This plan does not care whether or not he commutes.
Non-commuters get those fees paid by their companies.
1 Like
Abolish prick bosses then? Via magic?
1 Like
I feel like this argument is going spiral yet again to “abolish capitalism”. By and large I agree with you. In my head I read every one of Scott/Rym’s comments as “abolish all cars (in cities)” which is completely reasonable, because to imply that you could lay a Nationwide ban on cars in this lifetime reeks of privilege/ignorance to the fact that a vast majority of Americans, rich and poor, rely on personal transport to accomplish anything. The impression I get is that from their point of view, owning a car is a luxury, which for most people it absolutely isn’t.
Ok, there’s a difference between abolishing all cars* and making cars* way more expensive to use.
It’s a simple difference. One is regressive, the other affects all people equally. If we’re just banning cars** I’m all for that. If we’re making them more expensive to use, if we’re going with the market based solution like a fucking republican. Then yeah, no. That’s bad, don’t do that.
*In cities
**except for like those with mobility issues or shipping of goods for purchase.
We have a different thread for this. Don’t make me combine these.
1 Like
Maybe instead of, or preferably in addition to, making cars prohibitively expensive to use within cities, give near, or at, a 100% tax rebates for people who commute primarily via bicycle.
1 Like
To keep this thread a bit more about urbanism while still staying with the theme of parking. I’ll get on my high horse a bit about abolishing parking minimums.
Real quick, what are parking minimums? They are laws that basically say any time you build new shit, you also gotta build some parking to go with it, otherwise you cant build it.
So for one, in most cities, all the stuff that makes the city function like firefighters, and schools and bridges and streets, are partially funded by property tax. The amount of property tax paid is based on assessed value. Ya know what doesn’t have much assessed value? Parking lots. So every parking lot in any city you see is one less bridge repair, or slower train or train that wasn’t built.
For two, they get in everyone who wants to make the city better’s way. If you own a small business, you gotta spend some of that profit making sure you got the parking for it rather than spending that on literally anything else. People who own their houses aren’t allowed to add a small second unit without also providing a parking space for the tenant. Ditto for developers just at a much grander scale. They wanna put up a building, better also have a giant lot for cars. Finally renters have less places to rent because all this space that could have been more apartments are now car apartments.
Finally they just make the city more spread out. Like when I was walking around San Antonio last PAX South I marveled at how many car buildings there were. Those buildings are just putting unnecessary space between the good stuff that people wanna be at like homes and businesses. Like every building made for housing cars represents more time you gotta spend IN a car getting from place to place (if you’re driving). Getting rid of all this space wasted on cars ironically reduces the need for cars. The increased density means odds are the thing you want to go to is closer to you than it would be if there were parking lots there too.
A bunch of this is less of a problem in NY than it is in other municipalities. But this is the urbanism thread, not the NYC urbanism thread. Much as it pains me to say, there are places in the world other than New York.
You guys took my fun idea of charging car users TIME and made it into a really boring discussion based on charging them MONEY and that makes me sad.
Money is boring. We got to hit them where it hurts.
2 Likes
I mean, if you want something really interesting that will never happen, we can implement what I have decided to call “open season laws.” Basically, if any car is violating the law, say it’s double parked for example. Then any good citizen can record video evidence of the violation on their phone. After indisputable video evidence has been obtained that a violation is being committed, it is then open season on the car. Not on people, just on the car. For all intents and purposes the car is now public property and anyone who wants to scratch it, smash it, piss on it, shit on it, vandalize it, steal it, etc. is legally free to do so. The only restriction is that they can only bring harm to the car and to nothing else.
Drivers will be terrified of violating any laws as Clockwork Orange type hooligans roam the streets just itching for a chance at some ultra man vs machine violence. Everyone who dares to continue driving will drive slow as balls and follow every letter of the law to a T.
Alright, let’s aim at time.
