If cars were suddenly unobtainable, I would be forced to move to maintain my sanity which would have other quality of life impacts such as being far from family or less job opportunity.
I don't see how anything short of nuking this metropolitan area and waiting for the dust to clear in order to rebuild can fix the current mess we're in here.
On the other hand my work is a short 8 mile bike ride along nice quiet side streets which pre-COVID i used to do 4-5 times per week. There was a shower in the gym at work I used which made the entire thing feasible. Frequently I'm nervous about the affects on my health due to the poor air quality here but the relaxation and fitness it brings seems to be a good tradeoff.
I would be happy to not own a car due to the outrageous expense to myself and society, but I don't see myself easily giving up the freedom that comes with it.
We spend an insane amount of our private money on purchasing and maintaining personal vehicles, our public money on our road infrastructure, and our natural resources on building and driving the cars ( that smog has a cost even if everyone wants to pretend it does not. ).
They belch smog that poisons people and reduces their IQ[0]. They create trash and waste. Their production and transportation eats up our natural resources and pollutes our earth. Traffic makes cities miserable to live in. So much of the way we live in the United States has been dictated by the private vehicle.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-poll...
In the U.S., we've given corporations such massive power and leverage that it breaks the system design process. Corporations aren't interested in building holistic systems. They want to build funnel systems that funnel people into their products, just as the car companies did back in the mid-twentieth century to kill off mass transportation methods to instead sell individuals and families the car.
The U.S. could choose to be a world leader in this if it wanted, but it doesn't want to.
We'll have to stop equating cars with smog. Modern cars don't have exhaust pipes. So this can no longer serve as an argument against cars in general.
> Traffic makes cities miserable to live in.
Traffic is a function of the number of people who live in cities, it increases with population even without private car ownership. So you are essentially saying that people make cities miserable to live in (I agree).
But:
> Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future.
In terms of local air quality, this will remain significant (tyre/road wear will get worse unless we manage to significantly reduce the weight of electric vehicles), and what little studies have been done tend to suggest this largely negates the gains from regenerative braking.
Essentially, we've _already_ substantially got rid of exhaust pipe smog such that other components create the majority.
When I cycle I want the option to ride side-by-side chatting with a friend or family member. I do not want to be squashed into a narrow single-occupancy lane with a concrete delimiter (or parked cars) stuck behind someone else going slowly.
There is a simple solution: let everyone faster than a pedestrian onto the roads; introduce presumed liability (similar to the Netherlands); lower the speed limit for cars, charge the operators a price that reflects the climate destruction (and whatever the going price for a few hundred thousand 3rd-World children blown to shit is these days).
But hey, go ahead, try this pipe dream in any large city. It'll work great, like that recent "summer of love" in Seattle.
This would be a problem if the random destinations were uniformly distributed. They are not. They cluster. And indeed there is a feedback loop between public transport and destination desirability.
> It's impossible because total traffic cannot increase due to new roads since there aren't infinite people or cars to begin with. The traffic moving to new or wider roads is missing elsewhere, which is usually good.
It sounds like you think induced demand is an instantaneous phenomenon. It's not. It's a dynamic system with a variety of stocks and therefore, a variety of delayed effects that show up over spans of time.
But you can simplify it to an abstract model: supply and demand. You can fairly say that there is a supply of car travel and a demand for car travel.
If you lower the cost of something then, all things being equal, the demand rises. If you make car travel faster and more pleasant than it was previously, then demand goes up until it reaches an equilibrium again. It's easy to estimate where that equilibrium lies: around the current travel time for a road before it is expanded. But then the net cost for other uses of the space has risen, because there is less to go around.
Roads are not immune from economics, just as they are not excused from geometry.
No. Only in abstract models with potentially infinite supply and demand. If you lower the cost of plaster casts, more people won't break their legs.
> Roads are not immune from economics, just as they are not excused from geometry.
And economics aren't immune from ideology and disingenuous modelling.
European cities have far fewer cars than similarly sized American cities. Gas and car ownership taxes are are also more expensive in Europe compared to America. The reason for this is that the actual cost of car ownership in the US is being passed on to future generations.
No, the reason for this is that European cities are much older and denser, hence streets are narrower, garages are often impossible to build. Gas is more expensive because most cities in Europe have to import it from far away and because taxes are generally higher, not because we're beacons of virtue while the USA is car owners' heaven.
Here in Austria, the average car owner pays a few 1000 $ per year in car-related taxes plus highway tolls, gas prices are high ($8-9 per gallon) and people are complaining just as much about the cost of car ownership being passed on to future generations or the general public. All while our car taxes/tolls are used to maintain highways and those are used by everyone's cargo deliveries, bus travels and so on.
Ummm, you do realize that in most large cities around the world (including NYC, although excluding many US cities), most people do not use cars as their main mode of transportation right? It's not some crazy utopian hypothetical, it's literally how most dense cities already work.
> It's impossible because total traffic cannot increase due to new roads since there aren't infinite people or cars to begin with.
You don't need an "infinite" number of people or cars for induced demand to apply, you just need the number of people/cars to be >>> the road/parking capacity (which is true for any dense city).
In which large city is private car ownership prohibited?
So how much does road transport contribute overall?
EV brake less than ICE.
Domestic combustion (i.e., wood (primarily) and coal fires in domestic settings) is the top category of PM10 (44% of total) and second highest for PM2.5 (27%), after "industrial processes and use of solvents" (32%).
Notably, the resurgence of wood-burning fires in domestic settings has substantially increased emissions from that category over the past two decades (more than doubling it at a time when most other sources have been decreasing), and worse that's disproportionately in urban areas.
Now you're misunderstanding elasticity of demand and assuming that demand or supply curves are perfectly linear.
Plaster casts are highly inelastic, but if I jacked the price to $100,000 per, demand will fall off fairly sharply.
> And economics aren't immune from ideology and disingenuous modelling.
My experience is that economists know more about economics than people who beat up the strawman versions.
Your position, as I understand it, is that some other model correctly describes the demand for road travel. What is it? And why is road travel the exception?
And mine is that economists disagree with each other more than with anyone else.
> Your position, as I understand it, is that some other model correctly describes the demand for road travel. What is it? And why is road travel the exception?
What model specifically are you talking about? We have N lanes going from A to B, if we add 1 lane, total traffic from A to B will increase regardless of any other circumstances? Is that it?