So. You thought you could just scroll on down and leave a comment without being subjected to more self-promotion? Joke's on you. Support the channel and get access to great ad-free (and promotion-free!) content on Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/citynerd
So I guess you are done gaslighting your viewers in believing automobile ownership is expensive. Truth is it is not. If a working class person buys a 2 year old used car and then drives it for 10 years. The cost of ownership spread out over those 10 years is only couple thousand per year. This is why even teenagers with part time jobs can easily afford to drive in America. Driving is dirt cheap and you know it. Thanks for making this video and setting the record straight.
In passing you touched on the psychological cost of antisocial behavior that permeates all the bad land use, and that is likely the most poisonous pill of our transportation system. My right to personal transit overrules the right to create good public spaces, it allows me to alienate me from the rest of society that I see from a distance in my car, and it creates a captive audience for the whims of the energy and auto industries. When gas prices in the US went up last year, the public at large was just kind of gobsmacked by it. They didn't really know who to blame (despite what all those spicy stickers on gas pumps try to tell me) or what to do about it. The distrust and disillusionment has to have a role in why the political system in the US is loco bananas.
Absolutely. *So* much energy in terms of the public's view of whether or not politicians are successful is focused entirely on the price of gas, and much of the reason we don't increase the gas tax is because doing so would be absolute political suicide.
So many people like their privacy. Maybe this is the point of the American dream? Create your own little world. Your own house. Your own car. Of course we should all have choice to live the urbanist dream too! Most people who are middle class or higher really don’t want to be faced with the effects of poverty and inequality on this country. Suburban housing and cars are almost 100% successful at shielding you from these things. Public transit does the exact opposite. Until we have a more equal country public transit will continue to be seen as undesirable to use by people who have enough to not live in low income communities. If you use stroad infrastructure, parking, and your own house and land as intended and you can fully afford it, it can be very enjoyable. If you’re an urbanist trying to walk the stroads you’re just doing it wrong.
Careful, your bias is showing. You choose to live in a big city and whine and complain when the universe fails to revolve around you. I choose to live outside said city and enjoy open space, only travelling to the city when I choose to. At one time, if you wanted industrial work, you HAD to live in the city to be near your employment - now you CHOOSE to live there but want everyone else to live there too so that you can have grass where the roads are. I'll keep my suburban home, my cars, my cottage and my boat thank you, because even though you think I am "antisocial", it's quite the opposite - people in my town don't try to rob me, join gangs, try sell me drugs or do drive by shootings in my neighborhood.
My transmission went out over 2 years ago on a gasohokic SUV. I haven't bought a vehicle since. I've bought two higher end hybrid bicycles and a $30 a month bus pass. I wake up earlier, got into even better shape,and managed my time better, in addition I'm able to live in downtown areas with higher rent but accessible to trains and buses.
And I’m sure you see a lot more of your city that way, getting to know it better and having a lot more variety in your day! being largely car free is so nice, even if I don’t hate driving.
Topic idea: I use to live in Chicago and GLADLY gave up my car for both cost and convenience matters. One of the things that made it real easy was that there were a number of Zip Cars (shared car services) in and around my neighborhood that I could rent on a moment's notice for an hour or two, or a whole day, if I had a need that public transport wasn't suited to. What happened to this concept? Why didn't it work? Is there a place for shared car services in breaking car dependencies?
One more hidden subsidy, TX set aside $600 million to fund specific highway improvement projects in the Permian Basin (one of the world’s largest oil and gas producing regions). Quote from TxDOT "Increased truck traffic on the area’s largely rural highways has stretched the available road capacity and driven up crash rates." $600M to drive oil around. By comparison they only set aside $70M for public transportation for the whole state (bike/ped is rolled under public transportation).
Yup Texas is a public transit hellhole and they are proud of the fact. I spent a month there as a test and would never consider living there mainly because I don't want to have to drive.
don't forget that Texas also has some of the largest solar and wind farms in the world. Also, public transportation is more funded at the local level. For instance, Austin is currently spending $8 Billion to expand its light rail system.
I would like to see a video showing us your favorite places to walk. Doesn't have to be a top ten list, doesn't even have to be salty about the internal combustion engine. Just walking you enjoy.
Topic suggestion: I went down a rabbit hole and learned about Airparks - communities that you can fly into with amenities such as extra wide streets so you can taxi your plane to your house. They seem to be an almost comical extension of the idea of suburbia reliant on private, polluting mobility - and therefore just right for your channel
@@dimvoly th-cam.com/video/H-J22GZ8FKE/w-d-xo.html also they try to justify commuting via private plane by showing the congested highway trains and bus lanes or simply living closer to work just didn't ocurr to them
Air parks are very rare, and not commonly used by commuters. Most do not have wide roads and have grass strips with no real taxiways. There are a few swanky places, but many of the videos are deceiving. If you go there, you’ll likely be disappointed. Most of the owners own very light aircraft with small efficient engines used more for recreation than travel. Often, they build the planes themselves. They get very good mileage compared to airline travel and even cars, though it depends greatly on the route. A large portion of the homeowners are retired people, and middle class. All attacks on private aviation over the last twenty years have led to the industry becoming dominated by private jets. What happens is policies aimed at bizjets inevitably hurt piston plane use even more while bizjets continue to proliferate. It used to be common for truly middle class people who loved flying to rent or even own light aircraft. Small businesses used to commonly use high performance pistons for business. The business users either quit or moved up to turbines now. Like most classist attacks aimed at the rich, they generally hit the other classes the hardest and benefit the really rich. Aircraft manufacturing in the US is at a fraction of its historic level costing thousands of jobs.
Ok how the hell did you never go down that rabbit hole before. It'd literally what the jettison wanted it's flying cars... also arguably would bring down pollution and walk more walkable cities then cars. It's just loud af sometimes
My god these 70 Billion seem extremely little considering the size of the U.S. and how much people drive. Just looked up for my country Switzerland and we get approx. 4.5 Billion in fuel taxes from a population that is 40 times smaller. So almost three times as much per person and that's considering we drive exactly half as much!
