Sales of EVs will continue, old gasoline cars will still exist. Then there's biking, walking, public transit, and living closer to your day-to-day needs. If anything this will help the poor.
Here's a better thing to think about: why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society? Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and afforable way?
>"why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society?"
I believe this framing is wrong. "Participating in society" is a loaded term because it is so ambiguous. I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity.
>"Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and affordable way?"
I get the sentiment, but I find it to be glib because it glosses over why this would be so hard to implement, and how we got to this situation in the first place. In a way, it seems like "Instead of things being bad, why don't we make things good?"
I don't think it's too ambiguous. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. That's how our cities in America are designed and how a huge number of people live their day to day lives.
> why this would be so hard to implement
I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.
>"If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. "
I take challenge with this because it is hyperbolic. It is one thing to say mass transit is insufficient, but to claim there are no alternatives whatsoever is flat-out wrong. And, the claim that someone has to own a car in order to "do anything related to society in the physical world" is just as bad. People absolutely manage without this, and it also discounts all the mass transit options you already support and want to see expand.
Part of what upsets me so much about the car-critical movement is how fast and loose people play with words.
I live in the suburbs in Lewis Center, Ohio. If I want to get a coffee? I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. Groceries? Same. Gym? Well I built one in my garage, but same thing. Doctor? Off and away I go in a car. I can walk over to this pizza place, but doing so is dangerous because I have to cross a high-traffic road with a 45 mph speed limit. Very few people do it, though I do see teenagers cross the highway from time to time with skateboards and such like it's Frogger.
There isn't just no mass transit, there isn't any transit at all. There aren't any bus stops, there are no bike lanes, there's no train (and never will be) you are stuck in suburban islands where the primary way of getting from one to the other involves a rather ridiculous walk or just literally running multiple lanes of traffic.
So please don't suggest that I'm being hyperbolic or loose and fast with words here. This is what reality looks like for where I live and for many millions of Americans.
Your clarification is helpful and if you had mentioned the context of your location I would not have considered it hyperbolic. You do indeed live in an area where what you mentioned is true. Without mentioning a specific locale the context seemed as if you were making an assertion at-large.
Of course every square inch of America isn't like this, but I think enough of it is that it's a pretty substantial problem - at least from what I've visited.
> I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity.
So it's then fair to say that our society is built around motor vehicle ownership and that an inability to afford one excludes you from all that our society has to offer?
Sibling comment points out Chevy Bolt MSRP $25,600.
Legislation (Inflation Reduction Act) passed this month allows the full federal EV tax credit on the Bolt again as of Jan 1 2023, so subtract $7,500.
California EV tax credit of an additional $2000 (income under $135K single, $200K joint)
There are additional regional EV credits in certain California metro areas that can further discount the price by hundreds or thousands.
So, price for any low to mid income Californian will be a maximum of $16,100.
And, there is an additional program for low income folks in California that provides grants toward EV purchases (new and used). This program is severely underfunded and (temporarily) closed to new applicants since March 2022.
Purchase price after incentives is roughly at parity with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
Current lack of charging infrastructure for apartment renters who park on the street seems a bigger hurdle, to me.
No, the joke is taxing poor people (and everyone, frankly) with mandatory car purchases.
If you can't walk or bike to work, your society has failed to build affordable housing relative to low to moderate incomes, or it has failed in urban planning. It's certainly one of those two.
Obviously there exclusings for people such as farmers or if you actively choose to live far away from your job, but in doing so you should directly feel that cost with high purchase prices for a vehicle (which means you'll also repair it, right to repair and all right?), high fuel tax, and extreme inconvenience if you are driving to a city.
Ultimately economic physics will dictate this reality, no new technology will "save us" in time before costs become too extreme for this car-centric lifestyle to continue. I'm just hoping there isn't too much damage done to human civilization via resource conflicts and that we survive our stupidity.
And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb. Unless you still live with your parents, you chose to live in a part of the city with expensive housing and no public transportation.
Move to Franklinton and you'll have buses and scooters and no need to own a car. Most of my neighbors have cars but they don't use them most days. I bike to the gym and all of downtown. I do take my car grocery shopping (carry bags on bus or scooter sucks) and to work (when I go) but that's it. I enjoy cars but I avoid driving out of obligation.
The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
> And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb.
