Ten Simple Policies to Subtract Cars From Our Streets

We can't end roadway deaths unless we reduce motor vehicle miles traveled. Here's how.

Last week, we explored the emerging idea that the Vision Zero approach to ending roadway fatalities is missing a pillar: policies that directly reduce car travel on our roads — and not just by providing drivers optional transportation alternatives. Today, we’re laying out the tools some cities are already using to subtract motor vehicles from their streets — and a few they might consider putting into practice in tandem with increases to sustainable transportation.

StreetsBlogUSA - continues

 

#8 was kinda like what I was thinking. I'm thinking in really congested areas, there's a odd/even days for cars. Your licence plate ends on an odd number, your driving one day, even number the other day. Have to work things out if it's a letter or character ending, but it can be worked out. Then on Sunday everyone can drive. I like this cause it forces people to work things out. For instances people are never going to ask anyone to share driving responsibilities, but it's way doable. Biking or public transport is another thing many would never do. Ride share they might. Once they get things worked out, streets will be pretty much clear.

 

I have seen this in other countries, such as the Philippines. In a sense, it allows the rich to continue driving whenever they want as they have ownership or access to more than one vehicle.

 

So the 'simple policies' are:
1. Tax
2. Tax
3. Tax
4. Tax
5. Tax
6. Tax
7. F U, you can't drive here.
8. F U, you can't drive AT ALL
9. F U, you can't drive here on this day
10. Tax

I give this entire article a resounding middle finger. Kea Wilson can sod the Hell off.

 

Do you even live in or visit cities regularly? As a resident of a city, less cars here would be great. Walking, transit and biking being safe and easy is better for the local economy, municipality, residents and the climate.

 

​​​​​
Yup. I work in Minneapolis. But there is no way in Hell I'd ever live in that wretched city. I've worked in the Twin Cities for most of my career. I have lived in St. Paul at one point and hated it. The noise, crime, and oppression of too many people in too little area is miserable to me. I don't fault anybody else for wanting to live in the city. I can't stand it personally and believe that it's not too much to ask to have the best of both worlds if I'm willing to make the sacrifice to commute. Wanting access to the city and robust employment in my field while residing where there is room to breathe is not unreasonable.

I work in the city but prefer to live as rural as I can get away with within a reasonable commute. I prefer not to be taxed to death (thank you very much) or be subject to absurdly onerous policies just because the unelected and unaccountable Met Council refuses to plan for actual capacity and instead prefers to practice social engineering.

 

You do realize that everyone, drivers and non-drivers support the roads you drive on, right? The way it's setup in our society is that EVERYONE, as long as they're paying taxes, are paying for our infrastructure. I don't think it's right for non-drivers having to pay for your pleasure of driving on the road. It should be setup where it's waaaaaaaay more expensive to drive on the roads. And alot of the support would be bought by people using the infrastructure. This would mean that it gets waaaaaaay more expensive having a car. Also would be nice to see some distinct advantages for someone to move to bike/ped/public transportation means of travel. I went over 9 years carless and there was never really any rewards, other than not having to worry about having a car, but no tax incentive or anything that would make anyone move that direction. One less car on the road is advantage for many people, but it is never getting translated down to the one making the sacrifice.

I have no problem with someone paying a ridiculous amount of $ to drive. If that's what they want to do, they can afford it, OK. But that's not how it's setup today.

 

[ OP posting about a desire to make driving expenses increase in order to reduce the congestion in cities, on a car enthusiast message board ]

..... Cities are supposed to be congested. It's why people move into them. People who enjoy saying things like "it should cost waaay more to drive", because they feel that will elevate their perceived position in life's social cast.. lol no need to make driving something for the "Gatsby"s of the world again.

 

Cool, so you contribute to the risk for cyclists/pedestrians, add to wear & tear on automotive infrastructure and congestion but pay nothing for it because you choose to live in an area that can't provide you anything.

 

LOL

... AND found a way to place blame for the city's problems on the department (and likely populous-party) that's starved for resources to battle the conditions that this "brave commuter" sacrifices time and nerves to avoid living in.

-- Grade-A Trumpesque logic right there lol: steal from the poor to feed the rich.

 

Exactly right. As it should be. Just like the childless still pay taxes that support public education because an educated populace is for the public good. Drivers pay for not only the roads, but also subsidize public transportation through fuel taxes, tab fees, etc. I believe in public transportation (as long as it's done well) and have no issue with some of my tax dollars going to it even though I rarely use it. If you want to compare dollars taxed vs. received benefit, a driver bears more infrastructure cost vs a non-driver, as it should be.

This directly contradicts your 'we live in a society' point you tried to make above. I pay for public transportation, but I rarely use it. Should I not have to pay for it?

To your desire of a pay-for-play model, I'm all for more of that. That would mean that bus and light rail fares would increase wildly since all public transportation is heavily subsidized, primarily by people that don't use it. The light rail in Minneapolis/St. Paul, for example, is not only crime infested but loses millions every year.

You hate cars and drivers and want to punish them even though they subsidize your public transportation. Got it.

I contribute nothing to pedestrian risk on my commuting route as it's all highway. (I also am an avid cyclist and understand the car/bike risk disparity) I also pay more for infrastructure than a non-driver through vehicle and fuel taxes. Why should a farmer who lives in (to use your state as an example) Wausau have to pay fuel taxes that subsidize your public transportation in Madison or Milwaukee? And the town in which I live not only has plenty of amenities, a MUCH better school system than in the cities, is significantly safer, and also provides peace, which is something completely unavailable in the city. That's worth the cost to me.