UK its £25 bill for 65 million people so equiv in the US would be nearly 300 bill pounds or 350 bill dollars. So yeah night and day different compared to European countries
Last summer, when fuel prices were in the low to mid $4 range, there was an intersection off I-25 in CO where three of the four gas stations dropped their prices to ~$2 a gallon in some kind of price war. It was absolute madness upon leaving that exit. Still don't fully understand that business strategy as fuel sales are low-margin to begin with. Selling gas a major loss, in hopes of attracting customers into your convenience store so you can sell high-margin convenience items, seems like a crackpot idea. They must've been eating ten thousand, if not tens of thousands, of dollars a day in fuel losses.
You might’ve forgotten to mention that most EU countries also have incentives NOT to drive. So, for example, the bus pass in my city is so cheap it costs about 1/4 of the fuel cost for me to get in and out to work. We also have tax rebates for bikes (including electric bikes) to encourage workers to cycle to work. I think over taxing car purchases is a dumb idea though. If you pay a lot of money for something, you’ll want to use it to recoup its value. I’m a tight git so I usually buy depreciation free cars which are so old and cheap they no longer lose value but my mates who spend €30,000-40,000 on a new car are gonna want to get some return.
Anyone willing to spend that much on something already intends to get lots of use out of it. So yes you'd probably see the people buying cars over there drive them more on average, but it's because if you didn't feel you really needed it then the high cost would put you off. So it's getting the direction of causation reversed.
"I think over taxing car purchases is a dumb idea though. If you pay a lot of money for something, you’ll want to use it to recoup its value. " On the flipside: If it costs you a lot to get it in the first place you will prioritize cheaper options first and probably only buy a car if you really need it.
Growing up in NYC I used mass transit often. Once leaving NYC, I found it impossible to live without an automobile. I lived in San Mateo CA for 11 years. Various towns in NJ. I currently live in Charlotte NC. Until a national plan for mass transit is developed and implemented, it’ll be impossible to live wiyhout an auto. One additional point I wish to add. I traveled internatioally for workfor many years. My first trip on a bullet train in the 80’s opened my eyes to how far behind the USA has become in implementing more advanced transportation technology due to political and economic ptessures placed on our politicians by the big energy companies.
Walkability, bikeability weren’t overlooked. They’re both important for the psychological health of the nation. Though, I believe they weren’t included in the original post for which I replied.
Canada and US could use a mass high speed cross country transit system, no doubt! But they’ve put even modest public transit developments off so much that, interestingly, they may be able to skip some steps and go to the most efficient and safe form of transit. I don’t see it developing for 10 years so by then they can go Flux Jet TransPod for city to city and then something like SkyTran or Transit-X for inner city personal rapid transit.
You know who convinced me that gas was too cheap? damn Click and Clack the tapperrt brothers of Car Talk. Shoutout for two dudes running a show about cars willing to straight up say "Gas should be 9 dollars a gallon" in ~2007
The Tappit brothers are defunct since one of them died, but “Car Talk” was a great public radio show. I’m glad to hear you can apparently still access their content now.
Visiting an elderly relative in Los Angeles, CA right now, and this very true. L.A. invented car-oriented culture. To ride a train across town takes about 2 hours, and to take the car, it's half an hour to an hour depending on traffic. (edit) The price-per-gallon for gasoline is $5.50, but that price does NOTHING to change much about the place; the damage was already done when they built the first freeway and designed the first soulless, car-oriented suburb.
@@joekelly7505 Our towns and cities across the country died so that a million or so people could have decent paying manufacturing jobs in Detroit. Drive through the rust belt and you'll find these dead agriculture towns that died off because you don't actually have to live as in do things in your town anymore, most small towns are glorified bedroom communities nowadays. Their kids might not even go to the school of the town they have their house in. If you love your f-150 you essentially love the death of farming communities who's farms are mostly Big Agriculture now.
@@jmd1743 Definitely the rural areas of the country have changed so drastically over the past century thanks as you mention to industrialization and because of the consolidation of Big Ag. I'm not sure what the solution is.
@@valleyofiron125 yet they wonder why churches are dying off, churches use to provide a community center like function when the only way to get around was walking or use horses, but now it's super convenient to drive a half hour away to the cool new mega church 1 county away. Counties need to become the voter districts so it's impossible to gerrymander because everything is done by the county lines. You would give each county a state representative. Abolish the EC voting system, and have the first state that votes be the one with the highest percentage of voter turn out. The problem with America is that it gives too much voting power to the people who turned their communities into bed room communities and to those who hate socializing with their next door neighbors. Most of the Republican hate for California comes from republicans who fled themselves or know others who've fled. These assholes would flee from Texas once things go off track because so many of them are intellectual lazy, that is if they had another 50 years of life span. They honestly think that the wealth that's being generated by Texas is by insufferable like them instead of young adults. So once things become too much the way they don't like then they'll move to Kansas or Idaho before fleeing from those new states.
Thank you so much! Another great video I can send to friends, family, and detractors who are clearly confused about the “natural” tendency toward constant automobile usage in an “unsubsidized” market environment. Along those lines, I shall now shamelessly plug my donation with a video (series) request: We desperately need a sort of “Urban Designer/Engineer’s Toolbox” video series that visually demonstrates, along with supporting data, the individual design elements that can be used to improve an urban environment. As an example, a “Street design toolkit”, with examples of lane narrowing, chicanes, alt paving surfaces, bollards, etc and explanations for why these can lower automobile speeds and improve walkability. This would be great resource that could be shared to help educate people about the unnoticed design aspects that make places better or worse. So many people I talk to are puzzled when I suggest design changes to lower driver speeds, which isn't surprising given the homogeneity of most streets (at least in TX) and how arcane the topic is amongst non-nerds. These series would be great AND actionable!
Thanks for the donation, and I'll save your comment for additional cogitation! What would be cool would be to do a joint series with NACTO, which puts a lot of thought into this stuff and publishes guidebooks and toolkits (just not in video format) along these lines. I am kind of itching to branch into new territory, so we'll see!
