Oslo made its city center basically car-free • Hacker News Board

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#431

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

karmelapple wrote: post #62

atonse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the appeal of congestion fees now that seamless tolls are so easy to collect (using RFID, License Plate Readers, etc). But apart from that, just needlessly taxing gasoline everywhere seems silly when you're trying to just reduce congestion in cities.

Would people who are advocates of a “pay for what you use” system be fine with being taxed by miles driven? Have a yearly inspection of your car for both safety concerns as a variety of states do, and also record the odometer at that point. Tax miles driven, and also multiply that a lot for vehicles that directly contribute to more maintenance on the roads, like semi trucks. It will increase costs for shipping by tru…

Add in realistic parking costs. IMHO if we abolished free parking and completely moved vehicle taxes over to fuel taxes, the system would be more fair.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#432

Post by dingaling » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #339

themagician wrote: post #8

I want this so bad. My hatred for the automobile grows every day. The cost, the noise, the time wasted in traffic, the pollution, the ridiculous space wasted on parking. When you really add up the costs, both individual and to society, it’s absolutely insane. I wish the cost of gasoline was high enough to internalize all the costs and change behavior. Like really high. A dollar a mile. We are slaves to the automobile…

I want this so bad. My hatred for the automobile grows every day. If you really want to see more people walk, then do more walking yourself as a form of basic transit. I've lived without a car for more than a decade. Everywhere I go, people start walking more. As more people start walking, crime goes down. (See Jane Jacobs: "Eyes on the street" is the key to urban safety. This means pedestrians on the street.) Air po…

Counterpoint: I've never had a car in five decades. I live in the same town where I grew up. Car use has increased massively and our road into the countryside has recently been 'upgraded' to arterial status, though with no change of infrastructure.

Fighting Car Culture takes more than a few people walking.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#433

Post by baddox » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #415

baddox wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure a very small portion of the benefits of the interstate highways goes to national defense. If it’s truly necessary for national defense, there should still be tolls levied for the side effects: namely the massive subsidies on personal travel and commercial freight.

The benefit in this case potential, so it's hard to quantify it unless and until it is realized. But if it comes to that, it would be absolutely crucial for national defense.

I don’t think the analysis is that difficult. Imagine that the interstates were only used for military transportation (both for emergencies, which presumably haven’t happened much, and for regular logistics). Surely the ongoing maintenance costs would be vastly reduced.

Those costs would be the costs that “we the people” accept as valid usage of taxpayer money. You could throw in costs for other public interests like emergency logistics (e.g. FEMA moving goods and personnel for hurricane relief), first-class mail, etc., and you’re still probably only accounting for a very small portion of the taxpayer money that is currently going toward regular interstate maintenance.

The rest of the taxpayer costs are just subsidies of private interests, namely commercial freight and personal transportation. Those subsidies aren’t “free.” They come at the expense of other private interests, like freight and passenger railroads. These subsidies undoubtedly drastically change the economy, pushing everything toward just-in-time fulfillment, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

I would like to see these private subsidies reduced or eliminated, perhaps by charging tolls.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#434

Post by rvp-x » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

danjayh wrote: post #58

themagician wrote: post #8

I want this so bad. My hatred for the automobile grows every day. The cost, the noise, the time wasted in traffic, the pollution, the ridiculous space wasted on parking. When you really add up the costs, both individual and to society, it’s absolutely insane. I wish the cost of gasoline was high enough to internalize all the costs and change behavior. Like really high. A dollar a mile. We are slaves to the automobile…

I'm amazed that so many people who consider themselves inclusive in their thoughts don't realize how exclusionary anti-automobile policies are. As someone who suffers from mild arthritis, the trip to the back of a Wal-Mart can be painful for me, and a walk or bike ride across a city block absolutely foreboding. On the bad days, even standing in line at a checkout for an extended period of time can send my knees and h…

I don't have a disability, but the non-car accessible vehicles seem to enable a lot more freedom than cars, because they don't have the same restrictions as cars.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#435

