Everyone should be able to own a car, and be able to afford keeping it in a garage for rare situations where it makes sense to use one.
This is a winning narrative.
So you’re saying it somehow makes more sense for every single person to own a car and a garage and pay all the initial and maintaince upkeep, and insurance costs than just use a taxi or uber a handful of times a year?
If someone can get by for the vast majority of their needs without a car, they don’t need to own a car. We have taxis, rideshare, and car rentals that can fill in the gaps they can’t make with walking or transit. Those options are far cheaper than owning if they don’t use the car often.
I haven’t even touched on how car dependancy destroys affordability, city budgets, and the environment. I really don’t see how everyone owning a car is more of a winning narrative than everyone having access to effecient transit.
This is my main argument here. The relative unaffordability of a car makes it more desirable and more likely to be bought once a person is financially capable of doing it. See every Eastern European country where car ownership was extremely low until the exact moment an average person could afford one.
Note: I’m making a point about car ownership, not making it convenient to drive in a city. Driving the car should be discouraged through urbanist policy and design.
In a properly dense, walkable city, there is literally not enough space for everybody to have a parking space, let alone a garage. If you try, e.g. by legislating minimum parking requirements, all you end up doing is ruining the city.
Patience. Do you really want to read everything neatly digested and miss the pleasure of arguing in comments 🙂
My main argument is that being able to buy a car without too much hassle will make it less likely to actually do so, as long as public transportation can cover most of your needs. Just knowing that you can will give you enough peace of mind not to actually do it. Because you can.
Note: I’m making a point about car ownership, not making it convenient to drive in a city. Driving the car should be discouraged through urbanist policy and design.
I know you’re approaching this argument from a good place, and I understand it. I live in China, where people in previous generations couldn’t afford one, but the younger wealthier generation can so they go out and do that.
There’s a flaw in your argument, though, in thinking that if everyone can easily afford to get a car, but public transportation is so good… they just won’t get a car when they can easily choose to do so? It goes against human nature, if people can afford to do it, they will.
Not everyone, not people like me who can afford to, but choose not to, but I think we’re the exception to human nature. And even if it’s just a 50/50 human nature thing of people that will choose to buy a car who can afford to - as the more people that can afford to rises, so will the number of cars sold.
Here in China they know this, and they don’t want the roads and air clogged, so they artificially make cars more and more expensive by charging like $12k just for a license late and doling them by lottery, to keep the numbers down.
I don’t really disagree, it works with tobacco, so there’s merit to the approach. I’m also hesitant to put the emphasis on overt pressure, nobody likes paying more taxes and it’s easy to undo.
What’s wrong with a car-sharing setup? Less space needed, people don’t need a car 24/7 so others can use them, it’s cheaper and less wasteful and polluting.
Everyone should be able to own a car, and be able to afford keeping it in a garage for rare situations where it makes sense to use one.
This is a winning narrative.
So you’re saying it somehow makes more sense for every single person to own a car and a garage and pay all the initial and maintaince upkeep, and insurance costs than just use a taxi or uber a handful of times a year?
If someone can get by for the vast majority of their needs without a car, they don’t need to own a car. We have taxis, rideshare, and car rentals that can fill in the gaps they can’t make with walking or transit. Those options are far cheaper than owning if they don’t use the car often.
I haven’t even touched on how car dependancy destroys affordability, city budgets, and the environment. I really don’t see how everyone owning a car is more of a winning narrative than everyone having access to effecient transit.
Being able to own a car ≠ owning a car.
This is my main argument here. The relative unaffordability of a car makes it more desirable and more likely to be bought once a person is financially capable of doing it. See every Eastern European country where car ownership was extremely low until the exact moment an average person could afford one.
Note: I’m making a point about car ownership, not making it convenient to drive in a city. Driving the car should be discouraged through urbanist policy and design.
In a properly dense, walkable city, there is literally not enough space for everybody to have a parking space, let alone a garage. If you try, e.g. by legislating minimum parking requirements, all you end up doing is ruining the city.
Okay. You’ve now (barely) stated your position. Now actually argue for it. Sheesh.
Patience. Do you really want to read everything neatly digested and miss the pleasure of arguing in comments 🙂
My main argument is that being able to buy a car without too much hassle will make it less likely to actually do so, as long as public transportation can cover most of your needs. Just knowing that you can will give you enough peace of mind not to actually do it. Because you can.
Note: I’m making a point about car ownership, not making it convenient to drive in a city. Driving the car should be discouraged through urbanist policy and design.
I know you’re approaching this argument from a good place, and I understand it. I live in China, where people in previous generations couldn’t afford one, but the younger wealthier generation can so they go out and do that.
There’s a flaw in your argument, though, in thinking that if everyone can easily afford to get a car, but public transportation is so good… they just won’t get a car when they can easily choose to do so? It goes against human nature, if people can afford to do it, they will.
Not everyone, not people like me who can afford to, but choose not to, but I think we’re the exception to human nature. And even if it’s just a 50/50 human nature thing of people that will choose to buy a car who can afford to - as the more people that can afford to rises, so will the number of cars sold.
Here in China they know this, and they don’t want the roads and air clogged, so they artificially make cars more and more expensive by charging like $12k just for a license late and doling them by lottery, to keep the numbers down.
I don’t really disagree, it works with tobacco, so there’s merit to the approach. I’m also hesitant to put the emphasis on overt pressure, nobody likes paying more taxes and it’s easy to undo.
What’s wrong with a car-sharing setup? Less space needed, people don’t need a car 24/7 so others can use them, it’s cheaper and less wasteful and polluting.
Other than a being forced to share an expensive asset with some random disgusting person?
Time, convenience, maintenance , trust, cleanliness and security.
Ever heard of peak hours? People tend to need the same resources around the same time.
deleted by creator