@@CityNerd A NACTO series would be sweet! 😃 Probably could work a series of topics, like Fundamentals of Transit, Pedestrian Infrastructure…a legion of activist students await to enroll in the Urban Planning program at CityNerd University 🤣
First, thank you for being a coherent voice in this area. I drank a lot of “Capitalism Koolaid” in business school, and it’s been hard to question literally everything I thought I knew. But it’s also fun as hell now that I’m retired! So it’s good to find sharp analysis like yours. Following your lead, then… What’s the name of the field that studies this complex set of trade-offs between power density and quality of life? I’m phrasing it that way because it’s either fossil fuels or honey bees, I think…Right? Second question: If population density goes up in order for energy density (cars and logistics in general) to go down, what’s the sensible limit for population density, given sanitation, healthcare, fire risk, and other “old world issues”? I’m assuming 1850s London is not where we’re trying to get to… but if not, then what? I find that I am so steeped in “car-centrism “ that all I can imagine in my “alternatives” zone is that cars solved a serious problem with horse pollution, back in the day. And I don’t even know if that’s true! I have already found “Not Just Bikes” and “Strong Towns” and “Arguing with Zombies” but given my complacency was only shattered with the election of Donald Trump, I have a lot of homework to do! The other day I took a wagon and walked to the grocery store, and I brought home the “car standard” grocery haul… then I realized another layer of economy I have to crack! (I crossed the Stroad. But also, about half of the distance I walked was JUST THE PARKING LOT of the grocery store. About two blocks in total. My kids have never walked that far except in PE class! So when we break the scale of grocery stores back below the current scale, won’t average costs go up? Big box stores at the edge of town seemed to reduce the cost of stuff, as did global supply chains, or so I thought… But what’s the reality? Walmart and Amazon are aggregators, right? I’m not sure I have formulated the question, but I’m sure people smarter than me must have done so…? Please suggest some sources for additional reading? Keep doing what you’re doing. I would welcome some analysis of trade-offs that brought us here, so I can frame this thought process for myself…?
A good book to check out if you haven't already is Ed Glaeser's "Triumph Of the City" --- he comes at things from a deep economics background so it should be right up your alley, and he touches on a lot of the questions you're asking. Great comment, and I trust the wagon was a radio flyer
@@CityNerd Hah! :-) The Radio Flyer and the little wheel barrow didn’t last long enough. Plus, evidently those things are not meant for Dad to relive his childhood. I guess 155lbs is just too much!? I found that book on Audible. Great for (face palm) listening in the car… After two hours of chaining from one algo recommendation to another, I’ve reached somebody named, Vaclav Smil. Looks like he’s doing alright too! In the back of my mind, I am now also thinking about how you guys deal with city planning at modern scale while somehow leaving room for personal liberty? I spent enough time in the telecom industry to think that there’s no such thing as market forces in huge monolithic systems like streets and utilities…The efficient scale is basically infinite or undefined…? What do you recommend for understanding the ethics of city politics? I’m ready for anything on this front. HOAs are bizarre enough, even at small scale and without pension funds! And a huge thank you again for these additional sources! I may be imagining things, but it feels like TH-cam and you and other creators who are it’s “best of” are reaching a point of excellence that’s not talked about in general society very much… I can at least say that I am hardly watching any conventional streaming at all, nowadays! (I mean Netflix or HBO or the like…) Again: thanks for producing such awesome content and sharing your knowledge!
@@blinkingmanchannelI don’t have a book recommendation for you, but I am a city council member who cares about this stuff. The ethics of it is an interesting topic imo. My answer is specific to Germany but I think aside from the legalistic details it should apply. We are first and foremost concerned about our constituents, not our voters mind you, but all the residents of the city. Legally and imho ethically we are bound by constitution and law of both the federal and state levels. The law outlines quite a few duties that are maybe common sense. We need to provide all the essential services, like the city administration, sewage, garbage, fire fighting services, maintain the schools, kindergartens, maintenance of roads and street independent paths… We are also ethically and legally responsible for keeping the budget tight enough for the benefit of future generations. The city can be in the red but not by too much or else austerity measures are forced upon us. What irks me are some of the things that are not official, but are important to me personally. The services we aren’t legally required to provide, like sports, greenery, public transportation… I think these things benefit our children especially and should concern us more than they currently do. Cynically I might say this may just be because kids don’t vote. Another big one is climate protection. This is a global priority and both the EU and the German government have formulated goals for emission reductions and passed them as legislation. The constitution even says we need to do it, according to our federal constitutional court. However so far there is no law that says a city must do it. Which is very shortsighted as we only have 20 years until the federal target for 2045. This is not a timeframe in which German cities accomplish anything big especially if they are broke. Now ethically I do see a problem in my concern with climate change, because I am of course not just concerned with heavy rainfall in my town or the local farmers revenue, but with humanity as a whole, who aren’t my constituents (mostly). I think it’s moronic to say we can’t change anything anyway, we are just a small town. Everyone everywhere needs to reduce emissions as much as possible as quickly as possible, it’s as simple as that, or else. But yeah, I am wondering when it will finally become a legally mandated duty for the city to reduce emissions. As long as it isn’t it will always lose out against other priorities for budgets. I guess this is a pretty top level overview considering you are looking for a book, but I hope it helps. Cheers!
This is a topic that I've thought about a lot. The price of gas in the US is much cheaper than other countries. People were complaining about $5 a gallon for gas, but back in the 1980s, I was paying $1.50 to $2.00 a gallon and that was decades ago so it seems that $5 a gallon isn't that expensive when given time and also shortages. The earth is being furthered destroyed to drill petroleum including drilling through shale.
The main issue with raising fuel taxes in the US is it's regressive-- people are priced out of living in city cores and are basically forced to commute by vehicle. Additionally, the people most likely to afford cars that cost less in gas mileage are going to be in higher income brackets, meaning people who can't afford to buy better/more fuel efficient cars, who are priced out of the cities they work in, are then forced to pay more for gas. It's a cyclical issue, and I'm definitely no expert, but my feeling is that until mega corporate real estate holdings and rent jacking are quashed, and denser zoning in city cores is green lit, it isn't really feasible to tackle car dependency with higher gas taxes first. All it will do is punish the poor. I think an instinctual clap back is that rents will go down if people are forced out, but that isn't happening; tons and tons of housing sits empty while poor people bus or commute in, usually to multiple jobs at a time because poor pay and shitty hours is very common. Megacorps need to be severely regulated to keep people inside the cities where they work and play. People want to live in cities, and not just the rich fuckos in $3400-5000/mo units. But that's just my feeling.
