Ban urban vehicles

[Risottia]

Here banks and even car dealers do offer discounted loans for businesses looking to buy a professional vehicle; also, leasing is quite the thing. I would have guessed American banks and car dealers would do the same.

Sometimes here too, but when all your employees already own a car why bother?

Here you wouldn't get a pass for that. If you run a delivery service you have to provide the motor vehicles - and you can deduct the expenses for the vehicle from your company's taxable income.

[Thepeopl]

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars. This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different. And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

Overprice them you mean. Car companies generally make profit on what they sell. Which is how price is determined. Car owners pay gas taxes that build the roads they ride on, and they pump billions of dollars a year into mass transit via tolls and taxes.

Let's leave the social engineering out of it, and let the people decide if they want a car and where they want to live.

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

[The South Falls]

Overprice them you mean. Car companies generally make profit on what they sell. Which is how price is determined. Car owners pay gas taxes that build the roads they ride on, and they pump billions of dollars a year into mass transit via tolls and taxes.

Let's leave the social engineering out of it, and let the people decide if they want a car and where they want to live.

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

[Risottia]

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

No, actually it wouldn't.
I have direct experience about that.

[Ethel mermania]

Overprice them you mean. Car companies generally make profit on what they sell. Which is how price is determined. Car owners pay gas taxes that build the roads they ride on, and they pump billions of dollars a year into mass transit via tolls and taxes.

Let's leave the social engineering out of it, and let the people decide if they want a car and where they want to live.

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

The only thing a modern car kicks out is CO2 and water. Particulate matter are an issue with diesel engines, but I think the EU's new emissions s regs do away with that issue.
A 1967 Chevy kicked off more pollution parked with the engine off than a modern car does moving. (Paint fumes).

[Novus America]

Sometimes here too, but when all your employees already own a car why bother?

Here you wouldn't get a pass for that. If you run a delivery service you have to provide the motor vehicles - and you can deduct the expenses for the vehicle from your company's taxable income.

Maybe not, but this is why one size fits all solutions are not solutions at all.
What might work in one Italian town might not work in the US.

[Novus America]

Overprice them you mean. Car companies generally make profit on what they sell. Which is how price is determined. Car owners pay gas taxes that build the roads they ride on, and they pump billions of dollars a year into mass transit via tolls and taxes.

Let's leave the social engineering out of it, and let the people decide if they want a car and where they want to live.

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

But that does not end the private car, just pushers towards electrification of the private car.
Now that we can electrify private cars why not keep the freedom, flexibility and distributionism they offer without the air pollution they cause?

But you run into the problem of that simply taxing them more just hurts the poor the most.

[Zeritae]

I'm the type to go for yes on that in NS, i'm the type to go for that in real life. No cars.

[Thepeopl]

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

Why would letting ppl get sick be more effective? Why not prevent them from getting sick?
And yes, all industry should be sustainable, they should clean up their waste.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

Why would letting ppl get sick be more effective? Why not prevent them from getting sick?
And yes, all industry should be sustainable, they should clean up their waste.

PPL？Is the mean of Chemistry or not?What's the relationship between them get sick and environmental protection?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Nope, price them for the pollution they cause. The extra healthcare costs because of particulates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

How to price? Add more tax on gasoline?

[Forsher]

Admittedly, we'd have to ban plenty of other processes, cars would have to just be the start. A more effective method would be to invest in healthcare to treat the people affected.

How to price? Add more tax on gasoline?

Honestly, I think we can tax vehicle kilometres directly. It'd be a pretty trivial matter to achieve since when cars go in for their warrants of fitness, they have to get tested. Compare odometer readings at each check in and voila. In terms of payment, either have people face lump sums or report expected distances and pay based on that (with rebates functioning as a mental reward for driving less than expected... and lump sums punishment for exceeding estimates).

Vehicle kilometres within urban environments is also, to my knowledge, pretty trivial to measure with modern technology. Stick cameras on every intersection and use 'em to measure (a) safety and (b) distance. More intrusive in terms of privacy, to be sure, but any sense of privacy that vanishes as soon as you assume people have memories is bullshit to start with. The cameraised regions could even be used to define urban for the purposes of urban fuel taxes (the safety argument is sufficient if, in practice, not politically persuasive). The real problem is people would probably get a kick out of being charged for less distance than they actually travel (since the measure can only record intersection to intersection distance), so we might have further room to question the salience of the system.

