Living Car Free - how to discourage car ownership

I think it is very implausible that any one address/family combination requires more than one automobile. In every case that I know of, certainly the chief breadwinner can get to work by bus/train. And, at least some other car trips are wasteful impulses that are really unnecessary, and which could, easily enough, be accomplished by public transport (which, the more it is used, the more it becomes available). There are cases where a family needs a car, for example, to help deal with an elderly relative's doctor visits.

But two or more cars is surely an unnecessary extravagance. How would you go about discouraging car ownership?

A related question: How would you answer those who observe that the economy thrives on the popularity, and maintenance, of the automobile?

I might discourage second- and third-car ownership in these ways.
First, big luxury tax. At any family/address combination, there must be a record of the principal automobile. It must be the least expensive one. All other automobiles there are luxuries in fact.
Second, a very big consequence for cases where it is discovered that a family/address combination has failed to honestly record an automobile. For example, if an unregistered or a misrecorded second or third automobile is in an accident, the victim could receive treble damages. If such a car is otherwise discovered, it could be assessed back-taxes with interest.
Third, our gasoline could be taxed at rates similar to what Europe has done. Five- and six-dollar per gallon gas would help people see sense.

Tax monies, and reduced expenditures on road maintenance, would go to: well-formed bike lanes. For example here is a video: The Case for Separated Bike Lanes in NYC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo).

If the economy thrives on the automobile, first, the problem is emerging that the electric car will cost less to make and less to maintain. The car made by Tesla Motors (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/business/19electric.html) has, IIRC, twelve working parts! Second, the health of the population will improve with more activity, which will reduce costs and increase productivity.

A related question: How would you answer those who observe that the economy thrives on the popularity, and maintenance, of the automobile?

Think of all the money that went to OTHER businesses because I didn't pay for a car for a year and a half... I moved into a nicer apartment, I went out to eat more, etc.

You think I feel sorry for the gas companies and insurance companies because I wasn't giving them my money?

I can't believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U4DL5tIBjI)doesn't discourage car ownership.

I like riding my bike for errands, but I'm not on your side on this one. Frankly, I don't want the government trying to drag me into or out of car ownership. The less cavalier they are with my funds, the better.

For that matter, just to provide a counterpoint to your position, what if multiple bicycle ownership was discouraged? Does anyone need unobtainium and carbon nanotube fixies with full suspension? Can't a single bicycle get you wherever you need to go?

I might discourage second- and third-car ownership in these ways.
First, big luxury tax. At any family/address combination, there must be a record of the principal automobile. It must be the least expensive one. All other automobiles there are luxuries in fact.
Second, a very big consequence for cases where it is discovered that a family/address combination has failed to honestly record an automobile. For example, if an unregistered or a misrecorded second or third automobile is in an accident, the victim could receive treble damages. If such a car is otherwise discovered, it could be assessed back-taxes with interest.
Third, our gasoline could be taxed at rates similar to what Europe has done. Five- and six-dollar per gallon gas would help people see sense.

Why not run for public office and see how many votes this platform will earn you.

As much as I dislike cars, this is a horrible idea. The current economic reality is that there isn't just one "breadwinner" per family but usually two. Also, a large percentage of the USA is built around using a car to get everywhere. There just isn't the necessary public transportation infrastructure. What about roommates living together in one house? Should they increase their environmental impact by living in separate homes so that they can own a car to get to work? And last, but not least, what is the ultimate goal of this idea? One car per family won't solve the global warming problem or any other problem you can think of if not part of a much larger plan that includes population reduction, decreasing resource consumption, and a total remaking of society, culture, and the economy.

I think it is very implausible that any one address/family combination requires more than one automobile. In every case that I know of, certainly the chief breadwinner can get to work by bus/train. And, at least some other car trips are wasteful impulses that are really unnecessary, and which could, easily enough, be accomplished by public transport (which, the more it is used, the more it becomes available). There are cases where a family needs a car, for example, to help deal with an elderly relative's doctor visits.

But two or more cars is surely an unnecessary extravagance.

I live in an area with no workable public transit system, no passenger rail and plenty of services only available in other communities. Fix any of the above and then we can talk about phasing out car use. Until then, no.