I'm not sure how this is ironic. Maybe you mean how poor voters tend to vote against their own self-interest?
> The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
We're moving to GV next month specifically to move away from this lifestyle and we only have one car that we share. Economic freedom dictates what decisions you make at different points in time.
FWIW you can criticize something that you yourself are doing, especially when you are fighting against all societal incentives at the same time. A trivial example is an overweight physician suggesting that you need to lose weight.
If we're still talking Columbus, almost all incentives for housing are geared only toward a car-centric lifestyle. I'm not going to criticize people for choosing that. I am going to raise awareness that continuing to push those incentives is a bad idea and highlight the continued unnecessary costs for doing so.
You are arguing for the perfect over the good. Transitioning from gas to electric fuel in cars is hard but achievable in 15 years. Reconfiguring the built environment for the entire country is unachievable.
You can do all of those at once. For example, you can just transition ICE to EV. Set that aside.
Reconfiguring the built environment is not only achievable but has been done in the past. You can take a look at Amsterdam as an example. Look at pictures from the 70s or so and then look at it today.
You also don't have to "reconfigure" the environment. We could just stop building new highways and eliminate minimum parking spot requirements. We can change our zoning laws to allow for more medium-density. In Columbus, where I live we have a street called High Street that runs north/south and connects all of the walkable areas of the city and Ohio State University. It's relatively easy to just run a tram right down the road there and displace car traffic. There are low-hanging fruit. It's way cheaper than rebuilding highways which we do all the time, and if we can do that we can reconfigure whatever we want.
There are a lot of things we can do.
Starting from a point of defeatism is not something that's compatible with how I personally operate.
Example of an "extremely nice new ICE for significantly less than" the $25-27k others have mentioned in this thread?
The cheapest new cars I can find (in the US) are $16k for the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 and $20k for the Toyota Corolla. I certainly don't think the Mirage qualifies as "extremely nice". I think Toyota makes fantastic cars and the Corolla is all the vehicle most people could ever really need, but honestly, I still think "extremely nice" might be pushing it.
By the way, what are the consequences for these unrealistic timelines? Some people like to pretend like the sky is falling and we'll have hundreds of thousands of people walking along the side of highways to get to work like some post-apocalyptic wasteland. But the reality is, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Timelines get changed all the time. It's a step. A best effort.
Also, it’s not like new(ish) ICE cars won’t make it into the California market after this change goes into effect. Arizona is right next door, and cars can be imported between states (assuming that they do not prevent this from happening). Plus, over 10 years a used car market will develop in EVs, along with supporting industries like battery reconditioning and replacement.
With averagenew car price being $48k as of 2022 according to Kelly Blue Book, that is just how much new cars cost these days, EV or otherwise. The same report says average price of an EV is $66k, but my point is that new cars got expensive at some point.
So bottom of the barrel compact style cars that you can buy new as ICE for like 12-15k with far more range.
I know because my wife owns one, it gets 40mpg. Like I said, I'm excited for these new offerings. But acting like they are competitive on pricing or will be soon is just not realistic.
"Bottom of the barrel" is a bit of a stretch. These cars have more chips in them than nearly any car on the road, with things like touch screens and Apple CarPlay to boot. It's important to remember the discussion context here: new cars. Does your wife's 40 mpg car have Apple CarPlay and a touch screen? And was it $12-15k brand new? If so, I'd like to buy one.
"Well new EVs cost 40-60k"
You've now been presented with information that shows otherwise.
Walking is free. A bike is like a couple hundred bucks max. Sidewalks and bike lanes are way cheaper on your taxes than major highways, associated traffic fatalities (all the young people dying before they can contribute to society), insurance, maintenance, and all of that. There's simply no cost argument to be had.
You're talking about comparing EVs to ICE on cost when neither are cost effective. They're both the wrong answer.
And if you can't walk or bike? There are people who don't have that option; but, they can operate a motor vehicle -- do they just stay home?
I'm all for walking and biking. I didn't own a car for 19 years and that's how I got around. Now, having lost my right leg, I can't conceive of walking a couple of miles, which was never an issue. Riding a bike doesn't seem likely, although I haven't ruled it out. A car with modified controls is an option; but, those costs add to the cost of a vehicle.
> A car with modified controls is an option; but, those costs add to the cost of a vehicle.
How is that any different than today?
