frostbiker

Based on the way things are today, I can't make any assumptions that people in charge have any idea of what it takes to make a neighborhood ditch the car.

This is the key worry of governments with cryptocurrencies, and was the main selling point of them initially, before the whole crypto tech bro hype.

Yep. Arguably Bitcoin arose from the 2008 financial crisis and the following bailouts.

What I've never understood about it is that it seems so unlikely that it would ever replace a national currency, for two simple reasons. First, because taxes owed in a country can only be repaid in the national currency. Second, because government contracts will only ever pay in the national currency, from macroprojects, to maintenance contracts, to millions of civil servants. This creates both a ton of demand and a ton of supply for the national currency.

And that doesn't even take into account the role of the central bank and private banks in the money supply. Being highly regulated, there's zero chance that a private currency would ever be legally allowed to take hold there either.

Central bank digital currencies appear to have very little to do with crypto currencies like Bitcoin. Rather, they appear to be a mechanism to surgically induce economic stimulus when and where desired, like a more controlled version of the stimulus checks that we saw in many countries during COVID.

For example, they could directly credit your digital currency account with a certain amount of money that you are only allowed to spend on certain goods and services and for a limited amount of time. This would ensure that the money is spent and stimulates certain economic aress rather than being hoarded or invested.

Density without walkability means non-stop traffic.

Walkable neighborhoods need retail businesses. We need to be able to do everyday errands by foot if we want to keep traffic to reasonable levels.

I spent a couple of decades living in Spain. I'm well familiar with old towns.

Designing our streets for pedestrians first, transit/bikes next and private motor vehicles last is the way it should be. If that means that some streets are inconvenient for car traffic, so be it. Surely that is preferable to downgrading the ability of the most vulnerable to move around, or the quality of that experience.

North-american style car-dependent suburbs are an aberration that should disappear altogether. They didn't exist a hundred years ago and they shouldn't exist now. It is immoral that the people living sustainably in urban centers are subsidizing the people living at large in the suburbs. If they like them so much they can pay their true cost to society.

There are multiple different ways to tax carbon. The current federal carbon tax does not include rebates for planting trees, so that loophole doesn't exist.

I just made it clear that making personal cars somehow “vanish” will not really change the financial side of things.

What you are not taking into account is that the sort of low-density, car-dependent, single family home suburbia we criticise requires many more square meters of road per person than a walkable medium-density mixed-use neighborhood. Strongtowns shows with data, not opinion, how town centers are subsidizing financially unsustainable car-dependent suburbia.

I wish anyone in this “FuckCars” community would actually think of a way to fix the world, and not just complain about the way it is.

Easy. Start by copying the Dutch street design guidelines and zoning laws. Boom! Living car-free or car-lite would be much easier, at least in North America where so many people drive to do the most basic daily errands.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel, just study and copy what already works elsewhere. That's how bad things are around here.

Please stop being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that what we want is doable because it is already being done in many places in Europe and Japan. Stop fighting a strawman of your own creation.

We want fewer private motor vehicles in our streets because car-centric urban planning translates into places that are unpleasant to live in, especially for people who don't drive.

I live right by a busy stroad. How many of the cars whizzing by do you think are delivery vehicles? How many busses? Very few compared to the number obese SUVs and lifted pickups, even though there are four large supermarkets and many shops within walking distance along this corridor.

If we reduced the number of private motor vehicles in this stroad the quality of life for my family would significantly increase: less air pollution, less traffic noise, more pleasant daily errands, less risk of being run over by a tank-sized ego booster, more room for trees and bicycles.

Stop spewing bullshit and fear. Let my kids and I hope for a better future.

The article does not justify why a carbon tax would not work, or at least be an important part of the solution. If we are missing our current targets, what measures can we take to do better? For example, how would increasing the carbon tax by 50% affect our emissions? Despair doesn't get us closer to our goals.

Until people develop a workable alternative

The alternative will not appear out of thin air. More people need to have a sense of the long-reaching consequences of car-dependent urban planning and that's what propels them to vote for better planning in their cities.

Nothing is going to change without a shift in political leanings, and that's what this sort of advocacy is doing.

Many years ago we got lucky and a recently-graduated doctor took us under her roster. Not losing that is one of the reasons we hesitate to move to a different place, even though our doctor is pretty much only doing phone appointments since the pandemic began.

Is it so hard to paint "RESCUE TRAINING" on props like these with big letters so that confusion can be avoided?