Also, who are you to determine how much or how little any of us actually needs a vehicle? Some of us here are car free and others are car light. For those of us who are car light, I doubt if you'd find two of us who practice it the same way. Your arbitrary judgements do not allow for so many of the individual cases around us. Your judgements don't accommodate those who have mobility problems or those who for numerous other reasons will need a vehicle. Your plan doesn't take into account the person who has a car, has bought a second one and is now trying to sell the first.

If you want to discourage vehicle use, start with the basics. Start by providing attractive alternatives to cars — something badly lacking in so many towns and smaller centres and sometimes insufficient in larger urban areas. Start by organizing carpool networks or car share agreements.

And most importantly, respect the ability of individuals to make their own choices, even if you do not fully agree with them.

Think of all the money that went to OTHER businesses because I didn't pay for a car for a year and a half... I moved into a nicer apartment, I went out to eat more, etc.

You think I feel sorry for the gas companies and insurance companies because I wasn't giving them my money?

Lets see you put a $50/hr auto work out of a job. But you kept the $5/hr waiter and cook working. WOW, that makes sense to me.

Tim

what if multiple bicycle ownership was discouraged? Does anyone need unobtainium and carbon nanotube fixies with full suspension? Can't a single bicycle get you wherever you need to go?

Multiple bicycle ownership doesn't waste resources or encourage inefficiency.

Why not run for public office and see how many votes this platform will earn you.

:roflmao:

The current economic reality is that there isn't just one "breadwinner" per family but usually two.

One of my points is that places of work are very often located on or near public transportation routes. The breadwinners have the easiest time switching to public transportation.

There just isn't the necessary public transportation infrastructure.

Here in the US I always find an empty seat on the bus.

What about roommates living together in one house?

They would have to be discrete 'families' I guess. People would probably look for loopholes like defining themselves or their addresses so as to make it easier to own a car.

And last, but not least, what is the ultimate goal of this idea?

The reality is that there are far more cars than necessary circulating around. We should brainstorm ways to get them off the road, and get people onto bikes and into public transportation. People think they need cars, but in reality they merely want cars, in most cases.

Start by providing attractive alternatives to cars — something badly lacking in so many towns and smaller centres and sometimes insufficient in larger urban areas. Start by organizing carpool networks or car share agreements.

Good idea. Although, I think that while people find cars 'affordable', they will continue to want their own private cage to float around in. I think the reality is that car ownership should be actively discouraged.

One of my points is that places of work are very often located on or near public transportation routes. The breadwinners have the easiest time switching to public transportation.
Not around here there aren't, even in the larger cities, mass transit barely exists. Larger town near me has a mass transit system...of sorts. The town has a population of over 125,000 but is pretty sprawled out. If you are lucky enough to live along one of the 10 routes, and don't have to work any normal shift hours it might work. If you happen to work at the local mall you are screwed. The last bus leaves the mall at 7pm, the mall closes at 9pm. There are just a couple of manufacturing facilities left in this county, and none of the bus routes run close to them, or run early enough to get you anywhere near them for a first shift job. Until the mass transit is upgraded you cannot unilaterally do away with people's transport.

I do agree that car use could and should be limited. However some type of replacement needs to be in place prior to mandating that. I personally think that it is going to limit itself as the cost of fuel continues to rise. Just in case you haven't been watching fuel/gas has jumped around 20% in the past two weeks in many areas of the country. It has almost doubled in cost over the past 5 years and I fully expect it to double again in the next year, if not sooner. It will continue to increase in cost until a) the usage falls to the point there is a surplus or b) it becomes unobtainable at any cost.


Here in the US I always find an empty seat on the bus.

See above, you have to have a bus first, to have an empty seat.



The reality is that there are far more cars than necessary circulating around. We should brainstorm ways to get them off the road, and get people onto bikes and into public transportation. People think they need cars, but in reality they merely want cars, in most cases.

Agreed to a point; however in many cases however a car is required due to improper/lacking infrastructure.


Aaron:)

I don't care about limiting car ownership, but one of my pet peaves would cut car ownership, or at least make them pay their fair share.

Stop subsidizing car companies, oil companies, and all the rest. Let the car drivers pay full price.

I think it is very implausible that any one address/family combination requires more than one automobile. In every case that I know of, certainly the chief breadwinner can get to work by bus/train. And, at least some other car trips are wasteful impulses that are really unnecessary, and which could, easily enough, be accomplished by public transport (which, the more it is used, the more it becomes available). There are cases where a family needs a car, for example, to help deal with an elderly relative's doctor visits.