> And if you can't walk or bike? There are people who don't have that option; but, they can operate a motor vehicle -- do they just stay home?
Sorry you lost a leg, but I think you could understand that I would maintain what I'm advocating for which would be that you using a motor vehicle for legitimate needs doesn't mean everyone should have to use one for their day-to-day needs.
While I don't have any sort of clear statistics here, if you can't walk or bike I'd imagine many also can't or shouldn't be driving. There are solutions here, including mobility services. Leaping toward "well I have a physical condition that mostly requires me to use a car therefore everyone should have to use a car for their needs as well" doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
To add, I think as we're talking about people for whom walking and biking is difficult we also forget people for whom driving is difficult or unrealistic. The elderly in particular, those with other medical conditions, etc. You might say, yes we should solve that problem too. And I agree, but what I'd say is that society right now is 100% car-first everything and does not even attempt to address the concerns of these people either. Should they just stay home too?
On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
The way I read your initial comment, it was advocating just getting rid of most cars. It's an anti-car attitude I've seen a lot, especially among hardcore cyclists. I've never understood it, even as I spent 19 years dodging traffic in Washington, DC. If I misread your tone, I apologize.
>On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
Although I've gotten rid of several, I still have four bikes. I would like to ride again; but, I don't know if it's going to happen. If I do, it's for transportation; so, a prosthetic foot that clips in might not be practical if I am riding to the store or running errands. I may need a socket more suitable to riding than walking. More than anything, though, I worry that I won't be able to keel down and change a tire, out on the road. We'll see, it has not been a year yet.
Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis and Sepsis, nothing good can come out of that combo. (Losing my leg was not the worst thing that happened that day.)
> The way I read your initial comment, it was advocating just getting rid of most cars. It's an anti-car attitude I've seen a lot, especially among hardcore cyclists. I've never understood it, even as I spent 19 years dodging traffic in Washington, DC. If I misread your tone, I apologize.
No need to apologize, just having a fun discussion :)
I'd say my stance is more so removing the need to have a car for most of your day-to-day activities. Instead of having to drive literally everywhere as many (most?) Americans do, being able to walk, bike, or use another transit option to do 90% or so of your day-to-day routine tasks. Cars aren't going anywhere, but we could design and build cities better such that we don't focus on cars at the expense of everything else. I'm also worried about this because the economic physics of using a 2,000lb vehicle to drive a mile down the road for a loaf of bread (which I am guilty of) simply will not make sense in the future. We might get away with it at a higher cost if we are mostly EV and have substantial cheap nuclear energy (pending a new technology breakthrough), but as things stand today it's incredibly wasteful and won't last.
> Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis
I have recent (last couple of months) personal experience with this with an immediate family member. I am incredibly sorry that you had to experience this disease.
That's a great fantasy you have there. The reality is that is not how the U.S. is built, nor will it be for a century or more. In fact the poor have to drive more because they can't afford to live close to work.
Personally I work from home but make a good living. My poor relative has to drive 90 minutes to his minimum wage job in the city. It's really unfortunate.
It means different things to different people, but what I mean by it is building cities and designing transit in a way that provides opportunities for people of different income levels, careers, and capabilities. If you're a WFH mom you should also be able to walk your kids to school. If you're a painter you should be able to hop on a tram or ride your bike over to your studio. If you're a white-collar software engineer and you make a ton of money, you probably have a larger house but you live in the same neighborhood and you go the same coffee shop as someone who works at a warehouse or helps take care of older people.
One of the contributing factors to racism and bigotry in America at least that we have stratified society and locked everyone into homes out in the suburbs where they don't interact with people from other socioeconomic classes, different ideas, or different life stages. It's easy to hate people when you read about them on the Internet. It's nearly impossible to do so when you see them at the park with their children living the American dream just like you.
Others may have different interpretations and such, but that's what it means to me in an over-simplified nut shell.
No, not at all. Just building more housing and a variety (single family homes, townhomes, etc.) of it (no need for skyscraper condos) and not building highways and focusing on car-first infrastructure at all costs. You don't need any mandates. Things like removing mandatory parking minimums for a building would be an example. No new highway construction would be another.
Sales of EVs will continue, old gasoline cars will still exist. Then there's biking, walking, public transit, and living closer to your day-to-day needs. If anything this will help the poor.
Here's a better thing to think about: why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society? Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and afforable way?