Unavoidable taxes on car ownership can be used to fund public transport projects. But the negative impacts on the poor in car dependent hellholes are severe. It's a difficult one to get past policy makers.
@@stanyu2029 The former is definitely meant. This is admittedly hard because so many people are locked into car ownership whether they decide to be or not. You basically don't win in the short term in the U.S. with these taxes because you hurt poorer, disadvantaged people and you anger wealthier people who show up to vote more often because those trains you want to fund would take years to build. Politicians think only in the short term because that's all they've got before another vote comes up.
@@stanyu2029 Even poor people who don't have motor vehicles would have negative effects. A lot of poor people live in outlying areas and are dependent on people driving them places if they don't have their own car. And the cost of that will go up.
This topic is so vast, we only scratched the surface here. Really getting into the nitty gritty of how much car dependency costs, both in terms of monetary economic costs as well as non-quantifiable externalities, really starts to reveal that this development pattern was one of the worst possible ones we could have ever gone with.
It was inevitable though. I know people who have a point of view similar to the guy talking in the video point to Europe as a panacea, but the reality is much different. Living in tiny flats, having to "go out to a park" to get a tiny taste of nature. It's a highly unnatural way to live In addition, our cities are too far apart to support anything but our current transportation system. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people adapting to the best solution they could afford.
Maybe I missed it, but some states use their fuel tax to actually fix their roads while other states just add the money to the general fund and neglect their infrastructure. This is really unfair especially in light of Biden's infrastructure bill. Do the neglectful states get more money?
@@teekay_1 "Living in tiny flats, having to "go out to a park" to get a tiny taste of nature. It's a highly unnatural way to live" you don't need to lie just to show your preference. What do you think people did before the invention of cars? They lived in the city where they could walk to where they needed to go so it being "highly unnatural" is a really funny way of describing high density housing that existed for centuries. Needing to get into a metal box to drive 1-5 miles is more unnatural than walking or biking there. Also tiny flats aren't the only options in a city with sane zoning laws.. "In addition, our cities are too far apart to support anything but our current transportation system. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people adapting to the best solution they could afford." So in one breath you agree that it's a problem but defend it? We literally created this system in the golden age of the US where we were effectively the world's only superpower and was very wealthy so it wasn't the "best solution we could afford" We just spent money propping up a system for a military reason rather than a people reason (The highways was intended to be so that we could move our assets around quickly by any means we can in case of war). Our cities "being too far apart" doesn't excuse the poor use of lands or transits offering that they have. It would only really explain city to city transit (which it doesn't but that's an entirely different topic).
@@Shadowninja1200 People have lived in the wide open for dozens of millennia. Large cities has been around for only a fraction of that. Don't care that you've convinced yourself that you enjoy living in cramped city, but it is odd that you don't let the people who have decided not to live that lifestyle must be forced into a system that you approve of.
@@teekay_1 The suburban experiment was a planned system that forced people into the car dependency we have today. That sounds much more like forcing people into a lifestyle they did not choose. If we followed traditional urban development, suburbs and rural areas would certainly still exist and people would be free to choose to live there. I would argue they would be better without car dependency, since less car dependency would literally free up the roads for those who do drive. Urban areas have become so expensive because they are constrained by suburbs and still have high demand. Additionally, car dependent suburbs are not financially sustainable for so many towns and cities. Building roads and single family houses use so much land that generate little revenue for the towns and cities responsible for maintaining them. This literally bankrupts towns and cities, and also forces them from properly maintaining themselves which contributes to so many run down towns. Additionally, the government building infrastructure in such a way that requires citizens to pay thousands for a car, and hundreds to own and maintain it is a failure. We should be much more upset that most people cannot live without sending so much of their money to car companies, insurance companies, oil companies, etc. Our government built infrastructure that benefits these companies far more than it does the people it was built for.
Maybe an interesting video idea would be exploring any connection to car dependence and the health of the residence of the area vs health of places that are less car dependent. I was thinking about everyone is saying "fix your posture, fix your posture!" which is great if you can incorporate it, but why don't we ever talk about how every single part of our life is designed around sitting? Even when we're moving in cars, we're sitting. How much does this contribute to bad posture? Back and neck problems? Obesity? Heart conditions? Vision? Mental health. Hell, whenever I ride my bike, as long as I'm not in a place where I'm going to get ran over, I find it almost meditative. That has to have some good effects on the brain over a long stretch of time.
Define "every single part of our life," because there's a HUGE amount of people throughout the USA (and the world) where they're on their feet for 7 or more hours of their day at their job.
@@ViperOfMino I think work in tons of scenarios is also horrible for your health. Sitting all day, or standing in place all day, or doing hard manual labor for long stretches of time, etc. So work can be a place designed for sittign, isn't always though, though does often cause health problems in other ways.
you get to stop and take in your surroundings rather than them being muffled like you're in a phone booth. biking to work everyday got me out of my anxiety shell and I started to wave and chat with people in my city and feeling more connected to the place you live definitely helps
Love that shot of Madrid Metro. We are watching this from our hotel room in the Schwepps building overlooking Callao station! (Americans on vacation lamenting the stupidity of our urban choices while in countries that "get it")
Jacob Geller has an amazing video essay called Cities Without People that spends a lot of time discussing the ideas in this video. Absolutely worth a watch!
I dunno, I feel this video came across as classist. Taxing new vehicles higher? That just raises the barrier to entry and the super rich still hardly notice. Any time a punishment is a fine, it's a rule for the little people, not the rich.
@@Mcfunface Acquiring and mantaining a car is not cheap even without taxes. That's what channels as this are all about. The idea should be geared to improve public transportation everywhere so it is cheap and convenient for everybody to move around without the need to have a car. Now for those that need a vehicle to work, another benefit is that streets wouldn't be choked with traffic. In the end the idea is that everyone can have enough viable transportation alternatives so that buying a car should not be a "must", but a "maybe" at most.