The situation for my parents from the time I was born until present:

1 bus stop, between 4 and over 16 miles from home
2 cars
nearest full service grocery store between 2 and 10 miles from home
primary breadwinner's job 2 and 17 miles from home

In the house I was born in, use the higher values. For their current house (30 years later) use the lower values. No, the change isn't public transit got more available. They moved closer to transit, very deliberately. Dad has often bike commuted, usually a 3 mile commute with only 1 15% grade and a couple easier ones. He's retired now, still has his bike, and is puzzling away at grocery shopping by bike. For his longest possible commute, I don't *think* he would have hit more than 4 grades greater than 5% round trip. Geography may have made a bike commute impossible, since I'm not sure there's a route that is unrestricted and has sensible speed limits.

Could that area increase transit use and service? Not easily. The long commute covered somewhere between 3 and 9 different jurisdictions (I may be missing a few)... and didn't include *any* of the jurisdictions that had mass transit. Often, mass transit is seen as serving only poor people. Walking is for poor people. Biking is for poor people. Real taxpayers drive cars. So townships and boroughs won't cooperate with the idea of pooling transit funding. Taxpayers, even the ones who most need transit, will oppose it. (yes, they also tend to be opposed to sidewalks)

The key thing is to change the underlying ideas. Sidewalks are not tools of the devil. They let grandma and your 4 year old get around. Curb cuts let you push a stroller. Mass transit means you don't have to spend 10 years driving children everywhere. Grandma can stop driving with mass transit, and still make her doctors' appointments on her own. Without these attitude changes, it doesn't matter what penalties you apply. People will pay them, and continue using 1 car per adult.

CSR, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you try to dictate to people how many cars they are allowed to own. Instead all you have to do is factor in to the price of fuel the real cost of the fuel and the infrastructure on which to run the car. i.e. how much would fuel have to cost to fully fund all road maintenance and construction of new roads, the oil war in Iraq, the cost of repairing the environmental damage, even the cost of policing traffic? I think gas would probably end up being hundreds of dollarls per gallon. If someone's prepared to pay up front the true cost of running a car then they've bought the right to do so, but I doubt many will.

I think the only way to get people to start "thinking outside the cage" is to make the price of gas keep rising. I'd like to see big gas taxes with the money going toward improving public transportation, and making areas more bike and pedestrian friendly. I would start with $1 per gallon and increase that by $1 every year for at least the next 10 years. Emergency services and delivery vehicles should be exempt from the tax.

Just my crazy .02 ;)

I think the only way to get people to start "thinking outside the cage" is to make the price of gas keep rising. I'd like to see big gas taxes with the money going toward improving public transportation, and making areas more bike and pedestrian friendly. I would start with $1 per gallon and increase that by $1 every year for at least the next 10 years. Emergency services and delivery vehicles should be exempt from the tax.

Just my crazy .02 ;)

I have been advocating this for years, unfortunately even if they were to start today! I fear it will be too little too late. The price of a gallon of gas has basically doubled in the last 3 years and is set to do it again in less time than that. In fact I have seen the price of a gallon of diesel go up 25% in the last week in my area. Something is going to have to be done, but it is going to take more than the current crop of politicians to step up to the plate and deliver the bad news to the American public.

Aaron:)

Unless transportation alternatives will be added, there's no point in putting significant increases in fuel taxes. Around here, we have a lot of people who have to drive 25 to 60 kilometres each way for work. There is no transit system for commuters. And with staggered shifts being what they are, carpooling isn't always a practical alternative. Commutersl have to go to work no matter how much fuel costs. Drastic changes are needed before this group of people is able to go car free or car light.

CSR, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you try to dictate to people how many cars they are allowed to own. Instead all you have to do is factor in to the price of fuel the real cost of the fuel and the infrastructure on which to run the car. i.e. how much would fuel have to cost to fully fund all road maintenance and construction of new roads, the oil war in Iraq, the cost of repairing the environmental damage, even the cost of policing traffic? I think gas would probably end up being hundreds of dollarls per gallon. If someone's prepared to pay up front the true cost of running a car then they've bought the right to do so, but I doubt many will.

+1

Drastic changes are needed before this group of people is able to go car free or car light.