Congrats on not invoking Nazism, though! I half expected for you to call all suburban-dwellers Nazis by this point. You're showing some nice self control these days.

Unlike a few short months ago:
You invoke Trump and imply you're the logical one in the room? And, a post of zero substance. Your derangement is showing as well as your ignorance. Not a good look, chief. But good try.

 

You're missing the point. You're paying your taxes to your local county, with the money you made in the city you otherwise wouldn't have a job with out. In essence, this is akin to the hot topic that GOPsters love to harp-on: someone working in the US and mailing money paid under the counter back to their home country. By your own admission, you are doing this exact same thing to the city by taking a job, and running with the money back to your rural escape.


Edit: on further research, if your county is in one of the losing wealth shares for the city (which on reading it appears the counties actual gain under the wealth share) I'll retract my judgement, but not my jokes. However, i imagine you have the city to thank for your county's good fortune.


https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/...ion-flush.html

Lastly, lol:
Just triggered off of the apt word choice, Trumpesque, lol. Nothing else was understood through the jest of substance in my post, nor from Mike's...

 

You don't understand how taxation or state and local budgets work. I suggest you do some research into state/local taxes and subsidies. Pay particular attention to license fees, sales taxes (state and municipality, if applicable), exise taxes, and property taxes. If you think the taxes you pay stay in your county of residence, you simply prove your profound ignorance once again. I'm happy to engage in a conversation of substance about this if you would like some education.

Triggered? Not really given there is no such thing. I'm just pointing out how pathetic it is. It's kind of another interpretation of Godwin's law. You invoke the name of Trump much like Mike does with Nazism.

 

Double post

 

I see where the confusion is. you must have been writing your post at the same time that I was adding a supporting link to mine. Please see the link I edited in regarding how Minnesota distributes wealth taken in from taxes.

 

There's no confusion. The link you added contradicts your mistaken assumption above it and you acknowledged that fact.

Good for you for admitting that you were wrong. You show curiosity and the capacity to learn, unlike some others on this site. Keep reading. There's hope for you yet.

 

Yep.

1) Transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure is WAY cheaper than automotive infrastructure. So in terms of what a pedestrian is paying in and getting in terms of investment back into their infrastructure, they're getting way less than drivers.

2) Transit and pedestrians have a much smaller ecological downside than driving a car everywhere.

​​​​​

 

I am all for #1

I regularly pay to take the Toll Roads whenever I visit the city of Orange County, in an effort to distance myself from the traffic situation in that area

I honestly would love the heck out of the idea of forcing people to pay tolls anytime and everytime they hit the road. It could push people to consider a carpool for their m-f commute (and would weed out the ones that dont need to be on the road). I do this for our 140 mile RT journey, and my partner and I save a ton on gas / wear & tear. I feel like we contributed to making so cal's rush hours just 1 car less crappy


I believe places like Japan already have these kinda things in place (from what I observed while over there anyways)

 

No it absolutely is not. On a passenger cost-per-mile basis, transit is much more expensive.
All in, averaged nationally, driving costs about $.25/mile. Public Busing is just over $1/mile. Light Rail is the most expensive at about $1.38/mile.

This is mostly correct, but does not mean what you think it does. As transit is more expensive, it's a much less efficient use of overall dollars spent on transportation. Driving is a more cost efficient means of transportation on a passenger cost-per-mile basis.

So, you're correct in saying that a transit rider gets less back for their dollar simply because the mode of transport is significantly more expensive and less efficient. That's not a good thing. It's wasteful.

Now, I'll say again that I believe some modes of public transportation are a good thing even though they pour money down the drain because they do provide a public service. But I would love to see fares for bus and rail actually reflect the cost of running these systems. Fares are intentionally kept down and actually are very close to the cost of driving. But every single rider is heavily subsidized. The Northstar Light Rail, for example, actually costs over $22 per ride, but the fare the rider pays is only $3.25 to $6.25.

Yeah, that's true, especially for pedestrians obviously. But I wonder how much diesel was burned in the construction of the local Light Rail. I'll bet my entire suburban neighborhood's lifetime commuting will produce less pollution than the few years of construction of the Northstar, Blue, and Green lines.

The major issue with public transit, and especially rail, is the lack of flexibility and availability. If you're an urban dweller, availability is great. but for those that can't or choose not to live in the city, driving is the option. I've been on the Tube in London. It's brilliantly laid out, efficient, clean, and I would never own a car if I lived there. (the subway in New York is utter crap by comparison) But there's also no way I'd choose to live there because I would hate living in the city. Which is OK! Everybody is different.

Societally, going forward, autonomous transportation is both necessary and highly desirable. Focusing on anything else as a replacement for cars is regressive. (supplemental is obviously appropriate) I'm all for a less polluting method, but as someone that values the independence of hopping in a vehicle and going where I choose, a car is right for me. I chose a cheap fuel efficient commuter vehicle like the Fit because, opinions on anthropogenic climate change notwithstanding, I do actually care about how much pollution I create. (If I had a tuned WRX, I would keep a catalytic converter, for example, because I don't want to dump raw exhaust into the atmosphere) But, like everyone, I have priorities and choose to prioritize a safer, more peaceful area of residence for my family. It's a balance, and in my opinion, a reasonable one.

 

Toll Roads and pay-for-use HOV lanes make plenty of sense when done properly. They can be a good way to localize the collection of funding for heavily used infrastructure and be a more pay-for-play system. The issue is they are often used to pay for something other than the road from which the toll is charged.