I hope she is right, and in a way she may be. The main reason is how expensive it is to buy a car, insure and maintain a car in the US.
Insurance rates in many places are raising a lot, people blame the expense of repairing EVs and some blame tracking of people's driving habits via many internet connected autos.
With new proposed mandatory "dodads" like automatic breaking, rear cameras I can see Auto prices will continue to increase.
And in cities you can have parking fees, the slow elimination of parking on the street, never mind rent and housing costs. Something will need to give.
So the end result for people in cities, stop using a car and rely on Public Transportation, Bicycling, Walking and things like uber and taxis.
Well... About repairing I've conducted a very casual and limited assessments between friends, colleagues, families etc on ICE vs BEV MTBF and while absolutely not statistically meaningful the result is that even with the crappy crapload of crapware BEV have they are already more reliable than ICE counterparts. So well, repairing in case of incidents will be more expensive, but in current usage they tend to fail less. About costs: if you look at China or India cheap-but-reasonable BEV (400km/250miles) well, they seems not to be more and more expensive but less and less. It's here in the west that, perhaps thanks to decades of destruction of substantial research and development "to maximize profits", we see price going higher and higher while we resell more and more Chinese stuff rebranded.
Long story short: it's here that the Green tech fail, not all other the world. As a result people in cities became more and more poor to a point they simply can't own a car anymore. It's not a "nice evolution thanks to" but a "forced regression".
These kind of articles always come off as short sighted to me in terms of ownership. Sure, short term transportation rentals (bikes scooters) are nice now and then, but they have external costs. They have to be moved/charged, people throw them in the river, they are mostly operated by independent contractors getting exploited etc. Having said that, I fully support sidelining cars in urban areas, but a bunch of rental services and Uber are not great replacements.
I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice.
I am not interested in car models at all but I like owning a car, even in a city. It solves a lot of problems and I believe a development to less individual traffic is an illusion. Mabybe it happens due to economic reasons, but otherwise it will stay as it is. Even with combustion cars should EV prove to expensive. Any market regulation would quickly evaporate as well and maybe just kill the local industry.
> I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice.
Public transport doesn't work if it's not somewhat punctual and high traffic, meaning it needs to be reliable and run often, not like those "commuter" trains around North America running only mornings/afternoons schedules, or having a train departing every 1-2 hours.
I'm originally from a country where you are almost 100% dependent on a car, moved to a place where I simply do not need a car unless I need to move houses and for that I can just rent a van for 4h-24h on the cheap. I wouldn't choose being dependent on a car to do my daily chores ever again, I much prefer taking the metro, train, bus, or my bike rather than dealing with all the headaches car ownership brings.
Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes.
If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.
> If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...]
Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America.
That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term.
In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density.
Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on.
Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society.
Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.
> After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on.
Why go through all this convoluted solution when there's already a very convenient one (which I use almost daily): get parcels delivered to your nearest packet station, it could be a small corner shop (like at least 3 in my 800m radius), a larger grocer, or even automated cabinet boxes where you receive a code and pick it up.
This system works, you get your parcels conveniently delivered close by and just walk there to pick it up. No hassles or convoluted stuff like drone delivery or post workers having to deliver to each building.
> This system works, you get your parcels conveniently delivered close by and just walk there to pick it up.
If the parcel is lightweight, it does not rain or snow, and those who get parcels are not too much because shops have a bit of room for parcels but not too much. Now imaging getting a washing machine or a fridge with this system. This system is a workaround working enough today since on-line retail is popular but not the most common solution to buy anything. In a not so far future though it will be common to buy foods, ANYTHING via web so, this system will not work anymore. Of course stores will probably disappear so there might be room for something else but anything get more and more complex, and still there is no viable solution for the green new deal.
Already today I get Amazon delivered quickly here in the means than in a few dense cities "around here" (well, quoted because there are not much big cities around but in the dense costline in costal cities delivery is a bit slow than here, even if most parcels came from the coast).
> If the parcel is lightweight, it does not rain or snow, and those who get parcels are not too much because shops have a bit of room for parcels but not too much. Now imaging getting a washing machine or a fridge with this system. This system is a workaround working enough today since on-line retail is popular but not the most common solution to buy anything. In a not so far future though it will be common to buy foods, ANYTHING via web so, this system will not work anymore. Of course stores will probably disappear so there might be room for something else but anything get more and more complex, and still there is no viable solution for the green new deal.
