> No thanks. Also, some people like cars. Deal with it, i'm not ditching for an e-bike or whatever.
I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices, just mostly about policy impacts.
Currently car ownership and sub/exurban housing are subsidized in various direct and indirect ways. If policies changed and other things were emphasized instead, you could still choose to live in the same way, it would just be more expensive.
> I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices
OP of this comment tree is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But I think it should suffice to make the alternatives more attractive. People are open to renewables, but not a drastic reduction in their quality of life. We should not demand a reduction or stagnation in quality-of-life for developing countries either as it's inhumane. Ostensibly they would be just as interested in pursuing renewable tech if it can help them grow.
> is explicit that it is about taking away choice.
But it's a conversation and I am rejecting that framing. Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game. They are a natural result of a ton of policy interactions and subsidies, and the focus on it clearly has +ves and -ves. And of course it's always nice if you can get someone else to partially pay for your lifestyle, but that's inherently got downsides.
I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. Will fewer people choose to live in suburbs? Sure - that's how incentives work.
I don't think "banning cars" makes any sense. But if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving, which doesn't seem like a bad outcome, and more likely to have +ve impact than the fantasy that EVs are a drop in replacement for ICEs, no other changes needed.
> Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game
Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc.
> I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall.
No one's saying that. I fully support zoning reform. If one's imagination leads to such bright ideas as "ban cars" however, it will have more detractors.
> if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving
> Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc.
Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices.
However, there is no reason to assume that if those policies change, peoples impressions and preferences won't change too. Quite the opposite, actually - that's just how incentives (and the related PR) work.
> Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices.
Only in the chicken-and-egg sense that policy choices make suburbia prioritized, but I don't think it's enough to say that special policies are what wholly render suburbia quiet and safe (to the extent that if you were to enact the policy change you want, suburbia will still be regarded as such).
Quiet I think is somewhat intrinsic, although the desirability of that is socially constructed, and changes over time. I also think people care about "quiet house" (which is to some degree a choice during construction) more than "quiet neighbourhood". The latter, after all, can be construed negatively or positively.
"Safety" perception though seems to largely be a social construction. By this I mean it seems pretty clear (US context) that a) most people have opinions, often strong ones, about safety that b) don't seem much related to any data or real science [1] and c) are quite often affected by softer things like political messaging and PR.
If I'm right about the above, there would be no reason to assume it would not change also. Of course it also implies that change could not be driven by reality either :)
[1] real science in this area seems inherently difficult, and available data of poor quality
This is a widely believed factoid on the internets but is not supported by the numbers. Roads have always been a relatively small percentage of government spending and has been going down over time. The big ticket items for local & state governments are criminal justice, education, health, and in many areas pensions for retirees.
This site has a good graph half way down showing the relative growth in spending by area:
Which adds salt to the wound because car traffic in denser areas is largely caused by the surrounding suburbs, as the locals can get to places by walking and transit, and often don't even have a car.
Trivially resolved through zoning reform. Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" will not deter sprawl or achieve anything of note, it will just be considered fringe fanaticism.
> unsustainable
The global population growth rate is going to stall, and by extension, cities will cease to grow. Sustainability is a moot point.
Which I never engaged in. Banning cars is nonsense and is counter productive.
> The global population growth rate is going to stall
If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. That's the whole point. We don't even have to have any growth in population.
> If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable.
Leaving aside that we aren't, sustainability necessarily implies perpetual increase. This hypothetical doesn't make sense. If the demand were there to supply everyone with a vehicle, we would, the materials are there. That would of course result in environmental encroachment, but not indefinitely. Plus vehicles on the road will all be EV in the coming decades.
I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices, just mostly about policy impacts.
Currently car ownership and sub/exurban housing are subsidized in various direct and indirect ways. If policies changed and other things were emphasized instead, you could still choose to live in the same way, it would just be more expensive.