Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
This country only works if gas is cheap...and it's already too late for that. Oopsie daisy I guess.
Or electricity, if we weren’t afraid of change. But even with some of the highest electricity prices in the country, I pay about half what i would for gas
For now... But ultimately EVs are unsustainable too. It's just kicking the can while the planet burns.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of progress
Replacing ICE cars with EVs are a solid amount of progress, it’s progress within control of individuals, and it’s progress that can change society in a decade or two.
Transit and walkability would be better but I can’t do anything about that and significant progress would be a century or more.
Nah. With the right reforms, we could make cities walkable in a decade.
Of course, good infrastructure and transit would be nice, too. But these reforms would cost very little money and could be implemented immediately, and would likely result in a city overrun with chaotic, uncontrollable ebike traffic - which I'm okay with.
That only affects new construction. Most places aren’t growing anywhere near fast enough for such a quick change, nor are there anywhere near enough contractors or supplies
My town has most of it (but nowhere should accept individuals impacting road safety and maintainability) and is somewhat walkable but most of that was from being built out before cars.
We did have a recent zoning change to encourage more higher density housing near the center (up to six stories “as of right” == streamlined process) and have several new apartment blocks going up, but there’s no way that’s sustainable and doesn’t help the walkability of the rest of town
The land value and carbon taxes are key here. The carrot is people seeking better, happier lives and developers seeking to turn a profit - the lower bullet points serve to allow these carrots to be attained. But the taxes are the stick. And people tend to move a lot faster when you beat their asses.
A land value tax removes the incentive to speculatively hold onto land. Instead, it charges landowners a heafty fee to hold onto valuable land in or near walkable areas, which sends a clear message - build something (like housing or a business) that will make good use of this valuable land, or give it to someone who will.
Of course, this will light the fire under some asses. Owning valuable land is still valuable with a land value tax - it is just that the value is in the potential profit to be made, which is only realized if you build something. So expect land owners to be ready and willing to pay big sums to import the labor and materials necessary to get their land to a profitable state as soon as possible. And this would also be a strong incentive to use existing unused building space in walkable areas. All those luxury apartments with outrageous rents sitting empty would see steep price drops as owners scrambled to get someone in the door to make the building profitable. Same with all those empty storefronts which have been vacant as the landlord lazily searches for the "perfect" tenant. And all that office space in downtowns, unused since covid? Expect it to be rapidly retrofitted into affordable housing.
So while rents in walkable areas are screaming downwards, the carbon tax creates an additional incentive to move there. Of course, we pair the tax with a dividend, so an average person is actually making money from the tax - but the incentive is clear: the less carbon you emit, the more money you make. Which encourages people to choose less carbon-intensive forms of housing and transportation. Which means more apartments and cycling, and less detached homes and driving.
Why not?
Looks like we live in very different areas. You’re describing issues that just don’t exist here. I bet we’re much farther along the path toward walkability (by virtue of being completely built out before cars) and may be looking at different priorities to drive the next phase
When you make any change, such as zoning, you get new development where that particular change makes a difference. It can even be significant new development, but there’s not going to be a continuous pipeline of new stuff. There’s a bunch of development for things where that change makes a difference then such projects get completed and new work tails off back to steady state. Then you need to look at the next bottleneck in zoning/paperwork/process to free up the next batch of projects