I get parcels all the time during rain and snow, I live in Scandinavia, rain and snow is a constant thing for 8 months of the year, that is totally doable.
How often do you think people are buying washing machines? Big items are delivered to home, no questions, but those are scheduled deliveries because no post worker is going to be dropping off your washing machine to the mailbox of the building.
This system works, it's been working fine, I've bought a fridge and a stove and just scheduled a delivery where I waited at home and got my item, for the 99,9% of the other parcels I get them delivered to a packet station. The network of packet stations ensures there's enough room to deliver to the region, if needed they expand the network with more packet stations...
Well, surely buying a washing machine is not that frequent, and in not-too-dense cities like those common in Scandinavia they might be enough shops who became packet stations, I doubt they can be enough in denser cities like NY, Tokyo, Moscow etc though, however even if we can somewhat adapt to such little changes, the point remains: cities can't evolve. How can adapt for instance to the Green New Deal? Not small cities composed of little buildings but large ones composed of mid/high rise buildings? The point in the end is: we can adapt to many things and still living, but it's a smart idea do this or that only because we can somewhat adapt?
Beware, the future of cities is the smart city, those with no more private ownership, whose where anyone can only move with some transporting services depending on it's schedule and so on. Maybe we can adapt, but it's a good thing?
> If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes.
But... You don't need to do this? There's no way to cover every settlement 24/7/365 but you can balance a schedule based on the most likely hours of usage, even if keeping occupation low, and for the extremely edge cases where there'd be virtually no ridership you don't need to provide the same availability. It still makes the system very, very useful for the vast majority of the time while the gaps can be covered by other modes of transportation such as taxis, that would still be cheaper than purchasing and maintaining a car.
Adding to the sibling comment to mine, I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points:
- Living 15-20km away from the city centre, in a suburb of about 13k people on an area of around 2,35km2
- Bus service connects to nearby suburbs via local routes
- Scheduled every 10-15 min between 06:00-21:00, every 20 min from 21:00-00:00, every 30 min from 00:00-06:00
- Bus service via express routes connects to more distant suburbs (about 8-10km) including a major hospital
- Scheduled every 10 min between 06:00-20:00, every 20 min between 20:00-22:00, every 30 min between 22:00-06:00
- Metro connects to the city centre, travel time in train of about 30-35 min
- Scheduled every 15 min between 04:30-06:00, every 10 min between 06:00-08:00, every 7 min between 08:00-11:00, every 10 min between 11:00-15:00, every 7 min between 15:00-20:00, every 10 min between 20:00-22:00, every 15 min between 22:00-00:00. Weekends it runs overnight from 00:00-04:30 every 30 min.
- All houses in the area have access to the metro in 15 min or less walking.
- All houses have access to the metro through a bus connection in 7 min or less.
The odd times I need to come home back from the city centre when there's no metro running (weekdays after midnight) I hail a cab and spend on fares what would be about 1/4 of a petrol tank to get home.
Having a car has no benefits to me given the cost for purchase, maintenance, insurance, winter tyres, parking, fuel, etc.
Oh yes I do. Let's say I'm late to a party on the other end of the town and no cars. What I'm supposed to do? Sleep at the bus stop waiting for the next bus late in the morning? Let's say I have to take a plane very early in the morning, there is no bus because it's a timeframe almost nobody have to move. What I'm supposed to do? Leaving yesterday and sleeping at the airport? That's why we have personal transport means. And actually yes, they allow anyone moving at anytime from any place to any other because roads are the only infra needed and they are static and every settlement is connected to some roads in a nation-wide road network. Having only a collective transport where it's sustainable is like having websites only working in certain moment of the day certain day of the year, some have tried this absurdity...