(Tax salience is basically about how obvious the charging of a tax system is. If you want to gather revenue, have taxes that aren't very salient. If you want to change behaviour, have taxes that are more salient so people intellectually recognise that their behaviour is costing them money. The cameraised intersections plan would be much more salient if people got weekly distance bills than if they got bills covering a whole month that occurred several months earlier, for example.)

The difficult question seems, to me, to be choosing the pricing amounts.

It might seem odd to prefer such a system to fuel taxes given the problem is pollution and electric vehicles are obviously better there. However, I remind the thread that:

• a country with a very environmentally unfriendly electrical grid, isn't going to be doing so well out of electric vehicles as we'd hope
• roads themselves are actually massively damaging to the environment & more driving not only encourages people to build more roads ([url]=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradoxidiotically[/url]) but also requires more maintenance (duh)
• VKT and road deaths are correlated... and the causal mechanism is clear (driving causes deaths caused by driving) so none of this "correlation is not causation" bullshit as a response to this (i.e. do some serious thinking)
• encouraging people to not drive is a good thing for their health and reducing the insidious effects of autodependence on how people think is, like, critical thinking, man
• to a large extent, it's the space that cars take up which is the real problem and that's kind of what we're pricing (I understand the pandemic argument, I do, but mass transit developed in the old public health era so I don't find it compelling)
• we can turn the revenues towards massive subsidies of electric cars... most people aren't going to blink twice at buying a $2100 EV over a $30k petrol car, right?
• similarly, revenues can also be chucked towards better EV infrastructure, you know?
• honestly, I think people will notice not paying at the pump more than they would an increased electrical bill so, therefore, however people actually experience the VK tax charges is irrelevant (since it'd be the same whether we're talking EV or non-EV)... hence, we might question the strength of the "but this also discourages EVs" argument even if we subscribe to the idea that switching to EVs is the real goal
• a good principle of tax design is "the lowest rate across the broadest base"

[Risottia]

Forsher,
1)odometres are quite eady to tamper with
2)a citywide recording-and-pricing system would cost crustillions in devising, deploying, operating and maintaining, not to mention privacy issues and the costs for complaints about malfunctions.

Just taxing the fuel more is far easier and cost-effective, plus you get the possibility to tax more the fuel for the more-polluting engines.

[Crockerland]

As always the overwhelming majority of pollution comes from huge multi-million-dollar megacorporations, but we can always rely on the "environmentalists" to blame normal people trying to drive to work or get their kids to school.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

As always the overwhelming majority of pollution comes from huge multi-million-dollar megacorporations, but we can always rely on the "environmentalists" to blame normal people trying to drive to work or get their kids to school.

Adam Ruins Everything covered this. The guy's liberalism is annoying to say the least, but when he is right, I gotta give him credit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koqNm_TgOZk

[Novus America]

Forsher,
1)odometres are quite eady to tamper with
2)a citywide recording-and-pricing system would cost crustillions in devising, deploying, operating and maintaining, not to mention privacy issues and the costs for complaints about malfunctions.

Just taxing the fuel more is far easier and cost-effective, plus you get the possibility to tax more the fuel for the more-polluting engines.

Although unless you offset that with subsidizes an tax breaks for the poor to buy new vehicles, it easily becomes a deeply regressive tax.
That is a problem. It is the poor who have the older, and less efficient cars.

[Genivaria]

An outright ban on personal vehicles would be counter-productive, establish a public transportation system, and set up bike racks and bike lanes for people and vehicle use will fall naturally.

[Phoenicaea]

we have got desperate need for severe limitations.

[Novus America]

An outright ban on personal vehicles would be counter-productive, establish a public transportation system, and set up bike racks and bike lanes for people and vehicle use will fall naturally.

I would agree, but we have an issue now: how do we get people back on public transportation when they are scared of dying from it? Pandemics and public transportation do not mix.

I think we just need to focus more on subsidizing electric cars.

[Ethel mermania]

An outright ban on personal vehicles would be counter-productive, establish a public transportation system, and set up bike racks and bike lanes for people and vehicle use will fall naturally.