Post by stonogo » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:46 AM UTC

bbrian wrote: post #395

haberman wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, cars comprise 90% of land-based passenger miles traveled. [1] In Europe, it's 80-90% in most countries. [2] So if we in the US are "over-reliant" on cars, Europe is not far behind. Considering that cars are the preferred method of transport for the vast majority of people, you could just as well say that "people who want to leave the house are the villains." What really bothers me about the Urbanist attitu…

US pedestrian deaths are at a 25 year high. Be ashamed. Or don't take the car for short journeys. Be part of a positive change. Or don't take a job that requires long commutes. People want to live in location A and want a better job in location B and accept the fact they increase the risk of death in others, directly and through pollution, as a reasonable trade-off for their comfort. I don't drive (34, Sacramento). M…

> US pedestrian deaths are at a 25 year high.

So is the population.

> Most people don't need to drive.

This is a depressingly provincial attitude. Public transit is not available within ten miles of a majority of the US population. Widen your perspective.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#436

Post by gotocake » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #433

int_19h wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit in this case potential, so it's hard to quantify it unless and until it is realized. But if it comes to that, it would be absolutely crucial for national defense.

I don’t think the analysis is that difficult. Imagine that the interstates were only used for military transportation (both for emergencies, which presumably haven’t happened much, and for regular logistics). Surely the ongoing maintenance costs would be vastly reduced. Those costs would be the costs that “we the people” accept as valid usage of taxpayer money. You could throw in costs for other public interests like…

Practically speaking you’d be shifting the burden from the people who can afford it, to people who can’t. I see similar arguments from people who resent paying into social security and other things. It seems to be a combination of ideological convictions, lack of empathy, and unawareness of why these kind of measures were created in the first place. Ignoring all of rhe knock-on effects of a massive road network and it’s upkeep, it’s ability to reduce the cost of freight, and subsequent lack of rioting from people who couldn’t afford milk without those “subsidies” seems ultimately short-sighted.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#437

Post by ip26 » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:56 AM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #399

ip26 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything taxing gasoline favors city trips, vs highway trips.

How's that? Vehicles use more fuel beer unit distance in city trips than highway trips.

Sure, but the neighboring city might be eighty miles away while a drive across town might be five miles.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#438

Post by dbdjfjrjvebd » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:56 AM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #390

anyfoo wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the difference seems to be that Munich has lots of bike paths.

They're building more here tho, so unless we get a shift in power next year (local elections), the situation should be much better in a few years time. They've also said they'll focus keeping the bike roads clear during winter, currently a big issue for myself.

Between this and the property tax I can't see the current local government holding onto power.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#439

Post by ip26 » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

throwawaycanada wrote: post #283

apendleton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to recognize, though, that in many cases, heavy road users' road use is subsidized by lighter road users. Roads are expensive both in terms of construction/maintenance and land use, they're mostly not paid for by user fees anymore (gas taxes cover a relatively small share, and same for tolls), and many people benefiting from these subsidies are doing so for lifestyle choice reasons and not out…

You use the words "choosing to live far away" but all that generally means is they are poor. Clearly they should just buy a house and move to downtown San Fransisco like everyone who cares about the environment does.

There are many parts of the country where lavish acreages are built in communities far from town (save money on the land, put it into the house), banking on the automobile to commute thirty miles each way.

SF isn't even an anomaly here- look to the coastal mountains above Palo Alto. Lavish houses on large plots of land. Yeah, they are expensive, but you ain't getting no mansion and ten acres in the heart of SF for a paltry $50M.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#440

Post by ip26 » Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #340

gnopgnip wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say that public transit is heavily subsidized ignores that the alternative, building new roads, parking, bridges, and other infrastructure is even more expensive. And it ignores how much regular road use is subsidized.

In the UK fuel taxes raise £50Bn for the exchequer every year and the total transport budget is £25Bn. Maybe it’s different in the US but certainly here, the idea that cars are subsidised just isn’t factually true. Drivers pay for all forms of transportation then contribute as much again to e.g. the NHS.

Subsidies can be very indirect and subtle. E.g. "If you want to build this store, you will have to also build one hundred parking spaces. No, we aren't going to give you any money for it, you figure it out"