Who did you vote for?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Exactly. Older cities like Europe and some of Asia were designed around a pre-car era, and have had to adapt to cars. As people abandon cars for other modes of transportation, they will be able to more easily adapt, and feel more natural.

I'll add that just about every substantial North American city was also founded and grew in the pre-car era. It was their mid-century surrender to the automobile that's got us into the transportation debacle of the present day.

[milomilo]

Europe and America aren't as different as people make out when it comes to mobility. Sure public transit is way better, but most people still get around by car.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I'll add that just about every substantial North American city was also founded and grew in the pre-car era. It was their mid-century surrender to the automobile that's got us into the transportation debacle of the present day.

A lot of cities were incredibly congested with horse traffic before cars. There wasn't really a golden era of transport before the automobile.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of cities were incredibly congested with horse traffic before cars. There wasn't really a golden era of transport before the automobile.

People of the midcentury would be mightily confused by their great-grandchildren's talk of "surrender to the automobile" ... it would be like saying "surrender to freedom".

Most people here would go stir-crazy if they were to experience the lack of mobility and lack of technology of that time. By about Day Three of my experiment, the 21st century urbanists would literally kill for the keys to an SUV.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

But it does matter.

A carbon tax is not an easy way out. At best it'll speed up the popularity of electric cars. It'll relieve the emotional guilt without advancing us in the direction people need to be going in.

At worst it'll simply tax industry out of existence in this country and force most of the working class to end up working as baristas in downtown Toronto.


This isn't activism it is acting in your own self interest. If you believe the world is gonna end due to a certain behavior not driving is not an extreme.

That's not the correct way to present it. Nobody believes that the world is going to end because of their specific behaviour nor will it be saved by their specific sacrifice. Successfully advocating for policies that will have wide scale effects across an entire jurisdiction or beyond, while still not single handedly solving it, has a much more tangible effect than an individual lifestyle change (even if I do support people choosing more sustainable lifestyles). You may not agree with my "narrative" but in this sense, I certainly don't believe in yours either.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Hardship is coming either way to pretend that this change can be relatively painless is exactly the kind of recklessness I can't trust.

Going car free is far deeper than exhaust fumes. Our country is suffering endlessly from debt.


I'm not buying your narrative.

You're proposing that going car free is harder than it is and that converting to magical green technologies are easier than it is.

Some people have a whole lot of choice in this country. The carbon tax will target people who have the least amount of choice first. If you have a criminal record going from the oil sands to an iphone store is not remotely an option.

There is a massive amount of turnover in the Canadian housing market and people are incredibly mobile. More than 70% of Canadians live in cities where going car free is an option. If you count by leftist votes it's more like 85%.


The problem with this narrative is that car free areas are in abundance and they are under inhabited. The people who could use them almost never do so.

I don't entirely disagree to be honest. Electric cars don't solve all of the problems related to automobiles including issues with fiscal sustainability, land and energy use, etc. and there are many individuals who could do more to make their lifestyles greener. What I completely reject is the idea that someone's personal lifestyle has to meet with someone else's approval in order for them to be allowed a voice in discussions of common, shared interest such as public policies. Public policy discussion is a democratic interest that everyone has a right to take part in, while it isn't anyone's place to judge other people's individual lifestyle choices. That's off limits. Even if it was anybody else's business, we just don't know all the details surrounding other people's situations to be in a position to judge them effectively.

Besides, I maintain that this just isn't a worthy focus. The fact is, whether or not it's "hard" to live without a car, if we make it easier, more people will do it. Period. Just plain cause and effect, no judging required. Whether or not they should be doing something already, if it becomes easier they'll be likelier to do it in the future.

Originally Posted by theman23

Jeez, its like some people don't want any freedom to choose and just want the government to dictate every decision in their life. If Johnny Wong wants to buy a Civic and soup it up and take it to the track, he should pay for his emissions. If Bob Wall wants to buy a pickup truck so he can transport supplies to and from his plumbing job in Abbotsford, he should be able to do so. But Bob Wall shouldn't be penalized because on the average his vehicle gets poorer fuel economy, nor should Johnny Chong get a free pass. They should pay for how much they actually pollute, not how much an EPA estimate says they might pollute.

To note: the resurgence in pickup truck and SUV sales has correlated with dramatic improvements in fuel economy in this class.

