I don't think they honestly care if the proles have to walk to work in flyover country.
They got their subway in Paris or NYC and care no a whit about the rest
Do away with cars
- Thread starter Tyr
- Start date
I don't think they honestly care if the proles have to walk to work in flyover country.
They got their subway in Paris or NYC and care no a whit about the rest
Not to dogpile but I'm afraid you have it opposite. Poor people "choose" not to have cars because middle incomes are getting hammered so the car is the first to go. It's not a choice they are forced. Then they commute and have a poorer quality of life because they waste more time taking public transit. Capitalism is necessarily chaotic and business can spring up anywhere and everywhere. People don't want certain types of business anywhere near where they live, like a garbage dump or sewage treatment plant or a factory or a nuclear power plant. So cars are almost a necessity for a modern lifestyle. The only way poor are "forced" to have a car is they need a car to shop at Walmarts or Costcos and buy in bulk instead of expensive boutique retail stores. But that is far outweighed by the convenience of a car. Wealthy will drive to their specialty stores instead of mingle with the plebs on public transit so it is not a unique problem for poor.
There is a grain of truth to what you say. If everything is moving towards a "service economy" and everything is boutique retail stores or banks or hospitals or schools, and all the nasty factories and power plants and stockyards are gone, then maybe you can live less with cars. But only in a very narrow way and making a huge assumption about human nature. Will the wealthy prefer to drive even if it is a few kilometers away? The answer is yes, because time is money. Just because they can doesn't mean they will want to.
The only way cars don't happen is if the vision of the 60's with monorails and modular homes and the Jetsons comes true... think planned economy, socialism and guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Everyone has everything they need but in general people are a lot poorer with no smartphones no cars no complicated lives. With less capitalism, small business don't appear on the outskirts of everywhere and everyone commutes to set locations for work. Not the kind of world I want to live in.
Well it's about 90% possible down here in suburban NZ (so not cheek-to-jowl), but I don't know about smaller towns...
Another idea: Since the challenge was talking strictly about 'cars', might we have a timeline where there are no individual cars, but lots of commercial trucks, busses, vans and other vehicles? People would still drive something like pickup for their daily work, but driving one to church would be just one step above of driving in on your company's dump truck. You might still see lots of people driving... Something... In smaller towns and rural areas, but as people move into town, their 'truck' would be the first thing to go. First of all, they wouldn't really need it. Secondly they would not want to hang on to something that just screams 'hillbilly', just as they want to leave their old life behind.
I know this demands some far out POD, but the changes in itself are rather simple: 1) car makers concentrate on the utility aspect of their product and favor load capacity over speed or comfort. 2) City planners choose collective comfort over personal luxury and encompass easy-to-access parks and community centers over large suburban mansion-only developments. There might be a point 3) needed, but for now I can't see one . So two will have to do.
I know this demands some far out POD, but the changes in itself are rather simple: 1) car makers concentrate on the utility aspect of their product and favor load capacity over speed or comfort. 2) City planners choose collective comfort over personal luxury and encompass easy-to-access parks and community centers over large suburban mansion-only developments. There might be a point 3) needed, but for now I can't see one . So two will have to do.
??If you're dressed for it, cold's not that much of a problem. Especially if you know your bus schedule.
I grew up in Saskatoon, SK, and walked 1.5 (~2.5km) miles to high school even when it was -40. I walked across the bridges over the river to music lessons, swimming, etc., or took the bus all year.
Not a big deal.
Does Moscow get colder than that?
And people wonder why people who live in cities get a reputation for being snobs.
Seriously, to quote The Dude regarding your view about cars being annoying and an inconvenience , "Well, that's just, like, your opinion man,"
Cars may be an annoyance to you, but to others, they're necessary.
This is, I think, the best POD you're likely to get. The biggest technical challenge to developing a practical mass ownership car is a compact, inexpensive, powerful engine. Given any likely scenario before...well, really, now...electric and steam aren't going to fit the bill. Warm up time makes steam impractical for short (or short notice) trips, range make electric impractical for longer ones.
To a lesser extent, if you can come up with an actual resistance to funding trunk roads (certainly national, preferably also state, ideally also county) then paved roads are limited to cities and maybe-maybe-some "farm-to-market" roads, mainly around larger cities. This might not be too difficult to bring about. The formula for apportioning federal road aid was fought over quite a bit as rural and urban voters didn't want to be paying in more taxes and fees than they got back in pavement. Add in a touch of modern day political opposition to paying any monies for any public works and you might tip the balance...and kiss state and national highway networks goodbye.