Thanks! I recently went to Johannesburg (from Cape Town) and it’s really sprawling. But I think that sprawl is based on segregation (there’s lots of apartheid legacy town planning). Like the richest folks live in gated communities in “secure/ safe” housing complexes so the segregation inception probably make’s having a pizza delivered hellishly impossible. In contrast, a TikTok I watched was explaining how in Germany they purposefully mix rich and poor people in the same neighbourhoods. Like you don’t know if your neighbour is living in social housing or is a millionaire. So like if it interests you it would be cool to see how car dependency is related to segregation because the cookie cutter houses in USA look very “Gauteng security complex” to me.
We have higher fuel tax than USA (not quite European) but still have the sprawl problem - partly apartheid but also partly copying the USA approach to economics and planning
Trust me, the actual millionaires (with more than a million disposable cash, not in real estate value) know very well how to not live among the plebs. In Germany and elsewhere.
In many EU countries, like mine, cars are taxed depending on their engine power. So cheaper, smaller and more efficent cars are extra xheap in the long term. While SUVs for example are much more expensive.
I'm glad to see you talking about this! I've been looking into the cost of vehicle ownership lately as I've been looking at moving to a place that will allow me to live car free. One other (not so) shocking thing the US does to keep gas prices low is offer massive subsidies to the oil industry. Apparently 2022 was a record year for how much the US government gave to big oil too.
Probably has something to do with the Covid shutdown. Prices crashed very temporarily, but long enough for companies to write down the value of their reserves and wells (which is largely how the US subsidizes oil; it's not direct like Saudi Arabia).
Cheers. I always think about it terms of our social quality as well. Since we are so socially isolated in our micro mobility pods (in our cars), it really separates us from the rest of our community. Instead of saying hello to our neighbors, we are looking at their blinker to see if they are merging with our lane. There is no easy and quick fix. It'll be important for us to know which ways that we should improve for the future. Your channel helps to highlight real improvements in transit (like rail) for a collective societal focus.
Another huge subsidy is parking. Zoning laws mandate a surfeit of off-street parking, curbside parking is given away for free or at least very cheap (like $25/year where market prices are $100-300/month). The value of all the parking spaces is plausibly greater than that of a new car, especially if any of them are in multi-level garages. I don't know how the EU handles it, but in Japan, overnight street parking is banned by national law, and in order to buy a car you have to show the police that you have a space for it. Either one at home (and they'll come look) or a long-term commercial lease, which in the big cities is probably costing you $300/month. Oh, and parking requirements are much lower or even non-existent, so if you want parking with your apartment you pay separately for that. Strikingly, despite having to pay for parking, and about twice US gas prices, and steep tolls on intercity highways, Japan still has a lot of cars. But it's a lot easier to live without one...
Living here in North America it seems like the philosophy is "this place sucks so we made it ultra easy for you to drive somewhere else, like so easy you barely have to move your arms". Then when you get to that other place it also sucks because of all the cars driving through it to another place that also sucks and so on. It's like all public space and government is obsessed with getting cars and trucks through and out of their own area and spends almost no effort on making a neighborhood or downtown a destination you'd like to go to or stay in. Private businesses, restaurants, cafes, are trying to attract people while the infrastructure is designed to get rid of people. Even if you buy into car culture as soon as you want to stop to have a coffee or buy something then everyone is honking at you for daring to turn into a driveway or parallel park. In North American cities if you are travelling from out of town if you go with the flow the road network and other traffic funnels you through with no chance to stop and see anything and the next thing you know you're on the opposite side of town leaving city limits.
Not only automobiles but also air conditioning and cheap wood frame house construction have opened otherwise unappealing regions up to intense development. Suburbs wouldn’t exist in the American sunbelt if not for air conditioning and cheap driving.
Something that's always funny to me when I lived in Houston was that people will admit the city kind of sucks (especially the ones who grew up there) and that the best thing to do was to take a flight to somewhere else. Houston is one of the most car dependent large cities in America and isn't a good tourist destination, of course you want to go someplace else!
A great thing in France for exemple is that there are taxes based on engine size, power, and emmissions. When I moved to north america I was quite shocked to discover that there is no incentive here for you to drive a Corolla instead of a pick-up truck. Gas is so cheap relative to wages that you don't even think about fuel economy when shopping for a car. The base engine for a familly minivan is a 200hp 3.0L V6, wich is nuts !
I live near a very busy street in Berlin. When the war in Ukraine started, gas prices skyrocketed to some 2.20 € per LITTER (about $8 per gallon!). Yet, the same congestionv as always. Every morning. Only one person in most cars. I wonder at what price people would finally start to car pool (which should be much easier in the age of smartphones), work from home or use other modes of transportation. And other options do exist: There is an underground line under the same street, the trains run every 5 minuets. There are buses at night. There are cycling lanes on that street. Rental bikes and electric scooters are everywhere. And btw, the city is totally walkable.
Some people are hell bent on driving for no good reason. and in my opinion, costing them more money and inconveniencing those types is a good thing for our cities.
You touched on a very important point early on. The EU is currently extremely focused only on the emissions issue with cars. Electric cars are stupendously subsidized. Compared to a ICE powered car, an electric vehicle comes with enormous subsidies. Gas tax is only one of them - they are also typically exempt from annual registration taxes, less employment benefit taxation, usually get some form of free parking and often times are subject to higher speed limits on urban highways. It is a horrific spiel by the auto industry to try and rectify the situation over here to come closer to the US way of life while looking all green. And I wish I was joking...
I'm not sure that I buy that the EU is attempting to convert non-drivers to drivers with the expansion of electric vehicles, I think they're just trying to convert gas and diesel drivers to EV drivers which is an absolute net win. It would be better if they converted to non-drivers, but that's a low probability for at least the medium term.
Well, before electric vehicles can seriously augment conventional ones, there'll need to be a fairly extensive infrastructure of charging stations and repair and maintenance facilities that won't be economical to provide for a mere handful of electric vehicles. To me, it seems more reasonable to subsidize the proliferation of electric vehicles and let the market assume a bigger role in providing the ancillary stuff than to subsidize the ancillary stuff and hope the market for it materializes.