How do we encourage those changes? People are incredibly resistant to change unless it has a big impact on their wallets. I don't think you can legislate car ownership, but the more cost prohibitive it is, the more the necessary changes will fall into place.

For me, gasoline is more affordable than it was when I bought it years ago at 33 cents a gallon, in today's money that is equivalent to around $1.75 to $2.00 a gallon, but the vehicles I owned then were getting 1/2 to 1/3 the fuel mileage of my wife's newer car, making the actual operating cost of fuel back then equal to $4.35 to $6.00 a gallon in today's money. Higher fuel prices, vehicle purchase prices, vehicle maintenance and operating costs, are really the only factors that I can see that would have any real effect on discouraging vehicle owership.

Car free isnt for everyone, and car light isnt for everyone either.
I like car light. I used to fill my car with gas once a week. I managed
to stretch it to 2 weeks recently. I plan on keeping that up.

I think the deal with money spent on cars is that cars are so important
to people, theyll spend a tremendous amount of their income on them. Fuel
is a minimal expense compared to the monthly payments.

Well...I'm not giving up both of my cars right now...BUT...I DO plan on moving closer to work so that I would be able to bike and/or walk to work in 30 minutes or less, and get rid of the second car.

In my case, basic economics is enough of an encouragement. :) Within the next 3 years, I want to pay down all outstanding debt my family has incurred. Once that is done...we'll move closer to my job. While I will spend a little more for a home closer to work, I'll be spending $1,000 a year less for gasoline, $500 a year less on insurance, and probably $500-$1000 less on car maintenance/fixes (i.e. oil changes, wear out items, repairs), $125 less a year for plate and municipality stickers. Thats around $200 a month without factoring in a car payment (which I don't ever want to have anymore). The health benefits, both physical and economical are, of course, not measurable...but they do exist. Put in a $300 a month car payment that won't exist anymore (and I'm cheap that way...I know some people with a car payment MUCH more than that)...and I realize that I CAN get that more expensive house closer to work. $500 a month over 30 years at %5.75 is $87,000ish...it makes a difference. Plus, the areas around my job are older, more traditional looking housing type of communities (not cookie cutter homes) so there's a plus there too.

~snip~
A related question: How would you answer those who observe that the economy thrives on the popularity, and maintenance, of the automobile?



Probably the same answer the people got when the horse and buggy industry went away. Typically a replacement industry of some sort will absorb the workers. In the latest round though the workers have been the losers. When manufacturing went over seas, most of the jobs were replaced with lower paying service jobs. Also FWIW I think the exodus (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071101/chrysler_job_cuts.html?.v=3) may have already begun...Chrysler is cutting up to 12,000 positions that is on top of the 13,000 they had already announced. That is a total of 25,000 people losing their jobs...more than double the population of my town. If Chrysler is cutting Ford and Chevy can't be too far behind.

Aaron:)

Lets see you put a $50/hr auto work out of a job. But you kept the $5/hr waiter and cook working. WOW, that makes sense to me.

Tim

Just one? I put the same amount of money into the economy. Why should I care about an autoworker in another state (Or another country)*

The money went into the local economy. That's better for us locally.




* Actually, I do care... but I think my money is better off in the local economy....

...it doesn't matter what penalties you apply. People will pay them, and continue using 1 car per adult.

Only 1 car? :roflmao:

There are many more registered cars in this country than licensed drivers. ;)

My experience with commuting by public transportation- rode my bike 6 miles to the train station, rode into Dallas, waited over an hour for the train going toward Fort Worth, rode it to the nearest spot to my work, rode bike 2 miles to the office. Took just a little over three hours for something that I could have driven in 45 minutes. If it's hot, forget it- and that's 9 months out of the year. Rainy? Forget it. Get here early while still dark? Forget it- that last two miles is on 6-lane road with curb and no shoulder, with numerous trucks- bad place for bicycles when busy.

One flaw in your reasoning is that a major source of highway revenue is gasoline taxes. Cut down on cars, and you cut your highway transportation budget. At some point, you'd need to start taxing cyclists more to pay for it all.

I think it is very implausible that any one address/family combination requires more than one automobile. In every case that I know of, certainly the chief breadwinner can get to work by bus/train.

Wrong. You need to meet more people. Perhaps if you traveled around, especially in rural areas, you might find one or two people who either do not live or work near public transportation. Believe it or not, such places are pretty common once you get outside of big cities.