Lastly and leastly, (as mentioned back a few posts) licensing. The idea of independently powered vehicles, operated by untrained drivers, passing no more than a handshake's distance from each other at a combined passenger train speed, with no built in guidance or system of control, might just result in restricting motor vehicle to licensed professionals only, at least for operation above a nominal (10mph-ish) speed.
So, vehicles limited by range/time to short/infrequent rips over un- or minimally developed roads not developed into system(s) of any kind, restricted to walking speeds without a hired driver(s), might end up being limited to short haul trucks and busses with some farm equipment thrown in as needed. While you will get a few developed road nets in and around major urban areas, there would be few/no limited access highways as we know them and the whole urban sprawl of the 20th century will look much smaller and different.
Ever consider why they're necessary?
I grew up in a small town. I know how it is just fine.
It's the kind of place many live because they can't afford to live somewhere more convenient thus have to get a car.
I never mentioned the us anywhere. Seeing how things are done the American way in japan is a big part of what made me come to really think that a world without cars would be better.
In japan urban design is so screwed up because of cars. Take them away and it's unlikely things would go that way. In the us too in a world where public transport dominates it is likely development would accommodate that.
Last edited:
I've lived in lots of small towns, and now a small city. I live in them partly because I really really hate big crowds of people. I live in a suburb because I hate apartments (not a lot of houses for sale in downtown Cheyenne). I have a car (actually, two of them atm) because a full scale public transportation system to service the entire population is not feasible in a city this size, and I'm not tied to some bus line's schedule. Also, I can haul piles of lawn and garden stuff home on my own; kinda hard to do that with a bus. To counter your point, I could actually live downtown in some apartment and live cheaper than I do now, but I choose not to...
MrP
Banned
Actually, old boy, poor countries are commonly plagued with traffic jams, because lack of public funds and general dodgy governance have resulted in underinvestment in public transportation. I have it on good authority that Jakarta and Manila have horrible traffic, and have heard that the streets of Lagos are constantly clogged with cars.
There's this neat quote from the mayor of Bogota that splendidly summarises the OP's challenge:
I don't think anyone would argue that public transportation/fewer cars isn't a great thing for dense urban areas. But the OP of 'doing away with all cars everywhere because I hate them' is kinda narrow sighted...
...and horrendously unrealistic. There are certainly places where private car ownership and use is realistic and desirable. But you'd need a combined technological and social PoD sometime in the 19th century to eliminate private car ownership in most of the world, including a social ethic that radically redefined what individual freedom of movement was all about. To do this, you need to create a world that is effectively poorer...either because the cost to build and operate private motor vehicles is elevated beyond the reach of most people, or because people have less expectation of private mobility.
MrP
Banned
The link between individual freedom of movement and car ownership is not nearly as self-evident as you seem to think. In a great many cases, people buy a car because public transportation is not good enough, not as a first choice.
It also bears keeping in mind that a richer world is also a more urbanised one, and more people living in cities means more people relying on public transportation. Hence, richer world, fewer cars.
hmm... in the US, at least, a 'richer world' generally meant people abandoning the dense urban areas for suburbs and country housing. Generally to get away from crime and pollution and the like. That trend might be reversing itself today a little, but that doesn't help much for the POD here...
Actually, old boy, poor countries are commonly plagued with traffic jams, because lack of public funds and general dodgy governance have resulted in underinvestment in public transportation. I have it on good authority that Jakarta and Manila have horrible traffic, and have heard that the streets of Lagos are constantly clogged with cars.
There's this neat quote from the mayor of Bogota that splendidly summarises the OP's challenge:
The Mayor of Bogota isn't the be-all-end-all of defining "developed". Otherwise, Dick Cheney is the be-all-end-all when it comes to US foreign policy.
That said, Cars are practically indispensable, especially when your job is long-distance, and unless people are willing to move out of the suburbs and live in cramped apartments (which would make public transportation more viable), that isn't going to change. Let's be honest, would you rather go to work in a car, albeit trapped in traffic jams, or get a cramped bus where it's virtually impossible to get a seat?
Last edited: