to see a single person explain exactly how a city built for cars with very limited public transport, can effectively be changed into a public transportation/biking/walking city.
I'm not an architect or anything, but dont we need to move buildings? Destroy massive portions of cities? I dont know the answer but my feeling is its not talked about much because there aren't any good plans.
Maybe we need to essentially create new big cities so that we have the opportunity to plan their building without cars.
Maybe we could wait for people to abandon cities to the point they are vacant enough we can shuffle people around until renovations complete?
Edit: is it wrong for me to think the government should be negating the negatives of these transitions? For example with the shuffling idea, the government could cover the costs of forcing people to move, even if it still is relatively close by. Maybe even make it fun, can choose groups of temporary housing near friends and family or coworkers if you like them. Cash infusions?