Another thing about the cost of car ownership. When a person owns a car, there are sunk costs that like insurance and the cost to own and maintain the vehicle. When deciding whether or not to make a trip in their vehicle, the marginal expense of the alternative relative to your own vehicle isn't accurately represented.
In car-centric areas without transit as an option, it basically has to be cheap. Otherwise, people simply wouldn't have the option to travel anywhere, and many people would be without a job. Many jobs I've had specifically required me to have my own vehicle. Some jobs even require you to have specific insurance coverage for your vehicle, because it's used for work. Keeping driving inexpensive (relatively speaking) makes living and working in those areas possible. I'd love to live in an area where driving isn't required. And anecdotally, I know many other people would as well. But we would need to seriously invest in transit before that could be possible. It's worth noting that many jobs that require a vehicle don't offer mileage. That means the entire burden falls on the shoulders (and bank account) of the worker. Forcing them to spend even more money out of pocket would be a serious punishment. And it would target the people who can least afford it.
many cities in EU did exactly that and it made more people poor and loose their jobs.... :( I still remember how my uncle in vienna had to lose his job because someone decided that parking should cost more then a apartment and that a biking path is more important then someones parking...
@@faustinpippin9208 Honestly, I think the aversion to anyone losing a job, ever, is one of the political sentiments that has kept the boot on top of the poor. If a job doesn't pay well enough to cover fuel, or rent, or whatever else, it shouldn't exist. The job should pay better (or cover it's own costs, same difference) and if that's not economically viable, the business should fail. There are other things society could be using it's labour force on besides minimum wage service jobs. We do not need a minimum wage part time job that barely pays rent for everyone. We need better jobs, and fewer barely profitable businesses squatting on land and leeching off society by not paying a living wage.
I often think about all the deaths, injuries, and emissions couldve been prevented if we never became a car dependent society in the first place. Makes me sad to think about
I was almost hit by a car at least twice when crossing the crosswalk when the signal was given for me, and a car was turning right each time. Unfortunately in most of the United States turning right is allowed on a red light.
Not just the deaths and injuries. Think about how much of a problem it is if all of a sudden you don't have a car anymore? You are isolated and you put your job at risk not having a reliable transportation. Cars are expensive and probably one of the main reasons people are struggling financially imho.
Definitely a breath of fresh air after listening to so many people whine about the cost of gas. I don't think most Americans realize how much cheaper it is here than in Europe.
Unfortunately at this point the country is already built around cars and I just don't see high gas prices creating a strong incentive to invest in public transit when the easy "shortcut" of simply making fuel cheap again will have massive political momentum. Even a modest $4 is enough to motivate war and destructive drilling practices.
Gas has been around $5.00 per gallon here in the San Francisco Bay Area seemingly for years. Sometimes it's a bit less, usually it's a bit more. Nobody cares. If it was above $8.00 per gallon or whatever the "electric charging" equivalent is, then I do see serious upgrades to public transportation in many areas. It would have to be at that higher rate for at least three to five years before political pressures build enough to seek substantial change.
Chester, you would have to also prevent backsliding like electrified is saying. That is indeed the path of least resistance, and requires probably consensus that there is a coming ecological disaster. In the US that probably means the Republican party needs to either change or go extinct. Former is more likely as young Republicans do poll better on climate change, but unfortunately by the time they control the party (decades from now) climate change will be MUCH worse.
This is a really important video, thanks for doing it. I know you briefly mentioned the social isolation of car-dependency, but I think that needs to be talked about more. We're all atomized and isolated from community by neoliberalism and the car-culture that it has constructed in the US and Canada. Bad land use, lack of third spaces, hell even the lack of public transit does so much more to isolate us than we think and it leads to all sorts of socio-psychological issues
Good points. What do you think of the One Small Town strategy to use collaboration, co-operation and co-ownership to create communities of abundance and prosperity that would also incentivize better public transit and walkability?
@@coolioso808 Personally, I think we need to abandon ship on capitalism, but I know not everyone has come to that conclusion yet. I'll have to look into the One Small Town strategy--haven't heard of it! I'm all for public co-ownership and co-operation.
I noticed that when US gas prices increased quickly 16 months ago, the President of the one party taking climate change seriously made pleas to Saudi Arabia and former foe Venezuela to increase production. Politicians of both our parties understand that high gas prices affect how people vote.
Strongly recommend reviewing the upper peninsula of Michigan for the outdoor access video. Marquette, houghton, and duluth in Minnesota are worth a check.
Car ownership's cost are front loaded. Where I live the buses only run until dinnertime, so I need a car for those other times (although Uber and Lyft are making that less so... cabs sometimes wouldn't even run out this far, despite being only 8.1 miles away from the NYS Capitol building, in the middle of a 30k pop suburb, in an apartment complex with 155 units on 10 acres, in a cluster of apartment complexes). Since I need a car, I have to own a car ($13.5) and pay car insurance ($80/mo.) I get 35 mpg (I would have gone electric, but since I'm on disability/fixed income I couldn't get the tax credit to upgrade my Spark to the electric version.) That means most places I'm going to drive it actually costs me less to drive than to take the bus. I'll walk to my doctor in the summer (about 6 miles round trip) if I'm not sick, and to the store (1/4 mile) if I'm getting few enough groceries I can carry them. But most trips I take are well under 10 miles, most under 5 round trip. There are stroads to deal with (we do have sidewalks, but they don't entirely connect without having to cross the stroad). The bus is $2 per leg, or $65/mo, for service that only runs in the middle of the day. My apartment complex, when I bought my bike, said they'd put in a bike rack, but they only put them in the far part of the complex and they are full of kid bikes because they don't have enough (and don't have a system to clear out derelict bikes... they had the same problems with cars... we had a car with 10 year expired registration and 3 flats sitting out front... some resident had died... there were actually 3 cars in the lot). They've taken away two of our closets (a storage unit off the laundry room that they stopped letting us use for insurance reasons- apparently they kept getting sued for water damage and because it wasn't technically part of our apartment it wasn't covered by renters, and a large on demand gas furnace/hot water heater that replaced our electric heat... paid for by a government grant). If I want to ride my bike I have to haul it up stairs because I live in a back/basement facing apartment, and the only closet it would fit in is at the back of the apartment across carpet.