What you're proposing would be a double taxation that would put a disproportionate burden of carbon taxation on people who buy SUVS and trucks, in excess of how much they actually contribute to CO2 emissions, in effect subsidising those who drive sedans and small cars. It might put some truck salesmen out of work and raise the cost of business for a significant portion of small business owners, not to mention introduce a slew of inefficiencies that come with any new form of taxation, but it will have marginal benefit. It could potentially even make the situation worse because it lowers the cost of polluting for owners of small cars and sedans, and even hybrids. It's been shown by the European experience that fuel taxes are far more effective in lowering CO2 emissions and encouraging customers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles than sales taxes on vehicles.

If the gas tax isn't high enough, just raise it. Introducing a less effective, less efficient, and less fair tax because it's more palatable (read: effects a fewer amount of people) isn't good policy, it's just shuffling the deck to make it seem like you're doing something.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20160078

Originally Posted by lio45

Couldn't agree more with everything you said.

It's crystal clear that high fuel taxes are the way to go. And if the voters are too myopic to agree with that, well, eventually it'll stop being the case as teens turn into adults and older people pass away (and also, as the impacts of climate change are becoming more obvious).

I'd rather do nothing (for now) and just wait until the idea of properly-implemented taxes becomes politically viable, than introduce poorly-conceived measures that we'll be stuck with afterwards.

I would mostly agree, but if the higher taxes levied against something undesirable aren't coupled with subsidies that go toward something more desirable, then it will likely lead to the outcomes that LakeLocker warns against such as increasing inequality (since the tax increase will represent a much greater potion of a poor or middle class person's income). We need to make sure that whatever the program, that it can accomplish its goals without being punitive. This is one of the reasons I love the idea of the Green New Deal, promoted by some political leaders in the US. They recognise that making this type of huge transformation to the economy will inevitably be disruptive including job loses in certain sectors and we need to ensure that the people negatively affected by it are given the help they need. I really believe that both aspects need to be addressed for de-carbonization to be successful. It's the only way to ensure the kind of widespread political support required.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

If everyone drives big trucks and 95% of them have nothing in their beds and look totally new/babied (i.e. not used much for work), then regardless of the level, it's not satisfying.

If most people either do like WarrenC12 with his Tesla, or walk, or take the Skytrain, while you still see Lamborghinis and such from the usual suspects, then it's satisfying.

Still lots of big trucks that aren't used for their purpose (cargo, towing, etc), and it doesn't quite make economic sense to buy an EV, unless you put a ton of miles on.

Current carbon capture pricing is in the ~$200/ton range. I'm not sure if that will scale, but that would be a good aim for the carbon tax, to be adjusted as required.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Most people here would go stir-crazy if they were to experience the lack of mobility and lack of technology of that time. By about Day Three of my experiment, the 21st century urbanists would literally kill for the keys to an SUV.

Your experiment? In your own brain?

We're not far away from the end of the personal automobile. Autonomous vehicles will do that, along with walking, biking, public transit, etc.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We're not far away from the end of the personal automobile. Autonomous vehicles will do that, along with walking, biking, public transit, etc.

That's not a bet I'd make. Nothing is more likely to be wrong than a prediction of the future, and autonomous vehicles look less likely the more the technology develops. Still, even if they are autonomous it doesn't mean personal vehicles will go away.

Once we develop clean vehicles, the major problem with personal vehicles goes away. At that point, why would people abandon one of the best things about living in the modern world?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Most liberal voters don't care about manufacturing, farming, iron forgers, the nickle belt etc.

You can't hurt the tech/service industry with a carbon tax. You want to set them into epileptic fits reduce immigration, it is the only thing that can effect them.

Nickel belt?
Sudbury and its surrounding area voted Liberal.

Many people in the other things you mentioned also vote Liberal in Ontario. Maybe less so in agriculture but the farming belt in my riding between Englehart and Temiskaming Shores voted mainly NDP.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's not a bet I'd make. Nothing is more likely to be wrong than a prediction of the future, and autonomous vehicles look less likely the more the technology develops. Still, even if they are autonomous it doesn't mean personal vehicles will go away.

Once we develop clean vehicles, the major problem with personal vehicles goes away. At that point, why would people abandon one of the best things about living in the modern world?

I'd never bet something would disappear entirely, but the cost of personal vehicles and the space to store them in urban environments continues to escalate, while alternative shared options keep expanding.