Change multi-lane roads to have each lane be used for specific numbers of passengers. If on a road of at least 2 lanes, the right most lane is for for 1 or more passenger vehicles and left most is only for 4 or more passenger vehicles. If there are more than 2 lanes then each lane to right of the left most lane requires one less passenger than the lane to its left until there are more than 4 lanes. At that point, the left most lane is for public transportation only and any lane between that lane and the fourth lane, from the right, are additional 4 person or higher lanes.
On any roads that are single lane, they are only drivable with at least 4 passengers, via public transportation, on bicycle, or on foot.
All of these restrictions should be photo enforced, carry heavy fines for violation, suspension of driving privileges on the third offense, and permanent driving privilege revocation on the second suspension. Exceptions to these rules for those with disabilities, and easily receivable permits for said exceptions, are a must.
There are definitely better ways to use time instead of money but I’d need more coffee for that.
Oh shit, forgot a couple key things.
Commercial vehicles and public transportation, such as buses and taxis, should be exempt from the single lane rule and capable of driving there without penalty. Buses specifically should be exempt from the occupancy rules on multi-lane roads, making them capable of choosing which lane they are in based on the driver’s choice.
Uber, Lyft, and other similar services should not be considered public transportation, therefore meaning the single lane rule around occupancy still applies to them. Additionally, their driver should not be included in the occupancy total when evaluating which lane they should be in. As such, a driver with one passenger would only have the vehicle be considered to have one person in it and the should be in the right most lane of a multi-lane road.
How about it’s free to drive into the city, but the toll booth operator gets to hit you in the nards?
I like this plan, I’m guessing that it vastly decreases the number of men driving in the city, but women are more or less unchanged.
Open season on cars is mostly just more money-based penalties. If someone returns to their car and it is damaged, they can just get in a taxi and be home.
Here’s the point of my idea: it’s not about punishing drivers. It’s about making them feel the pain of those who don’t have their transport options.
If you had to design a system without knowing your position in the system, would you take the gamble of ending up in the 1% where everything is fine? Or would you make life the most comfortable for the 99%?
I want the 1% to have the same pain as the 99%, so even if they want to keep driving over bridges into city centers, then they are also looking out for the best interests of those on the metro.
No, they can not. They have to take care of their car.
There is a lot of pain involved with choosing a car, but car people don’t realize it. Then when they finally are free of the car, only then do they see what they were doing to themselves.
A lot of that pain is that cars demand their owners take care of them. They have to find parking, even if it’s free. When they leave the place they are at, they have to use their car, they can’t just leave it there. If something is wrong with the car, they have to take care of it. It could disrupt their entire day or even week when the car has a problem.
If someone’s car is smashed, if they are poor it could ruin their entire life. If they are rich, it would still ruin their week. Not only does their entire day come to a halt because they have to scrape their car off the road, they now also have to get a new car. They need to find a new way to get where they are going. They need to get a new car. They need to deal with the ticket they got for the initial violation.
Imagine someone who double parks to grab a grocery on their way to pick up the kid at school. They come out to find out their car is a complete wreck.
You also have to consider the emotional attachment people have to their car. Just like how even a very cheap bicycle can have an enormous value to its actual owner, the same is true for cars.
And lastly, a lot of the asshole drivers are driving fancy and special cars that they care a lot about. A lot of the time you see an extremely misbehaving car, it’s often a very customized car that is not easily replaced. They put a lot of work into that car, and modifying it is their hobby. Now if they want to drive their hot rods on the streets, as opposed to the track, they will have to be on their best behavior or find months/years of investment gone in a flash.
“If you had to design a system without knowing your position in the system, would you take the gamble of ending up in the 1% where everything is fine? Or would you make life the most comfortable for the 99%?”
This is what bothers me about the fast pass whatever at airport security. It’s nice and civilized when you get it, but fundamentally unfair.
1 Like
Also, richer people have nicer cars, so getting it smashed costs more!
If we do any kind of congestion pricing, it should be income based 
2 Likes