It's incredibly difficult. I haven't even been able to convince an old friend of mine to ditch her car, even though she can't afford it and it constantly breaks down. She's dirt poor but has had to borrow thousands from her parents to keep it up. She seems to cling to it as some symbol that she's still a "success."

One flaw in your reasoning is that a major source of highway revenue is gasoline taxes. Cut down on cars, and you cut your highway transportation budget. At some point, you'd need to start taxing cyclists more to pay for it all.

Nonsense. The reason roads cost so much is because cars are wearing them out so quickly. Moreover, cars need a LOT more surface area than bicycles, and require much smoother grades and more advanced engineering.

Great ideas!! Yes, end subsidies. Absolutely. ("Hello, Dick Cheney?")

And more tax on gas.

(Suddenly everyone's car is an emergency vehicle. "But I really need a latte!")

One of my points is that places of work are very often located on or near public transportation routes. The breadwinners have the easiest time switching to public transportation.

Really? And you did a study on this? The US is a big place. I would be willing to bet there are more businesses NOT on a public transportation route than are. There are also a fair number of workers that aren't just office people. I for one cannot go car free as my job requires visits to numerous client locations, many of which are too far to be reached by bicycle.

And the LAST thing I need is another place where the government can dictate what I can and cannot do. If I wanted that kind of "freedom" I would move to a more progressive style government like maybe China or Cuba. Let gas keep going up and things will start changing. Maybe not overnight but it will. It will have to.

-D

One flaw in your reasoning is that a major source of highway revenue is gasoline taxes. Cut down on cars, and you cut your highway transportation budget. At some point, you'd need to start taxing cyclists more to pay for it all.

A major flaw in your reasoning is that if you cut the number of vehicles on the road significantly you also cut the needed budget. Cars cause a huge amount of damage to the roads, and a good portion of maintenance for local roads comes from sources OTHER than gasoline taxes... property taxes, sales tax, etc.

Ihe OP obviously doesn't have a clue as to life outside his little world. I'll keep my 4 cars thank you.

Ihe OP obviously doesn't have a clue as to life outside his little world.
He does so have a clue.
He posted in the right place for his proposals to be taken seriously.

Unless transportation alternatives will be added, there's no point in putting significant increases in fuel taxes. Around here, we have a lot of people who have to drive 25 to 60 kilometres each way for work. There is no transit system for commuters. And with staggered shifts being what they are, carpooling isn't always a practical alternative. Commutersl have to go to work no matter how much fuel costs. Drastic changes are needed before this group of people is able to go car free or car light.

Actually there is. Increased gas taxes will acheive two things.

1) People will drive smaller cars.

2) You will increase the marginal cost of operating a car relative to the fixed cost of ownership. This will increase the incentives to be car light. Currently if you already own a car it is sometimes cheaper to drive it somewhere than take public transport.

How do we encourage those changes? People are incredibly resistant to change unless it has a big impact on their wallets. I don't think you can legislate car ownership, but the more cost prohibitive it is, the more the necessary changes will fall into place.

But some of the changes, especially those involving introducing or expanding transit services, are made by various levels of government. The direction of urban planning and initiatives to make cities and towns more bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly will also come from governments.

Right now, in a lot of places, it's incredibly inconvenient to go car free or car light. I'm not just talking about waking a few blocks to the store instead of driving. I'm thinking instead of situations where a car-free lifestyle would involve relocating or completely restructuring one's work and social patterns.

A major flaw not discussed in the OP's post is poor access many have to public transportation. Without living in a fairly major urbanized area transit is nigh nonexistant. There is very little passenger rail in areas as close as 75 mile to major internation cities in this country never mind if you are in the "country". The City of Buffalo (2nd largest city in NY state) has a "train" that travels from one end of Main Street to the Other with no branch lines. There is a bus system but it is barely functional in the way the routes are layed out and the gaps in coverage. One can only imagine what it's like in Rochester or Albany. What about in some podunk city in farm country? Never mind the implications of a further increase in the power given to the nany state. We need less government and more personal responsibility.

A major flaw not discussed in the OP's post is poor access many have to public transportation. Without living in a fairly major urbanized area transit is nigh nonexistant. There is very little passenger rail in areas as close as 75 mile to major internation cities in this country never mind if you are in the "country".
That's what I'm noticing too. Those of us who live in rural or semi-rural areas don't have the options available to city dwellers.
We need less government and more personal responsibility.
You and I, looking at the same situations, have arrived at opposite conclusions.