> I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points
I was living in a big city, now I'm living in the French Alps: it's a spread are but I still have a supermarket at 1' car, few shops, few sport and leisure in 10' radius, the elementary school is a 8', the high school at 30' in the winter 10' less when there is no risk of ice or snow, nearest uni it at 1h15' etc. Of course there is no room for collective transport, there are some, but they are not much used not much interested. Thanks to this spread setup traffic does not exists, delivery of goods is cheap also because of that and easy access of anything, regional economy is alive ranging from a poor shepherd with few sheep to the international nuclear fusion research project with in between many kind of activities, there is room for any foreseeable evolution, the first drone delivery (failed) experiment was started in 2014 and operational in 2017 https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/drone-livrai... it's a failed project because they only fly with good weather and not too much wind during the day, but anyway that's is. If a day flying car's will be a thing we have the room for that as well. At what cost? Well, LESS then the cost of dense are infra. Of course there are many roads, but they are "light roads", there is no need of big highways with enormously expensive bridges and galleries, there is no need of big and expensive aqueducts since the consumption is spread small scale sourcing is normal and cheaper. No need of high and mid rise buildings and so on. Why bother about collective transport schedule? Yes we depend on car, but personal cars regularly used are not much more expensive in raw materials terms than a fleet of public transport with the relevant infra. Especially EVs can be recharged at home for remote workers, at work with plenty of p.v. around factories, supermarkets, ... since there is space for them meaning we could sooner or later cut also much needs of fuels delivery. New homes means electrical heating, so no fuel logistic for VARIOUS type of fuel, EVs no fuel logistic for cars, agrivoltaic if well done (something NONEXISTENT but possible so far) means also almost no fuel needed for agriculture and so on. Just homes, electricity grid and local aqueducts. Oh, we can even spare more, for instance making common small energy storage and water storage for every buildings we can spare money in emergency services and any local works that interrupt the service, it might sound not much but it's a thing as well.
Having cars might means no benefit to you, but have a price for the society, yourself included, because well, we already see in various fields we are good at making small things at scale, like clusters, but any big project have not so nice outcome, so being able to live and flourish at small scale on scale it's a very important thing in a changing world. Not anything can be done so far like that, sure, but many things can be done.
Nothing of what you mention is my point, my point applies to living close to cities.
I'm not saying that everyone should stop using cars, I'm saying that people living close to cities should have the means to not depend on personal ownership of cars.
I use cars, like I mention: I get the odd cab here and there when getting to some place will be inconvenient by public transport due to schedule. The same applies when I got to the closest airport which is 50km away, if I need to be there for a very early flight I will get a taxi. I rent cars when needed (like transporting moving boxes between houses, or purchasing some big piece of furniture).
What I'm advocating for is to not depend on oneself owning a car just for the sake of the odd times where one can't use public transport. I spent much less money by hailing taxis when needed compared to if I had owned a car in the past 10 years.
> Having cars might means no benefit to you, but have a price for the society, yourself included, because well, we already see in various fields we are good at making small things at scale, like clusters, but any big project have not so nice outcome, so being able to live and flourish at small scale on scale it's a very important thing in a changing world. Not anything can be done so far like that, sure, but many things can be done.
Yeah, of course, it doesn't mean that people in cities should depend on a car just to gain economies of scale on producing cars, I'm not saying cars shouldn't exist, I think you missed that point...
> What I'm advocating for is to not depend on oneself owning a car just for the sake of the odd times where one can't use public transport. I spent much less money by hailing taxis when needed compared to if I had owned a car in the past 10 years.
In the not so far past where I was born district heating was sold as the present for some, the future for all, "you just need two pipes, no more furnace issues, entertainment, ..." and for a bit effectively those who have choose it have spared money and get the heat they need anyway. After the service became more and more expensive and those who have already chose district heating was trapped, going back would be really expensive, they have to restore a space for a furnace, change the heating system in the home and so on. Their economy ended in few years and they start to spend more to a point now in all condos having autonomous heating (any apartment heat itself) instead of a centralized solution no matter if local to the condo or district, is a big plus on resale value. So to say in the history anytime "not owning something" appear to be good after not much time those who have believed the "rent not own" model got screwed much. You see the same phenomenon everywhere from IT (cloud costs, lock-in etc) to politics passing through small things.
Now try to imaging a modern dense city, where people chose to cancel private ownership of cars, so erasing most of the parking space, transformed garages to something else etc where the "public" (collective, privately operated) transport start to be nightmarish, cutting lines and rising price "because of The Crisis". Are those people trapped or they still can choose? As long as you have slack, slack have a cost, but can pay back in the future, as long as you are lightweight you might feel free, but you are naked, tied to someone else services and sooner or later this will cost you much more than what you spared.
That's just my point. In cities car's can't have a future, there is too much density, so living in a big city and owning a car is anyway a dead end, living nearby will allow choice for some time, but you know the city grow, the suburb of today we will be part of the expanded city tomorrow. So again there will be not much choice for long either. In a spread society the density can vary, but as long as the model remain small buildings and single-family homes intermixed even if the density became too much private mobility remain, private ownership remain, if the density drop too much real estate might loose value but you can still be there thank to tech evolution or you still keep your asset for a long time because you have slack.