I would agree, but we have an issue now: how do we get people back on public transportation when they are scared of dying from it? Pandemics and public transportation do not mix.

I think we just need to focus more on subsidizing electric cars.

Electric cars still suck, range is limited, recharging time takes too long. I can see them as a second car, but not as a daily driver. All that said, I am ok with extending the tax credit for buying one, as that will help the drive to make them better.

[Novus America]

I would agree, but we have an issue now: how do we get people back on public transportation when they are scared of dying from it? Pandemics and public transportation do not mix.

I think we just need to focus more on subsidizing electric cars.

Electric cars still suck, range is limited, recharging time takes too long. I can see them as a second car, but not as a daily driver. All that said, I am ok with extending the tax credit for buying one, as that will help the drive to make them better.

Sure, although plug in hybrids work.
The thing is most people spend most their time driving a daily commute or to the store. Longer range trips make up a small portion of driving for most people, and is usually mostly not in urban areas.

If everyone had a gasoline plus an electric car, or a plug in hybrid in place of just a gasoline car, urban air pollution is still going to drop substantially.

On average Americans only drive 16 miles to work.

[Ethel mermania]

Electric cars still suck, range is limited, recharging time takes too long. I can see them as a second car, but not as a daily driver. All that said, I am ok with extending the tax credit for buying one, as that will help the drive to make them better.

Sure, although plug in hybrids work.
The thing is most people spend most their time driving a daily commute or to the store. Longer range trips make up a small portion of driving for most people, and is usually mostly not in urban areas.

If everyone had a gasoline plus an electric car, or a plug in hybrid in place of just a gasoline car, urban air pollution is still going to drop substantially.

On average Americans only drive 16 miles to work.

Indeed, my issue is I tend to go for 40 - 120 mile drives, to go do some activity. Coming back and hitting traffic would make me very nervous behind the wheel of an electric

[Novus America]

Sure, although plug in hybrids work.
The thing is most people spend most their time driving a daily commute or to the store. Longer range trips make up a small portion of driving for most people, and is usually mostly not in urban areas.

If everyone had a gasoline plus an electric car, or a plug in hybrid in place of just a gasoline car, urban air pollution is still going to drop substantially.

On average Americans only drive 16 miles to work.

Indeed, my issue is I tend to go for 40 - 120 mile drives, to go do some activity. Coming back and hitting traffic would make me very nervous behind the wheel of an electric

Sure, in your case you would need a plug in hybrid.
The thing is there is no one size fits all model of achieving perfection.

Public transport works for some people (or did before the virus), bikes for others, electrics for others, and plug in hybrids for others.
Because different people and places have different needs there is not a one size all fits solution.

The best way is a mix, and the exact mix might be different in different places.

[Ethel mermania]

Indeed, my issue is I tend to go for 40 - 120 mile drives, to go do some activity. Coming back and hitting traffic would make me very nervous behind the wheel of an electric

Sure, in your case you would need a plug in hybrid.
The thing is there is no one size fits all model of achieving perfection.

Public transport works for some people (or did before the virus), bikes for others, electrics for others, and plug in hybrids for others.
Because different people and places have different needs there is not a one size all fits solution.

The best way is a mix, and the exact mix might be different in different places.

Reason has no place on nationstates

[SD_Film Artists]

No because:

1: Public transport restricts freedom of movement as you are forced to follow the whims of the company's timetable if they're not on strike. On top of that, it's expensive compared to the fuel used for the journey. For example, the train to my closest city costs just over £5 to take you 9 miles return (18 miles); or if you own a 125 motorcycle you could spend a similar amount on fuel and go 250 miles (based on a Honda CBF125). Of course there's the cost of the initial purchase plus maintenance and road tax, but it still shows just what a rip-off public transport is.

2: Freedom and enjoyment. As explained above you aren't forced to follow the whims of the transport company, you can instead go whereever you want whenever you want. You're at a party and it's getting boring? No need to check the train timetable, you can just f**k off right now with a sassy walk. It's not even about practicality; just the fact of being able to ride/drive out for the enjoyment alone is reason enough to own a vehicle.

3: Hygene. Even without the coronavirus there's all sorts of nastyness which could have been left on the seat/handle/whatever when you could instead be in your own vehicle.