Governments need to take some responsibility for providing the public with the services we need.

But some of the changes, especially those involving introducing or expanding transit services, are made by various levels of government. The direction of urban planning and initiatives to make cities and towns more bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly will also come from governments.

Right now, in a lot of places, it's incredibly inconvenient to go car free or car light. I'm not just talking about waking a few blocks to the store instead of driving. I'm thinking instead of situations where a car-free lifestyle would involve relocating or completely restructuring one's work and social patterns.

We drive the government to do what they do. Affect enough people and there will be change. I live in one of those places where car free isn't possible. But keep bumping the cost of fuel and people will have to find a way to make it possible. It could be possible here but there is no incentive to do it. Relocating and restructuring work and social patterns is a price some people will have to pay. Unless they want to keep paying more and more for fuel.

Public transit is poor BECAUSE people drive cars everywhere. The non-poor people don't feel the need for buses and trains, so they don't support it and everywhere runs on a skeleton crew. Give the public transit system the support it deserves and it will be very competitive with cars.

...$500 a month over 30 years at %5.75 is $87,000ish...

I think it would be $453,986.96, not $87,000. Some accounting guy can check me on that.

Only 1 car? :roflmao:

There are many more registered cars in this country than licensed drivers. ;)

Yup. But you can only *drive* one car at a time :D Didn't say anything about the 2 others parked in the 3 car garage :D

I don't really think that actively trying to discourage people from owning cars they aren't using is a great idea. A person who keeps a car that isn't used is essentially foregoing the chance to earn interest on the value of the car, and instead owning an object that depreciates just by sitting there. An unused car is really no worse than an unused shed or a roomful of unused furniture.

However, the actual use of cars is something that we should be trying to discourage. The trouble with using cars is that the users don't directly suffer the consequences of the C02 and poisons they leave behind, the wear and tear on the roads, the cost of setting aside land and building roads on it, and of pulling fuel out of the ground so we don't have it sitting there for later.

However, the actual use of cars is something that we should be trying to discourage. The trouble with using cars is that the users don't directly suffer the consequences of the C02 and poisons they leave behind, the wear and tear on the roads, the cost of setting aside land and building roads on it, and of pulling fuel out of the ground so we don't have it sitting there for later.

I agree. There is a simple solution to the problem which every other developed country other than the U.S. already understands, accepts and implements. Its a meaningful gas tax. A meaningful gas tax would both tax C02 emissions and road use/damage.

An unused car is really no worse than an unused shed or a roomful of unused furniture.

However, the actual use of cars is something that we should be trying to discourage.

True enough, although the maintenance on an unused car is also a burden to the environment. But indeed, I'm talking about ways to get cars off the road, and people onto bikes or public transportation.

Subsidy per se isn't evil, it just depends on what we are subsidizing. Some people are saying that we can't make value judgments, but actually we make them all the time. Government imposes the practical consequences of value judgments, made crudely by the people. Public transport is subsidized, roadways are subsidized, bikeways are subsidized. Nobody pays the true costs for their transportation, at least not at the time of actual movement.

I don't know how many cars are on the road each day in the US, but in terms of fractions, I suspect that the traffic involved in wide-reaching service industries, repairs, contract work, and the like, is probably about 3% - 8%. Just about all the rest is just single-occupancy vehicles, operating almost entirely along roads that are served by transportation, or could easily be. Most population suburban and urban centers have some sort of bus line, and the bus lines are operated by government employees who would really like having additional users take to the buses. They'd like very much to add capacity, just as soon as riders appear. By and large, the problem with public transport is the first and last miles. The first and last miles involve some effort by the user. But most car trips coincide with existing public transportation service. This leads me to believe that it ought to be possible to meaningfully discourage automobile use. If successful, a program of this nature would result in a more physically fit population, lower consumption of fossil fuels, less pollution, faster commute times, and possibly even a more sociable population.

It reminds me of the 'last mile' problem confronted by high-speed Internet providers. Getting the bandwidth in place for most distances was easy enough, but getting it into every home was an obstacle.