That's the story of century-old Japanese companies still alive today. The have accepted some costs long the way, but the always have had slack, while others have grown quickly than fall. Many times. So my point is that those who not live in cities can only escape before it's too late, those who live close to cities can wait a bit because their settlements likely gain more and more value for some years to come, but they should be vigilant because a bit more late in the future they will be trapped as well if they do not go away.
I think that's a valid point. For a lot of young people transitioning to adulthood, the thought of buying their first cable TV package was easy to say no to. It's expensive, and there was a perfectly reasonable alternative that was much cheaper and more convenient. When people in a similar life stage think about buying their first car, is the alternative easier? Generally speaking, cities need to invest more in bus, light rail, and bicycle infrastructure in order to compete with cost/convenience of owning a car. But in a few American cities, it is becoming increasingly easier to not depend on a car.
I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where I can do all my day-to-day things (e.g., work, gym, groceries) without a car. Bike, bus, and walking can get me almost everywhere I want to go within 5 miles of my home, which would otherwise account for the majority of my car trips [1]. I still own a (small) car, but it's relegated to weekend pleasure driving and occassional big-things-transport. It's amazing not having to stress about parking, gas prices, or being stuck in traffic alongside everyone else commuting via single-occupant cars.
That's one of the reason why I'm against smart cities https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ but I'm still convinced that such push will fail simply because it's unsustainable as the original Fordlandia or the modern Neom, Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera, ...
As a result I expect cities became a hub of poor and desperate, while those who can have already or will do at an exponentially higher price, flee the city. Those inside will have no cars simply because they will be unable to own one.
> Much like how people now prefer streaming services over cable, these subscriptions may cost nearly the same as leasing or owning a car some months, but they’ll provide a better experience than owning a car, especially if cities prioritize mobility options over private cars.
Except now that they've won the war, the streaming services are merrily raising prices, adding advertisements, and enshittifying in various other ways.
Only if you replace your car every two or three years. If you're like me, buying a used car and keeping it for 7 to 10 years, then owning a car is much more cost-effective. Most of my cars have made it 150,000 to 200,000 miles.
The problem with subscription services is enshittification. They get users habitually using them and once the alternatives are dead they crank the levers to extract value.
I always thought be interesting for an app to organize an neighborhood to share its cars with themselves. This gets away from a lot of problems with rentals - the car always lives in the same place, you can get the same set of familiar cars, and you'd have more of a sense of ownership and personal liability. The problem is that people use their cars as storage plus non-linear spikey demand and everyone wanting to use cars at the same time.
I don't think the comparison of streaming and cable is actually helping her case here.
Just look at most streaming services right now: They keep on increasing prices, they restrict account sharing and thus forcing every individual to either purchase their own subscription or risk losing access while the content is being spread over a growing amount of streaming services and almost all are ramping up on the amount of advertising they serve unless you opt-out by switching to a higher tiered subscription.
If streaming is any indicator, you'll soon have to rent a car from a specific "car as a service" provider to access or park in certain districts of the city you live in while you have to endure advertising before you can start the engine or while you wait in traffic.
You don't want to rely on a car subscription service if you want to remain mobile and you don't have that much money to spend.
Not to forget that this pays heavily into the "you'll own nothing and be happy" WEF agenda.
(And I don't even own a car or license and just do everything by bicycle so I'm not even directly affected by this.)
If she's right that she could save $7500 a year by renting a car when she needs one, she could in fact own nothing (or at least, not a car) and be happy - or at least $7500/yr happier.
I wrestle with buying a boat or an RV. Buying feels like buying an "asset", whereas renting feels like throwing money away. But the actual fact is that, for as often as I would use either one, renting is by far the better move. It just doesn't feel like it to me.
The WEF is not an organization that I trust, but in this particular kind of case, the numbers may work out in favor of their position.
Insurance rates in many places are raising a lot, people blame the expense of repairing EVs and some blame tracking of people's driving habits via many internet connected autos.
With new proposed mandatory "dodads" like automatic breaking, rear cameras I can see Auto prices will continue to increase.
And in cities you can have parking fees, the slow elimination of parking on the street, never mind rent and housing costs. Something will need to give.
So the end result for people in cities, stop using a car and rely on Public Transportation, Bicycling, Walking and things like uber and taxis.