Autonomy and electrification both promise far lower operating costs, so it's only a matter of time. It's the classic 80/20 rule. They will be viable for 80% of use cases in the near future, with the remaining 20% happening over time.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Europe and America aren't as different as people make out when it comes to mobility. Sure public transit is way better, but most people still get around by car.

The big difference between Europe and North America is how much people use active transport (walk, bike, etc). That's what stands out when you look at mode share data.

Also, while Europeans drive, they drive a bit less. Average mileage is something around 13 000km annually I believe. While StatsCan says we average over 15 000 km annually. Well over a third of Europeans drive less than 10 000 km annually.

All those differences come down to planning and design. You can get by without a car much more easily in Europe than you can in Canada. Even in their smaller cities and towns. You can walk around more easily. You can use public transport more easily. That results in less car use. We should be aiming to slowly make our cities more like that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Andy6

People of the midcentury would be mightily confused by their great-grandchildren's talk of "surrender to the automobile" ... it would be like saying "surrender to freedom".

Most people here would go stir-crazy if they were to experience the lack of mobility and lack of technology of that time. By about Day Three of my experiment, the 21st century urbanists would literally kill for the keys to an SUV.

Nonsense. Freedom is not having to rely on a car. Being able to walk or train to your destination is freedom. Being stuck in traffic isn't.

Those mid-century folks would also be puzzled about us living in single family cardboard homes 20+ km from our places of employment and spending 1 hr in this contraption in each direction getting to/from where we work.

Oh. And if you don't believe me about how much people value the convenience of being able to walk somewhere, just look at the real estate prices for any downtown core. Many of which now have new developments with more units than parking spots.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Nickel belt?
Sudbury and its surrounding area voted Liberal.

Many people in the other things you mentioned also vote Liberal in Ontario. Maybe less so in agriculture but the farming belt in my riding between Englehart and Temiskaming Shores voted mainly NDP.

Shhh. You're ruining the narrative that "real" workers vote conservative.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The big difference between Europe and North America is how much people use active transport (walk, bike, etc). That's what stands out when you look at mode share data.

Also, while Europeans drive, they drive a bit less. Average mileage is something around 13 000km annually I believe. While StatsCan says we average over 15 000 km annually. Well over a third of Europeans drive less than 10 000 km annually.

All those differences come down to planning and design. You can get by without a car much more easily in Europe than you can in Canada. Even in their smaller cities and towns. You can walk around more easily. You can use public transport more easily. That results in less car use. We should be aiming to slowly make our cities more like that.

Yeah, I agree with that, walking for sure is much easier in Europe.

[SignalHillHiker]

FFS.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

FFS.

Maybe we could do the crazy thing and look at it like this:

We're all in this together - English and French, Newfoundland and Alberta and the rest of the provinces in this place called Canada

We can either pull together as the rest of the world seems to be flying apart or we can lose it all fighting among ourselves (and join the rest of the world in ripping itself apart).

[lio45]

Lol, the all blue place thinks the all red place is a natural political ally while still believing that the red team is the source of their problems?!?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd never bet something would disappear entirely, but the cost of personal vehicles and the space to store them in urban environments continues to escalate, while alternative shared options keep expanding.

While car ownership can be a major expense, and a questionable luxury in the hearts of Canada's 6-8 largest cities, in the vast majority of the country, the automobile is a major necessity of life, and is absolutely indispensable.

The car isn't going anywhere. Especially with hybrids, full EVs and hydrogen powered vehicles, they will be with us forever.

Freedom of movement is a major tennent of modern life in the western world. It is almost a civil right. You want to deprive us of this????

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by lio45

Lol, the all blue place thinks the all red place is a natural political ally while still believing that the red team is the source of their problems?!?

Voting preferences aside there are stronger ties between Newfoundland and Alberta than Newfoundland and Quebec. I'm pretty sure there were polls that ranked provinces "connection" with one another and Newfoundland ranked Alberta the highest...and Quebec the lowest...

Though I'd imagine the backlash the other day might have effected that.

[lio45]

Well Quebec is a foreign culture. That's like saying polls have Walloons ranking their "connection" to foreign country France as high while the Flemish are ranking their "connection" to foreign country Netherlands higher. No shit.

And voting patterns tell us a lot. There's a reason it's generally relevant to talk of "blue states" and "red states". (Apologies for the south-of-border example but it's an easy one.)