cooker

That's nonsense - its a right wing conspiracy theory. The idea is to make it possible to do everything you need to do close to home. Nobody is going to stop you going wherever you want.

jon c. 

It's the infamous "they."

cooker

There is no plan to restrict people's freedom of movement (that's a right wing conspiracy theory), but making it less convenient or more expensive to drive inside a city is a good idea. It's actually the pro-car faction who have been the ones forcing their ideas onto cities for 80 years, evicting people from their private homes to build public freeways and parking lots where there used to be vibrant sidewalk life, spewing exhaust and shedding particulates and creating a lot of carnage. I own a car too, and while we may think we're paying a lot in taxes and fees, we aren't actually paying our way- road and traffic costs are huge and underrecognized, and to some extent paid by everybody. So giving the city back to all the people, rather than favoring driving, is the right thing to do.

And it's not going to somehow be imposed abruptly and willy-nilly on sprawling suburban areas where you currently can't function without a car. It will happen gradually over maybe a generation or two of better planning and incentives.

Calsun

What is apparent is that most people like to think that everything is great and any change at all would be horrible. Small wonder we live in such a backward country.

Bully4

Valid points. You might add that the highway system also serves as a route for goods to be delivered. Many of those emission spewing vehicles tend do deliver just about everything we consume. I might add bikes and parts to the list, LOL. Most cities have also thrived and grown with the convenience of cost effective shipping. As transportation costs rise, the price of consumables will inevitably rise. Tolls were $25 to drive a truck into NY 40 years ago. I can only imagine what that cost is now.

I remember a picture of Altoona in the 50's. Streetcar tracks in the center of the road taking people to the business district. They are gone now. Affordable cars replaced the need for public transportation. I agree that it should take a while and change is inevitable. Fine by me-gives me some time to run out the clock.

Everybody has their own ideas of convenience and freedom. I made a good friend in NY while working there in the 80's. He said he moved to Montana for a while, then missed the city and returned.

Myself, I prefer more rural areas. Personally, I feel that it will take a lot to convince people like me that the convenience will be worth it. However, I don't foresee living in the city.

50PlusCycling

If we are talking about America, less than 2% of the country is urban, and more than 85% of America’s population lives on this 2%. Not all of these urban areas are “15 minute cities,” but commuting distances, with some exceptions, are short.

There are no public policies mandating the formation of cities, they tend to form on their own to facilitate economic activity. So long as public safety, sanitation, necessary services and utilities are maintained, cities de well enough on their own. Unfortunately, such is not the case with too many of our cities, in which recent changes in city policies have resulted in large increases in addiction, homelessness, crime, and violence. These have resulted in outward migration, and most of America’s largest cities are seeing significant declines in their populations.

Bully4

Good point! I must admit that I disagree with a lot of the policies being implemented. But.....how does a person even know if information is credible or political BS?
Living in rural areas is not always fun, either. More populous areas always have more opportunities for career paths. I chose rural; the next person might choose the city. No right or wrong answer-personal choice. I'll just forge ahead as normal. I don't drive much. I put more miles on my bikes than my pick-up. However, I'm not currently willing to give up either on a whim or futuristic trend.

Viich

Man, the vilification of "let's plan our cities better so people don't have to drive as far to get what they need" is mind-blowing.

bOsscO

I live in a city of 75K which is often called a 'suburb' of a larger city with a population almost 10X as large. I'm all for 15-minute cities.

cooker

Nobody will make you live in a city, much less a 15 minute one.

However, 15 minute rural towns used to be more of a thing. The hardware store, pharmacy, bank, Sears outlet, and soda fountain were all side by side on Main Street. You could be like the 5 year old kid in the Springsteen song allowed to go to the corner on his own to get his Dad a newspaper. Now they're all gone and everybody drives to the Walmart a couple of towns over.

Fewer cars on the road would make things a lot easier for truck drivers.

cooker

That is never going to happen. Do you think anybody you know would accept that? Is New York going to kick everybody off the subway at every second stop so they don't stray from their zone? Only people who live near Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or the Golden Gate Bridge will get to take a selfie there? You think all those store, restaurant, and resort owners are going to just passively think "Oh well, I guess we'll just make do"? Get real.

EDIT: and London will suddenly not want tourists?