Marketplaces can't perform market functions if costs are hidden or externalized instead of being rolled into prices of commodities. Few examples show this principle better than the US transportation sector. Top to bottom, and horizon to horizon, it's so distorted that it's absurd to even call it a market, except in the barest sense that things are bought and sold in it. And here's the secret, hiding in plain sight: that's what makes it profitable. Market features like level competition, and market functions like informing participants and discovering "natural" prices, make for an arena where it's hard for firms to clear a healthy profit. But we are told all day long that what we have here is a market system. It isn't. It's rigged to a laughable extent, and no one seems to question it.
LoL no. It would just punish the poor that cannot pay for the test prep. It would also not build any infrastructure just because the test is harder. This is too silly
I'm less than 1 minute into the video, so this might be addressed, but I just did a very quick search on why America has cheap gas. It's because we don't pay nearly as much tax as the EU does, which doesn't cover the cost of car infrastructure. Our real cost for gas should be double what we pay right now in 2023. Since there is such a huge push to going to EV, I think a larger registration tax would be the way to generate more funding for transportation infrastructure. Make the car drivers subsidize the rail, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure so we have funding to make cities more dense and pedestrian friendly.
I used to dive 32 miles for work, have 35mpg car at under $3.00/gallon and my total cost was $350 a month everything put together After discovering that, I got a job in town and have been living healthier and had more energy (because of cycling being a good workout) and will never go back And for anything I'd need outside of town that one time a year, I can just rent a car, which is much cheaper than owning one and only using it once a year.
People just drive more if gas is cheaper. The average cost of owning a vehicle is about $11,000 a year from AAA. I had a friend whose father rear ended someone with their company truck. They totaled the company truck that they used to make money, totalled the vehicle they hit, and injured the driver. Their life is about to be real difficult. I'd rather be on the bus than in their shoes.
@@AllenGraetz "The overall average cost to own and operate a new car in 2022 is $10,728." -- AAA. I would link, but TH-cam. They do specify new car, and "over five years and 75,000 miles", and it's averaged over everything from small sedans to absurd pickup trucks. You can do better by buying the right car, and then driving it into the ground. But even with very optimistic assumptions, it's still $3000/year.
@@mindstalk When I bought my SUV brand new and the gas prices in California in addition to the California registration fees, insurance,and snog check I was spending about $12,000 a year. Then I moved to Texas so insurance is more expensive but the vehicle inspection doesn't require a smog test and registration is a fraction of what California is but the cost of owning a vehicle still balanced to about the same. Then once the vehicle has about 3 years on it the cost for vehicle maintenance went up.
Video Topic Suggestion: A video on small old cities that are perfect for revitalization. Cities that have good bones, were once walkable and could easily be again, low property values, architecture worth saving, but they have fallen on hard luck or been forgotten for some reason. My suggested city: Elmira, NY.
We (US citizens) do pay taxes for our driving addiction, they're just other taxes that fund the externalities: more expensive healthcare from everyone being sedentary, more crime = bigger police force which uses 1/3 or more of the entire city budget, more taxes to fund government services since they're not getting any substantial revenue from half the city being used for parking, taxes to fund school bus systems because kids can't walk or bike to school anymore, etc -- the list is long.
I wish america could be like Japan, urbanism and trains everywhere with some scenic mountain roads for driving. If I could walk, bike, or ride a train for 99% of my needs and drive 1% for the pure enjoyment and thrill of drifting through a hairpin turn, I would be so happy. Why can’t america be more like Japan in terms of transportation? Cars and trucks should be for last mile delivery and recreational drifting on mountain roads. Using either for commuting or long haul delivery is silly.
I completely agree with this, I traveled to Japan long ago when I used to work for the airlines, and I really enjoyed not having to stress of renting a car in a new place, and just relaxing on the train and reading something or having a Bento box with a Japanese meal on the train and easily get around big cities or even walking in the neighborhood easily.
To put this respectfully, it is because Japan is not America. For example, crops from, let's say, Iowa, need to feed Los Angeles, California, and that incredible distance alone is longer than the entire length of the main island in Japan. The 2 are very different societies. Japan also has Tokyo, the most populated metro in the world, it's much more urbanized. Contrast the largest metro in the entire world with America. Here, you have a lot of small towns and so on and so forth. So while Japanese culture has its own way, America is not Japan, respectfully, there are a lot of important differences between the two societies. Hope this comment is polite and respectful, not trying to instigate, but rather draw attention to the important differences.
An idea for a future video: The upside of downtowns that are 50% parking lots and wide stroads, is that they could be converted to usable real estate quite easily if the urban planning paradigm were to shift. Some American cities of quite astonishing size have a very large "property reserve" in all the land they are currently wasting on car dependency. An acre of idle land would go under the hammer for amazing sums if it was located in, say, downtown London or Milan. US cities have idle space all over their downtowns, that would be extremely valuable if they had similar development patterns. Would it be possible to combine this with the general land value of big cities to rank North American cities based on the potential value of their "property reserve" near downtown? For instance, an acre of land in downtown Houston would be worth more than an acre of land in downtown Tuscaloosa. Comparing land values directly would be too complex, I think, not to mention inaccurate because current land values are based on current development patterns. A simpler metric based on the population of each metro area would be easier, I think. Maybe grouping cities into tiers based on their size, even. Then it'd just be a matter of comparing which cities in each size bracket have the most land currently tied up in parking lots, brownfields, road margins, or urban freeways.
Missed on this one. Moving away from car dependency is not about making driving objectively less attractive, but *relatively* less attractive. In other words, reconstructing the environment such that more efficient forms of transportation become viable alternatives to driving. It's game theory. Forcing poor people in car dependent places to pay more for their car usage is not the solution. They didn't choose to drive everywhere, they were forced to.
Ok, how about assisting them with relocation to someplace that isn't car-dependent if they can't afford to drive everywhere? I'm always skeptical when I hear an argument that it's necessary to allow or encourage something that's objectively bad because "economic justice."
