Prevent ubiquitous car ownership

[Minchandre]

Even though motorcars "replaced" horses and horse-drawn vehicles, the role of horse transportation was different from modern cars, in that not everyone had their own personal horse or carriage; instead, in the cities they were mostly used only by the rich and for heavy transportation, and for public transport (the earliest horse-drawn "buses" were introduced in Europe in the mid-17th Century). Out in the country, horse transportation was more common, but that's also because people in the country had more need to move heavy things long distances - sort of like farmers owning pick up trucks in the modern day.

Is it possible to see motor vehicles replace animal transportation, but prevent the ubiquitous ownership of private vehicles?

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Keeping cities dense enough that personal car ownership is impractically expensive for most people would be pretty difficult- but not impossible.

A wider earlier adoption of horse-drawn light rail systems, and the introduction of segregated right-of-ways for them, is my preferred option, allowing the establishment of a strong competitor (for space) to roads suitable for private vehicles early. But that's firmly a pre-1900 PoD.

Post-1900 is harder, since cars already exist and there's not much time to totally reshape cities prior to their mass introduction. Still, some options do exist.

The snarky option, of course, is that Soviet-style mismanaged car industries could lead to Soviet-level car ownership rates. But that's really not in keeping with the spirit of the post.

Europe and Asia, both continents with plenty of old densely built cities whose roads were not well-adapted for cars in 1900 are our obvious places to start. If civic leaders view cars as undesirable in their jurisdiction- for fear of accidents, pollution, or just overuse of roadways and consequent maintenance costs- and have the power to successfully refuse to allow cars onto their roads- which they did not, historically, especially since cars were initially popular with the wealthy- then that could greatly reduce the global market for cars.

North America is harder. No cycling related Good Roads Movement might slow things down slightly, since the infrastructure base for cars would need to be built up from less of a start, but its another pre-1900 PoD and it wouldn't stop the cars arrival entirely- merely slow the process.

An urban anti-car political movement might have some success for a time, but I can't see it dominating forever.

One smaller change that might have some effects, though only on the margin, would be a stronger anti-suburb movement in the 1950s and '60s. Suburbs were unpopular with City mayors who viewed them as expensive and too often a way for the upper middle class to escape local urban taxes while using urban amenities. Meanwhile, suburbs were unpopular with the more artistically minded on the arguments that they promoted conformity and isolation. A more organized and politically effective anti-suburb coalition might force more people to live in the dense areas of cities by reducing the number of suburban homes and therefore driving up suburban house prices. For some cities like New York, that would probably lead to fewer people owning cars; but you'd need a real urban transportation revolution going on at the same time to get LA, for example, to have good enough public transit to take significant portions of the city's ride share.

 

[BlueTrousers]

The snarky option, of course, is that Soviet-style mismanaged car industries could lead to Soviet-level car ownership rates. But that's really not in keeping with the spirit of the post.

The other snarky answer is to have elitist ruling classes decide that allowing the general population to have the kind of freedom of movement that private vehicles permit is undesirable, and take measures to prevent it. Various ways that could be done, including outright bans, taxes, and impractical bureaucracy. The tricky part here is having that kind of regime not get overthrown.

Although, since OP notes that private vehicles are likely to be widespread in rural areas, it's the cities that need the attention. And in cities, it's suburbanisation that really drives universal car ownership. Avoid that, and the associated development of out-of-town retail and business parks, and sticking with public and active transport remains viable for most people. Once the 'you need a car to fully participate in society' train gets rolling, stopping it becomes almost impossible - so you have to make sure it doesn't.

This may conflict with Cold War-type concerns about dispersal of population and industry. That's only possible with cars. So reducing the A-Bomb scare (and more emphasis on civil defence?) might be helpful, too.

 

[marathag]

Even though motorcars "replaced" horses and horse-drawn vehicles, the role of horse transportation was different from modern cars, in that not everyone had their own personal horse or carriage; instead, in the cities they were mostly used only by the rich and for heavy transportation, and for public transport (the earliest horse-drawn "buses" were introduced in Europe in the mid-17th Century). Out in the country, horse transportation was more common, but that's also because people in the country had more need to move heavy things long distances - sort of like farmers owning pick up trucks in the modern day.

Is it possible to see motor vehicles replace animal transportation, but prevent the ubiquitous ownership of private vehicles?

Horses in the City means Horse manure and urine everywhere they trot about.
Cars and trucks were seen as a way to keep City Streets clean, and population now free from those disease causing conditions.
Why, you can hardly see any smoke coming from the exhaust, and some just some oil dripping rom joints.

 

[DougM]

The only way is to outlaw them or otherwise do something from a government level.
The tech is going to exist. The need/want /use is going to exist. You can’t stop that. Also back then a much larger per enrage of the population lived outside the big cities. So a huge chunk will want a car. And as we have discussed before there ARE downsides to public transportation. It is not all sunshine and roses. The ability to go where you want on your schedule not where others want to take you on their schedule is huge.

So you can’t make the tech not happen, you can’t stop folks from wanting them. So you have to legislate them out of existence. And while in some locations that is possible overall in the US you are not getting that back in the 1900-1920s as the government would have viewed that kind of laws as beyound the scope of the government’s job. Back 100 to 125 years ago the government was generally less intrusive.

 

[gladiator8085]

The other snarky answer is to have elitist ruling classes decide that allowing the general population to have the kind of freedom of movement that private vehicles permit is undesirable, and take measures to prevent it. Various ways that could be done, including outright bans, taxes, and impractical bureaucracy. The tricky part here is having that kind of regime not get overthrown.

Although, since OP notes that private vehicles are likely to be widespread in rural areas, it's the cities that need the attention. And in cities, it's suburbanisation that really drives universal car ownership. Avoid that, and the associated development of out-of-town retail and business parks, and sticking with public and active transport remains viable for most people. Once the 'you need a car to fully participate in society' train gets rolling, stopping it becomes almost impossible - so you have to make sure it doesn't.

This may conflict with Cold War-type concerns about dispersal of population and industry. That's only possible with cars. So reducing the A-Bomb scare (and more emphasis on civil defence?) might be helpful, too.

Hmmmm. So that explains the bureaucracy at the DMV I guess.

 

[Riain]

While cars will exist there are a number of reasons why they became so dominant, particularly in North America and Australia, so it will take several things to limit their extreme rise to dominance.

I think there was a symbiosis between the decline of public transport in cities and town planning, probably not planned or organised but it happened nonetheless. If public transit systems in cities were retained in the 30s, perhaps as a public good and to maintain employment during the depression and town planning didn't emphasise single use development and single family dwelling models the compact, walk-able and public transport utilizing inner cities and suburbs would not have been demolished and rebuilt in the 50s. Further the postwar suburbs could have have included some limited multi-family dwellings, perhaps a row of 2 storey terrace houses, as well as a limited retail precinct of say 5 shops within a largely single family dwelling subdivision. These walk-able and public transport accessible neighborhoods could reduce the almost total dependence on cars. Inner suburbs may get to less than 1 car per household while postwar suburbs might never get to 2 cars per household as a result.

However nothing will stamp out the car and truck they're simply too handy even if the built environment was much better for walkers and public transport users.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Some thoughts on things that might have changed the speed of uptake or extent of mass ownership. I'll leave it to others to decide if any are good or bad ideas.
1 No driving offences - your actions are treated purely on outcome, so for example hitting a person with your car is assault, killing someone could be manslaughter or murder, damaging another vehicle is criminal damage. The sole exception would be where the act of driving creates an offence that didn't previously exist (eg speeding). Driving becomes very risky for ordinary people, but status drivers and essential users can accept the risk and insurance cost
2 Unlimited on street parking is not OK. Councils etc won't permit misuse of their road, so they allow limited time only AND enforce this with severe penalties such as towing or forfeiture. Status users would have space for off street parking, but Joe and Jane public have nowhere to keep a car.
3 For litigious countries, car manufacturers, mechanics, petrol sellers and drivers are vigorously targeted by victims of accidents, so that again only essential users and status users can accept the risk.
4 Stringent driving test requirements deter casual users. More so if frequent retests are needed, and only officially trained drivers can be licensed. Add in vehicle-related offences leading to cancellation and retest rather than suspension. In a low-traffic environment, unlicensed drivers will be more readily identified, so this would be more of a deterrent than OTL licence suspensions and temporary bans, which often appear to be regarded as optional by some offenders.
Edit. I nearly forgot a cousin of 1.
5 No more traffic accidents, instead the view is: you drove it, you did it.

 

[Devvy]

As several posters have mentioned, I can't see any kind of governmental action coming in here to prevent it. And likewise, I can't see technology holding it back; the car is an essential personal transport option for anyone who doesn't live in central urban areas where public transit is a reality and a viable option.

I think the easiest way to at least discourage car ownership is to not try and solve some of the endemic issues mass ownership brings.

• Tax or otherwise discourage downtown car parks, make on street car parking more difficult, making sure that people who can use transit (as they have nowhere to park their car if going downtown), whilst this also allows small towns and other small settlements to continue relying on car transport.
• Build interstate highways / long distance motorways & bypasses, but not urban highways and ring roads. This means that congestion remains more an issue, pushing people more towards public transit where possible. Again means those outside the cities are unaffected and can continue using cars to move around small towns and villages, whilst pushing transit in urban areas.
• Tax fuel/gasoline/petrol (whatever you want to call it) more, and pipe at least part of the tax revenue directly in to public transit projects. Makes cars more expensive to operate, although presumably there would be push back from more rural areas, so not sure quite how viable this option is in larger countries.

There is a balance to be struck between transit and cars; neither can be stamped out and both are useful in different scenarios.

 

[BlueTrousers]

1 No driving offences - your actions are treated purely on outcome, so for example hitting a person with your car is assault, killing someone could be manslaughter or murder, damaging another vehicle is criminal damage. The sole exception would be where the act of driving creates an offence that didn't previously exist (eg speeding). Driving becomes very risky for ordinary people, but status drivers and essential users can accept the risk and insurance cost

Curiously enough, this used to be the case in the UK: the offence of 'causing death by dangerous driving' was created because juries wouldn't convict people of manslaughter when they'd killed someone with a car.

2 Unlimited on street parking is not OK. Councils etc won't permit misuse of their road, so they allow limited time only AND enforce this with severe penalties such as towing or forfeiture. Status users would have space for off street parking, but Joe and Jane public have nowhere to keep a car.

The approach here is probably the (entirely reasonable) one that the road is for public use, not for storage of private property. There were suggestions for this in the UK in the early 1960s, if not earlier.

In fact, your points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all fairly reasonable consequences of there being a moral panic against motor vehicles. The difficulty is, public pressure will always be towards the car and the perceived freedom it brings, which means any government controls are necessarily going to be shortlived. To have a meaningful impact on car uptake, you need a social change.

 

[RY1985]

Is it possible to see motor vehicles replace animal transportation, but prevent the ubiquitous ownership of private vehicles?

Just to clarify, do you mean that motor vehicles become very commonplace, for purposes such as public transport, or for industrial uses (such as delivery and transportation ) of heavy goods, but just that private ownership is not that common?

 

[Minchandre]

Just to clarify, do you mean that motor vehicles become very commonplace, for purposes such as public transport, or for industrial uses (such as delivery and transportation ) of heavy goods, but just that private ownership is not that common?

Yes, that was the idea. Motor vehicles still completely replace horses, but their use remains more similar to pre-car society.

 

[Aichi72]

In Europe and Asia, early car accidents result in the deaths of a number of important upper class people. This results in the people in power at the time panicking against car usage and tries their best to discourage motor vehicles in cities including measures such as promotion of public transport, more stringent operator's exams, narrower roads in city planning, as well as other measures to makes car usage generally inconvenient in urban areas except for things such as transportation of heavy goods and emergency response. They are aided in this by many people who have seen an increase in vehicle-related accidents for some reason. The lack of interest in cars by the upper class also means less investment into motor vehicle production. Maybe people's attitudes towards cars will eventually change, but for a long enough time, enough people are anti-car usage that by the time attitudes change, it's very inconvenient to use cars in urban areas, and also difficult to get the relevant laws changes, combined with a possibly stunted motor vehicle industry due to less investment in that field.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Another aspect could be that uncontrolled ownership is seen as facilitating crime. A getaway car makes it much easier to escape after crimes and a couple of high-profile cases could be influential. There's also the greater ease of heading out of town for immoral purposes. Truly shocking! What will people think of next?

 

[RY1985]

Yes, that was the idea. Motor vehicles still completely replace horses, but their use remains more similar to pre-car society.

Then you are looking at something like Singapore's car laws; plenty of commercial vehicles (buses, lorries and trucks), but (relatively speaking) a much lower car per population ratio, through all kinds of indirect taxes, such as electronic Road pricing and also needing to bid for a certificate that will enable you to own a personal car.

I however cannot see how this would work worldwide.

 

[DougM]

The problems with these suggestings is they either wont work as intended or they are all but impossible to get passed.
The taxes used for better mass transit and such is pretty much what you see in Europe (and why gas is generally more excpensive over there , because it is taxed more) And yet in most EU (or ex EU) countries cars are everywhere. Even big cities such as London have as many cars on the street as the roads will allow for.
As for the restrictive rules. Such as parking, you have a few issues. First shorter term parking on streets in cites cant be stopped. Even horse drawn wagons need to stop occasionally yo make deliveries. And where is your postal carrier going to park? (as one example). In many cities the postal carrier drives out parks then walks a route from the mail truck. Where is the truck parking?
In the country you run into the issue that A) hardly anyone parks on the road and B) i can always just park on the private property adjacent to the road. This brings up two additional problems. 1). in newly built developments they will just design parking on private property. and 2) in a lot of states the roads in subdivitions ARE private property. My road is not owned by the Township so the township can stop me from parking on it. Heck they cant enforce most driving “laws” on it. Unless we the owners enact them. Now i know in older cities this is not the case for most roads. But if you force this heavy handedness you very well may end up with an earlier development of privat roads. to avoid this

The masses WANT cars. The only way you avoid them is to make the public not want them, and frankly the advantages of cars is to grate to avoid them.
And if the government tries to outlaw them either the private sector will find work arounds such as private parking lots, creating off streat parking areas or lanes or the people will vote the politicians out off office. And this ignores the huge issue in the US. Back when cars were getting started the government did not stick its nose into this kind of thing. They would never pass a law to control something just to control it. They typically passed laws to stop accidents/injuries/deaths. The first laws about cars were created for these reasons. They also passed laws to help the rich/buisnesses and the buisnesses want to sell cars. So you really cant get laws passed because cars are “bad” in the view of some, which really is the only reason the OP seams to have.
The problem with this topic is WHY. What is the point of this thread? We need a REASON for this change. This is like many subjects.. It THEORETICLY COULD happen but we need yo understand why. We COULD outlaw 1 family homes, or air travel or we could build a trillion dollar intercontinental Super high speed rail system going 400mph. or we could have landed on Mars by now, have a big space station and a moon collony. You could even outlaw sex, or having kids or cell phones or computrers, These things are PHYSICLY possible. But they are all basicly ASB because you cant get the people to WANT to do them. It is this change in people is the problem.
You cant stop the technology so all you can do is make the folks euuther want yo do something such as pay for a mars mission or make them NOT want to do something. Such as drive cars, or own cats, And it is very hard to get the majority of folks to agree to do or mot do something that is in there personal interests.
So you have to have a good reason why cars are basically outlawed. Either that or you need a dictator who just dislikes them and outlaws them on a whim. And it is ASB to find a readon why in the 1900-1950s timeframe that the vast majority of people are going yo willinly choose to give up the best option for personal transportation. No i dont want a car…. i want yo stick with walking or using a horse drawn buggy/wagon/slay.
I have ridden in a buggy and a wagon abd even in a horse drawn omnibus and i have rode horses. Only someomne that has never done these things would think anby of them are a good replacement for cars. And the fact that people chose yo give ip these methods of transportation in favor of a car shows that those that used them regularly thought even the primitive cars of the day were a better option. As for public transit…. keep in mind only those living in big cities think that is an option. And even in the cities you will notice the toads have pretty much the max number of cars they can handle which shows that a lot of folks would rather drive then take mass transit, Because if they preffered mass transit.. they wouldn't drive and you wouldnt see the. cars. So even where mass transit is available a huge percent of the population would prefer to drive.

Lets ne honest. If all tbings were equal. As far as cost, environmental impact etc Which would you rather do. Walk a mile yo the subway, wait for the train, press your way onto it, find a seat or more likely stand have to put up with a ton of strangers or if it is empty the fear of getting mugged, get off the train, to get another as the first doesn't ho directly to your destination. Wait for the next tran…. then get off and walk 1 block yo many many blocks yo get were you are going. Often in the rain or cold or sleet or heat and hummidity. Of walk out your door, climb into your warm/cool dry car, drive directly yo your dsestination, park and walk in from. the parking lot. Often you can do this and never go outside if you have an attached garage and a parking structure. The only downside is traffic.

When my father was ill I would load him into my vehicle inside my garage, drive to the hospital for his treatment and park in the parking structure. Then take him directly into the hospital. He was never exposed to the rain or sleet or whatever. And with his conprimised imune system he was never exposed to hundreds of folks eho potentislly could be sick. And when i went to work or the store my exposure was limited so he was less liely to get sick because i caught something on my way to the office.

It is only the issue with the IC engine that is the true downside of cars. But even electric powered Mass transit is not 100% clean. The electricities has to come from somewhere.

So yoyu are like most of these topics trying to find a. way to keep folks from chosing to use what is in reality the better transportaion method for most people . And this time the OP is not even proposing a reason,,,

Now that being said.. i can see time in the near future when car ownership drops like a rock. Combing the Cost of cars, ther cost of privat insurance, the tendency of modern businesses to want to rent you things vs selling them (in order to keep a steady cash flow) and the developing tech. The end result will probably be that i will “summon“ a self driving car when i need it. And pay for it on a per use basis but that day is not hear and wont be for a while.

 

[UniversalCommons]

Part of this is about design. Create specific areas for walking as well as easy bicycle and ebike paths and people will use less cars. Also build in better light rail and train service and there will be less cars. Earlier design and use of bicycles will also change how cars are used. Create a different infrastructure and you will have less car use. Also design shopping districts that are easily walkable andake it easier for businesses to deliver goods to individuals and there will be less need for personal transportation. In the future this will include things like drone delivery service and self driving shared car services.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Then you are looking at something like Singapore's car laws; plenty of commercial vehicles (buses, lorries and trucks), but (relatively speaking) a much lower car per population ratio, through all kinds of indirect taxes, such as electronic Road pricing and also needing to bid for a certificate that will enable you to own a personal car.

I however cannot see how this would work worldwide.

The reason it works in Singapore is that the city-state is so small that its public transportation network is mostly sufficient to service its population. Japan's rail network is similarly comprehensive because the country is composed mostly of a few large islands that nonetheless occupy a relatively small territory.

A lot of cities, particularly in sprawling countries like the US, have developed outward in a likewise sprawling manner especially after WWII. It's often cheaper for governments to invest in a high-quality road network than in criss-crossing rail lines.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Changing current patterns of car ownership is hard as people are used to them and cities have been developed around car ownership, to the point where not owning a car or being unable to drive can cause major problems, which is an extreme situation in its own right.
If widespread ownership never gets started, the idea of out-of-town supermarkets and malls starts to look a bit strange, so local shops, facilities and services (including access to parkland and natural open space) and good public transport remain important, and this in turn means people don't need cars to live well.

 

[cerebus]

I suspect it is very Hard to stop mass car ownership in America Canada and Australia due to the sheer size of the countries. As an Englishman I was astounded when an American suggested travelling 90 miles for breakfast.
You can make cars less attractive in cities or more expensive but if you block the internalcombustion engine you will probably just end up with petroleum powered steamers.
Once you have cars in America then they will be an aspirational good in Europe even if they make less economic sense.