SkinGriz

I could see being forced to pay a toll.

What makes you think it couldn’t happen?

rykard

khan's already put ulez in place £12.50 / day if you drive a vehicle that doesn't meet his criteria. And this is all off the back of some very dodgy reports on London's pollution... so it is easily predicatable.

cooker

Who would want it? How would they implement it? Why would they do it? How would they get the public to comply? Why would businesses support it? What purpose would it serve? It's just trolling or fearmongering.

Bully4

We can argue this till the end of time. I see it as two different discussions combined.

One discussion concerns proper, efficient planning for a city which makes all resources easily accessible. Noble and virtuous thoughts.

The other discussion basically concerns maintaining an individual's right to choose. Rykard's point is one of the numerous regulations that crosses my mind. How is this tax going to mitigate the "climate crisis"? Where does the money actually go? Can we buy our way out of climate change? Or, is this all just a ploy to get $$$ into the big guys wallet? Or, is it a means of taking a person's only means of transportation?

I am sure there are factors which escape my small brain. However, all things need to be considered before any facet of this discussion would be implemented. There aren't many options where I live; you need transportation. No bus stops around here.

My apologies if I led this thread in the wrong direction. Furthermore, I think this is relevant because all sides of a topic should be visited. The current trend seems to be leaning towards diminishing car ownership. Let's not get too involved in arguing and allow that to happen before there are viable alternatives in place.

RCMoeur 

I see this argumentation as a symptom of a loss of trust of a large swath of the population in the political powers that be, and in the experts they cited.

And it's not because they read it on some (insert derogatory term here) blog or news source. It's because they've seen the flip-flops and "rules for thee but not for me", and on top of that the denials of aforementioned behavior - as compared to what they've seen and experienced, often firsthand.

Trust lost is almost never regained, and especially not by coercion (financial or otherwise).

And this makes my professional life a lot harder. My biggest client advises the Federal Highway Administration on national traffic standards, and so their expert advice may now go unheeded by association.

Bully4

When I bought my last Bull Terrier, I had to drive to New Hampshire to pick her up. Although there were no toll booths, I received a bill for driving in a state whose motto is "live free or die". Go figure. They had big riggings which recorded your license plate number.

Trust me-they have the technology as long as there is money involved!

base2 

That's all fine and well and good. How about the taxes necessary to support your desire for urban services at rural density?

It is well known that the highest value per acer is in the dense urban cores and the least population dense areas are the most subsidized. So long as you are ok with a non-economically viable way of life that relies on the charity and patriotism of others or paying a full tax-load equal to or greater than your total annual income...Sure. Your desires make a lot of sense. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

Bully4

Kudos!!!! That sums it all up in tremendous fashion! My heart goes out too you in your dealings with the stubborn portion of our population, you could probably include me in that group.

Bully4

What urban service? Who's running the numbers on that racket? I pay more taxes on my property than many residences in closer proximity to the city. Half the time, I lock in the four wheel drive if going to work early in the winter.

We live in different ends of the country. Less population=less services required.

I bet the taxes and the properties are high compared to my location. I also be that there is very little accomplished with the taxes paid into the big machine.

Bully4

I am intrigued by the "urban desire for services at rural density". Please enlighten me.

Crap, we only have volunteer fire companies. No local police forces. No public transportation. I pay a private company for trash removal. Probably a primitive setup compared to your location.

Again, We live at different ends of the country; I'm probably overlooking something. If we traded locations, we would probably both think we were in different countries.

Thanks

mschwett 

yes, of course everyone else should pay to build, maintain, patrol, and expand the roads you drove on to pick up your dog. if you don’t want to pay to use something, build your own version of it on your own land with your own hands.

base2 

Bully4
Not takin' the bait.

SkinGriz

My read of global history just tells me it’s well within the realm of possibilities, and not too far down on the scale of probabilities.

I don’t see a big difference from national borders. And the vax mandates are a recent memory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra...Hamlet_Program

Bully4

I recall buying food, fuel, and paying taxes on a hotel stay. Aren't there federal and state taxes included in the price of gas? Where do they they go?

My point isn't to insult residents of New Hampshire. My point is that there seems to be redundant taxation to support causes. Where does it all go? Blindly forking over money could serve to feed a corrupt process.