By 2030, 95% of people won’t own a private car

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Yes, the American mindset will be the biggest barrier to overcome. We can only hope that we accommodate our growing population with a proven method. We don't want to wake up in decades future and look up at our Beijingish pollution, while we are stuck in traffic on a 10 lane highway that already needs to be rebuilt into a 12 lane, on our 75 minute commute across the wasteful urban sprawl, and say "hey, couldn't we just have spent all this money on more sensible infrastructure years ago and avoided all this?".


It's a nice theory but the reality is that there's no appetite for public transportation from the government. That would involve raising taxes. It's very hard to do any kind of infrastructure project. The facts that the entire infrastructure of the country is slowly falling apart should clue you in that the great dream of some efficient public transit is just a pipe dream.
It's amazing the things the richest nation on earth "can't afford". Our taxes need to be reconsidered: who gets taxed, how much, and where those taxes go.
Since we're rich we don't have to ride buses and trains. We use private vehicles. The infrastructure around here isn't falling apart. [censored] states are a different story.
In America buses and trains are considered transportation for the low-income so I understand why you think that they are a step down from the basically cars-only system that most of America currently has. I know that in Asheville NC (which is developing a major traffic problem) the trains all haul freight and the buses are very unreliable and only run during the day. But a bus/bike/train system on-par with western Europe's is not something to be looked down upon, nor is it low-income transportation over there. They still own cars over there as well, nice ones.
 
Be careful in making this comparison.
Europeans pay sharply higher personal income taxes than we do here, much higher fuel taxes and an extortionate national sales tax commonly called VAT.
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.
 
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
In most of western Europe they have dependable public transportation such as train systems, bus systems, and bike lanes. It makes it a lot easier to go places and a lot cheaper. I would love for America to catch up and do the same thing. You can still own a car but without having to depend on it.


We never will "catch up".

We didn't have the population density to make public transportation viable outside of a few pockets (e.g. DC-BOS corridor) before the development of the automobile while Europe had long established cities.

Further, the growth of America, building of cities and town, was concurrent with the automobile. It's a symbiotic relationship. We couldn't have our population/living pattern without the car and for the most part, we are now too spread out for public transportation to be practical and viable in most of the country.

Europe limited that growth by taxing fuel heavily from the outset, initially making cars the toys of the rich, instead of the enabler of the commoner.

If Henry Ford hadn't changed the cost of cars, the US today would look very different. Suburbs would be as non-existent here as they are in Europe. Call it "sprawl" if you like, but the fact remains, that most of American growth happened subsequently to the car, and light rail, bus, rail, etc. just can't replace the car.

Now, Uber? Self-driving cars? Car sharing? All use existing infrastructure (roads) and have the potential to change how we get around. But it won't happen in a decade and it won't be rail/bus that supplants the car in the US. They simply don't work with the way we've built.

This is all true. But the European model would still benefit America, even with the existing infrastructure and community layouts. A train station in every major municipality; buses from the municipality to the smaller suburbs/towns/communities; bike lanes from the suburbs/towns/communities to peoples homes.


How is this supposed to work for people who live in very rural areas?
 
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Wolf359


It's a nice theory but the reality is that there's no appetite for public transportation from the government. That would involve raising taxes. It's very hard to do any kind of infrastructure project. The facts that the entire infrastructure of the country is slowly falling apart should clue you in that the great dream of some efficient public transit is just a pipe dream.
It's amazing the things the richest nation on earth "can't afford". Our taxes need to be reconsidered: who gets taxed, how much, and where those taxes go.
Since we're rich we don't have to ride buses and trains. We use private vehicles. The infrastructure around here isn't falling apart. [censored] states are a different story.
In America buses and trains are considered transportation for the low-income so I understand why you think that they are a step down from the basically cars-only system that most of America currently has. I know that in Asheville NC (which is developing a major traffic problem) the trains all haul freight and the buses are very unreliable and only run during the day. But a bus/bike/train system on-par with western Europe's is not something to be looked down upon, nor is it low-income transportation over there. They still own cars over there as well, nice ones.
The places where mass transit works already have mass transit. It's not going to work for most of the US. It's too big and too spread out. You can get on the highway and drive 12 hours and still be in Florida.
 
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
In most of western Europe they have dependable public transportation such as train systems, bus systems, and bike lanes. It makes it a lot easier to go places and a lot cheaper. I would love for America to catch up and do the same thing. You can still own a car but without having to depend on it.


We never will "catch up".

We didn't have the population density to make public transportation viable outside of a few pockets (e.g. DC-BOS corridor) before the development of the automobile while Europe had long established cities.

Further, the growth of America, building of cities and town, was concurrent with the automobile. It's a symbiotic relationship. We couldn't have our population/living pattern without the car and for the most part, we are now too spread out for public transportation to be practical and viable in most of the country.

Europe limited that growth by taxing fuel heavily from the outset, initially making cars the toys of the rich, instead of the enabler of the commoner.

If Henry Ford hadn't changed the cost of cars, the US today would look very different. Suburbs would be as non-existent here as they are in Europe. Call it "sprawl" if you like, but the fact remains, that most of American growth happened subsequently to the car, and light rail, bus, rail, etc. just can't replace the car.

Now, Uber? Self-driving cars? Car sharing? All use existing infrastructure (roads) and have the potential to change how we get around. But it won't happen in a decade and it won't be rail/bus that supplants the car in the US. They simply don't work with the way we've built.

This is all true. But the European model would still benefit America, even with the existing infrastructure and community layouts. A train station in every major municipality; buses from the municipality to the smaller suburbs/towns/communities; bike lanes from the suburbs/towns/communities to peoples homes.


How is this supposed to work for people who live in very rural areas?


Don't you know? They're all a bunch of backwards thinking rednecks who impede "real progress".
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Be careful in making this comparison.
Europeans pay sharply higher personal income taxes than we do here, much higher fuel taxes and an extortionate national sales tax commonly called VAT.
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.


And of course Europe is made up of many relatively small, often highly populous, countries which means that not only are the dynamics and needs different, but drawing comparisons becomes incredibly difficult and perhaps even intellectually dishonest.

Some sample data points: France is 640,000 square kilometres and has a population of 67 million. Ontario is 1,076,000 square kilometres and has a population of 13 million. Texas is 696,000 square kilometres and has a population of 28 million.

Belgium is 30,000 square kilometres and at 11 million people, has close to the same population as Ontario. Nova Scotia, which is our 2nd smallest province behind PEI, is 53,000 square kilometres and houses 920,000 people.

The Netherlands is 5,500 square kilometres with a population of 6 million, Ontario's Algonquin Park is 7,650 square kilometres and I doubt houses 6 million beavers.

North America is, comparatively, massive, with large sections of sparse population. This provides unique challenges.
 
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
How is this supposed to work for people who live in very rural areas?


Don't you know? They're all a bunch of backwards thinking rednecks who impede "real progress".
whistle.gif



Or they're supposed to move to the city and shut the lights off when the last one leaves.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Be careful in making this comparison.
Europeans pay sharply higher personal income taxes than we do here, much higher fuel taxes and an extortionate national sales tax commonly called VAT.
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.


And of course Europe is made up of many relatively small, often highly populous, countries which means that not only are the dynamics and needs different, but drawing comparisons becomes incredibly difficult and perhaps even intellectually dishonest.

Some sample data points: France is 640,000 square kilometres and has a population of 67 million. Ontario is 1,076,000 square kilometres and has a population of 13 million. Texas is 696,000 square kilometres and has a population of 28 million.

Belgium is 30,000 square kilometres and at 11 million people, has close to the same population as Ontario. Nova Scotia, which is our 2nd smallest province behind PEI, is 53,000 square kilometres and houses 920,000 people.

The Netherlands is 5,500 square kilometres with a population of 6 million, Ontario's Algonquin Park is 7,650 square kilometres and I doubt houses 6 million beavers.

North America is, comparatively, massive, with large sections of sparse population. This provides unique challenges.


Yes, that is a very good point as well. You could fit all of Europe in Canada and still have a vast area of land unpopulated. I don't think many people realize just how big Canada or the US is compared to Europe. Trains and public transportation won't work here like it does over there.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.


EVERYTHING is going to change in the next fifty years, and most of it in the next twenty. No-one has any idea what kind of infrastructure will still have any value in 2030, other than, perhaps, faster Internet (and we may well have replaced that with something more robust and decentralized).

I won't be terribly surprised if most cars disappear by 2030. But, if that happens, it won't be because we hail a self-driving car when we need to travel somewhere, it will be because we don't need to travel somewhere any more when we can just log into a VR bot at the destination instead.

Building railway lines in an era where VR is going to make travel obsolete and local manufacturing is going to make shipping goods around obsolete is pure madness. It's industrial-era thinking in a post-industrial world.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Jimmy Carter said during the 1976 Presidential Campaign that we would be completely out of oil by 2011.
Now it's 2018, and there are more proven reserves than there was back then.
Alarmists always have an agenda, and furthermore, they're always wrong.
How many people believed his words with out a grain of discernment?
 
Originally Posted By: emg
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.


EVERYTHING is going to change in the next fifty years, and most of it in the next twenty. No-one has any idea what kind of infrastructure will still have any value in 2030, other than, perhaps, faster Internet (and we may well have replaced that with something more robust and decentralized).

I won't be terribly surprised if most cars disappear by 2030. But, if that happens, it won't be because we hail a self-driving car when we need to travel somewhere, it will be because we don't need to travel somewhere any more when we can just log into a VR bot at the destination instead.

Building railway lines in an era where VR is going to make travel obsolete and local manufacturing is going to make shipping goods around obsolete is pure madness. It's industrial-era thinking in a post-industrial world.


I thought the telephone, fax machines, video conference, skype, etc was going to make travel obsolete. Voice recognition was supposed to make typing obsolete too. Yet I'm still typing this. Sometimes you just need boots on the ground.
 
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
In most of western Europe they have dependable public transportation such as train systems, bus systems, and bike lanes. It makes it a lot easier to go places and a lot cheaper. I would love for America to catch up and do the same thing. You can still own a car but without having to depend on it.


We never will "catch up".

We didn't have the population density to make public transportation viable outside of a few pockets (e.g. DC-BOS corridor) before the development of the automobile while Europe had long established cities.

Further, the growth of America, building of cities and town, was concurrent with the automobile. It's a symbiotic relationship. We couldn't have our population/living pattern without the car and for the most part, we are now too spread out for public transportation to be practical and viable in most of the country.

Europe limited that growth by taxing fuel heavily from the outset, initially making cars the toys of the rich, instead of the enabler of the commoner.

If Henry Ford hadn't changed the cost of cars, the US today would look very different. Suburbs would be as non-existent here as they are in Europe. Call it "sprawl" if you like, but the fact remains, that most of American growth happened subsequently to the car, and light rail, bus, rail, etc. just can't replace the car.

Now, Uber? Self-driving cars? Car sharing? All use existing infrastructure (roads) and have the potential to change how we get around. But it won't happen in a decade and it won't be rail/bus that supplants the car in the US. They simply don't work with the way we've built.

This is all true. But the European model would still benefit America, even with the existing infrastructure and community layouts. A train station in every major municipality; buses from the municipality to the smaller suburbs/towns/communities; bike lanes from the suburbs/towns/communities to peoples homes.


How is this supposed to work for people who live in very rural areas?


It won't and it can't...that's why it won't happen...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
In most of western Europe they have dependable public transportation such as train systems, bus systems, and bike lanes. It makes it a lot easier to go places and a lot cheaper. I would love for America to catch up and do the same thing. You can still own a car but without having to depend on it.


We never will "catch up".

We didn't have the population density to make public transportation viable outside of a few pockets (e.g. DC-BOS corridor) before the development of the automobile while Europe had long established cities.

Further, the growth of America, building of cities and town, was concurrent with the automobile. It's a symbiotic relationship. We couldn't have our population/living pattern without the car and for the most part, we are now too spread out for public transportation to be practical and viable in most of the country.

Europe limited that growth by taxing fuel heavily from the outset, initially making cars the toys of the rich, instead of the enabler of the commoner.

If Henry Ford hadn't changed the cost of cars, the US today would look very different. Suburbs would be as non-existent here as they are in Europe. Call it "sprawl" if you like, but the fact remains, that most of American growth happened subsequently to the car, and light rail, bus, rail, etc. just can't replace the car.

Now, Uber? Self-driving cars? Car sharing? All use existing infrastructure (roads) and have the potential to change how we get around. But it won't happen in a decade and it won't be rail/bus that supplants the car in the US. They simply don't work with the way we've built.

This is all true. But the European model would still benefit America, even with the existing infrastructure and community layouts. A train station in every major municipality; buses from the municipality to the smaller suburbs/towns/communities; bike lanes from the suburbs/towns/communities to peoples homes.


How is this supposed to work for people who live in very rural areas?

Why would it be implemented in rural areas that don't need the like? You're acting as if I'm suggesting doing all this in the middle of nowhere, where they don't even have traffic problems.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Be careful in making this comparison.
Europeans pay sharply higher personal income taxes than we do here, much higher fuel taxes and an extortionate national sales tax commonly called VAT.
WRT to the notion that infrastructure improvements benefit us all and need not be funded out of fuel taxes alone, we're on the same page.

Their taxes are higher but so is their income, generally speaking.
 
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.
 
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.


Richest nation on earth? You do realize our government is $20+ trillion in debt, right?
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.


Richest nation on earth? You do realize our government is $20+ trillion in debt, right?

Once again,

"Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."
 
In 2030, there will be quite a few of the new cars being sold right now that will still be on the road, and I would predict the majority of those 2018 cars will be privately owned.
 
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Here's my context. I'm 20 miles outside of Asheville, a city that's getting too big for its britches. Traffic is a huge problem. The idea of having less cars on the road through means of a respectable, updated public transit system, much like what I experienced in Austria (which is not even one of the most advanced European countries), is extremely appealing and also a better solution long term than just adding another highway lane which will alleviate the problem for maybe 10 more years. I don't imagine Asheville is the only growing city in America with this problem. Yeah, all this would cost money but money is not something that America is short on, being the richest nation on earth. Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion. My point still stands though.


Richest nation on earth? You do realize our government is $20+ trillion in debt, right?

Once again,

"Of course this brings up the subject of who gets taxed, how much, and where it goes, but that's a different discussion."


You do realize that public transportation is also subsidized by the government right? I guess depending on the transit agency, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 of the fare covers the actual costs of the system. So those $2-$3 fares are more like $8-$10 in actual costs per ride. They get that from levies from individual towns and additional state taxes and city taxes. That just covers existing systems, probably a lot more if you want to start up a system. The math and the political will just isn't there. They have high speed trains in other countries too, this country is nowhere close.
 
Does that mean those $6500 used cars that are 12 years old with 150k miles on them will be much lower because of reduced demand???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top