Verizon overcame the problem partly by trying to tie together various money-making ventures. For example, they hope to convert the data customers into television customers receiving many channels over the same fiber optics. They went ahead with plans to install fiber in the last mile, because they saw a profit in doing so. How can we get bus operators (governments) to see a profit in getting buses closer to users?

Perhaps this would work. They could decide that if a household is located within one mile of a bus line, then all cars besides the least expensive per household (i.e. the second, third, etc. cars) would be assessed a luxury tax: because essentially, they are luxuries at that point. So, from the government's point of view, extending the bus line is a profit motive. Then, as people abandon their cars, and switch to public transport (and biking, e.g. using a folder to get to the bus, or just biking generally on less crowded roads!), the government gains money by having to spend less on infrastructure.

I suspect that virtually all car trips overlap public transport options, and do not involve carrying more than a bikeful of odds and ends.

I suspect that virtually all car trips overlap public transport options, and do not involve carrying more than a bikeful of odds and ends.

Maybe... but have you ever tried getting a bike loaded with 100 lbs of groceries onto a bus???? (Yes, I can load 100 lbs of groceries and supplies onto my bike with no trailer and no extracycle-type extensions)

Unfortunately, I can't do without my gas guzzler (It actually isn't that bad, a minivan that gets 31 Highway ;) ). I have to often go 125 miles to another campus in Fort Wayne for research conferences as well as commuting to Indianapolis for work on the planning committee for Tour de Cure. That's a 60 mile one way trip.

I suspect that virtually all car trips overlap public transport options, and do not involve carrying more than a bikeful of odds and ends.

Maybe this is true where you live, but it's not the case here.

We have public transit in my town, but it does not work for anyone except the senior who needs to go to a doctor's appointment in a neighbouring community. To use our transit, you need to call and book a space at least a day in advance. The bus leaves town at 7 a.m. and 1:45 p.m. On the first Tuesday of the month, there's also a bus at 9:30 a.m. To come back, the bus leaves at 8:15 a.m. and 3 p.m., with a third bus at 1 p.m. on the first Tuesday of the month. That is the entire transit system available to me. There is no bus service available on Saturdays, Sundays or statutory holidays. That is why I keep saying we need a workable transit system before any measures are put in place to restrict car use.

I'm in a community of around 12,000 people. The nearest centre of any size has around 30,000 people. There are voices around here asking for improved transit and yet some of those in our business community are worried that if we have a good transit, our people will go out of town to do their shopping.

Transportation is a complex issue and addressing transportation problems will not work if we try to use simplistic solutions.

Transportation is a complex issue and addressing transportation problems will not work if we try to use simplistic solutions.

Trains, buses... it's really not that hard. They've been doing it in many areas across the pond for a long time now. Make the transportation available and make it the better option. Take England for example. I traveled all over the country without a car on one trip. Then I spent the whole time with a car on another trip. Without the car was easier, faster, cheaper, and a lot more fun. And I don't just mean the big cities. We went to plenty of rural areas using nothing but trains and buses. You do have to time things a little better with public transport, and the car is not without it's advantages, but it wasn't that complicated.

im currently trying to get my room mate to ditch his truck. his payment is through the roof and he can't really afford it. he uses his truck to go to work which is three miles away and hang out with his girlfriend who lives literally a few blocks away. we live on one bus line and about 3 blocks from another bus line, which is the main route in columbus and has busses coming, during the day, every 10 minutes or so.

yesterday he went on a ride with me and said he hadn't been on a bike in 10 or so years, since he got a drivers liscense. i think if me and my girlfriend keep pushing him he will eventually see the light, or starve to death because half of his monthly income goes towards car payment/insurance/gas/upkeep.

Trains, buses... it's really not that hard. They've been doing it in many areas across the pond for a long time now. Make the transportation available and make it the better option. Take England for example. I traveled all over the country without a car on one trip. Then I spent the whole time with a car on another trip. Without the car was easier, faster, cheaper, and a lot more fun. And I don't just mean the big cities. We went to plenty of rural areas using nothing but trains and buses. You do have to time things a little better with public transport, and the car is not without it's advantages, but it wasn't that complicated.


England's population density is 250 times that of our local county, and so England has enough ridership base to offer a regular transit service to and from rual areas and so forth. Our county population is not enough to offer incentive for larger extensive services other than for the most densely populated areas in our area. To put in perspective, England's population density is though the US had 2.5 billion people, or almost twice that of China's.