No, fixing things with gas taxes is bad, which may create a incentive to keep cars around. We need cars, becouse so many places were deliberately built for them and raising the cost of driving just raises cost of living until we deliberately build everything to prioritize people over cars.
Even though we have wild prices for buying and owning a car here in Denmark I do still regularly talk with people at work that does not think that their car is more expensive than the good public transport we got near the big cities. It baffles me. A few more kroner pr liter could hopefully go a long way to make people realize that 🙃
I know from experience that a car is cheaper most of the time, especially when you do more then just go to work and back (im from the EU so its way more expensive then it should be because of the high taxes but its still cheaper then public transport and way better) Now factor in all the subsidies that public transport needs....
@@faustinpippin9208 I wonder where you live as excluding taxes and subsidiaries so should public transport still be cheaper then using a car. It's still cheaper in USA and they subsidy the cars.
@@faustinpippin9208 Well, I think your most of the time could be, in fact, wrong 😅 When I moved a year ago i ran the numbers and it just did not make sense.. even _after_ factoring in an e-bike lol. You must live in a place that really admires the US, cuz ain't no way that "a car is cheaper most of the time" in most of the EU :3
@@LisaMiza Im talking from experience, im not the only one who knows this on top of that public transport will never be better then a car, unless its some high speed rail that goes 500km/h and if you try making all public transport better then a car you will have to waste way more money then on fuel subsidies
I always share this vid to help people understand what we're up against... Would love to see a top 10 cities with potential that have no interstate. Great analysis!i!i
Regarding taxing electric cars: In the UK, the sales tax on domestic electricity is 5% and subject to the domestic energy pricing cap of 34.34p/kWh. On electricity from public car charging points, it is 20%, and there is no pricing cap. The nearest Tesla Supercharger to me charges 52p/kWh. While you can, and many people do, charge their car from a domestic plug, there is a limit to the number of km you can do per day that way, so anyone doing lots of driving every day is going to have to charge at a public charge point at some point during the day. And, given that the tax rate on public chargers is already higher, it could be increased in future without any difficulty.
Very few people charge from a domestic socket at home. Most EV drivers have a home charger. Almost nobody drives so far on a typical day that they need to stop to charge.
@@gchecosse That is true if you look at number of people, but not if you look at number of km driven. Most kms are driven by people who drive lots of kms.
I live in Japan. Every two years we have to have our car undergo an "inspection." Depending on the class of your car, this inspection is quite expensive. My cars in the cheapest class, the so-called K-car class which are cars with engines no bigger than 660cc. The 2 year inspection costs about $450. Bigger cars with bigger motors can pay up to $1500. Gasoline isn't so bad at $4.50 per gallon. I think a higher gas tax is absolutely vital in the USA. But that is a third rail issue like gun rights that politicians try to avoid.
Lol I love how your images of NV are meant to show just what a "car hell" it is. Meanwhile I'm looking at it, with the twelve lane road just down the street, I'm just like "dang those are some nice sidewalks!"
The Kyoto Protocol from more than a decade ago is of course dead and was replaced by The Paris Agreement in 2016. The United States was the first country to withdraw from The Paris Agreement. (hops on very very high horse)
A much higher federal fuel tax could be made bearable for the driving poor by offsetting with an income-based tax credit/dividend, available for up to, say, $40k earners with a steep decline beyond that.
I used to hate the high cost of gas in Europe, but thinking of all this over the last 10-20 years, it makes way more sense to tax it higher to provide better public transit and force the manufacturers to build cars that use way less gas. I just watched a car video with some cars from Mercedes, Audi and BMW and they got about 45 Miles per gallon on average. Since these are more luxurious cars, I am sure that smaller cars are more like 50-55 Miles per gallon. Due to the low taxes in USA, there is no incentive for manufacturers to invest in more fuel efficient cars and people do not care as gas is still comparably cheap.
there is some benefit to producing more fuel-efficient cars in the states but it’s generally outweighed by the desire for space and size. plus the effects from the chicken tax so SUVs and trucks don’t have to meet standards.
Video/topic suggestion: Small scale transportation - elevators vs escalators vs stairs. Maybe in the context of a large transit hub and people changing between metro lines.
@@CityNerd yeah, thinking mainly capacity/throughput, and indeed how one-line queuing is not optimal. I'm sure there are videos on the subject on YT already but maybe a ground hog day type race could be fun and illuminating.
The free market would actually destroy car dependency. If road construction and maintenance had to be privately fundraised to make a profit, they would never build the infrastructure.
So $70B in annual gas revenues, some googling says road maintenance costs $130B annually in the US. I'm sure there are other revenues (registration, tolls). I think a video showing how much POV roads are subsidized, versus trains, buses and bike/walk paths. Considering California's transit fiscal cliffs, this feels relevant
Don't forget the parking spaces required for our cars at home, work, where you shop and the sea of concrete roads - for something we use 4% of the time. Those space and sprawl forces us to build further and further out. With the Coastal mountain range in California, we run out land to build and house prices skyrocket. If those parking spaces near work were converted to affordable nearby medium density housing, there would be no need for cars and commutes. Not needing to pay for a car and high housing cost would go a long way to making our wages more competitive and lessen offshoring of our jobs.
Sadly, what you say is quite true. Cheap gasoline has made the USA absolutely car & truck dependent. So many people's lives are 100% car dependent. I always wonder how people survived during WWII when gas was strictly rationed and most Americans had to get along with only 3 or 4 gallons per week. Gas chiseling was a national scandal but most people complied, sacrificed, coped and used public transportation or stayed home!
The military budget is partially designed to protect a cheap oil supply. Therefore, the gas price should reflect this cost. Cost of extra health care due to pollution, to name a few.
I live in the Netherlands, that one country with the highest fuel related taxes apparently lol, in Hengelo, province Overijssel to be very specific, I can definitely confirm, the high fuel taxes are visible wherever you walk and bike, let alone drive around, there is already a night and day difference when you cross the border to Germany, the moment I do I feel like I left the comfort of my bed, you can just tell it's just not up to certain standards that you're used too, don't even mention Belgium though, I still have nightmares.
Great topic! Don't underestimate the determination and strength of the petroleum-industrial complex worldwide. Why do you assume that the transition to EV's is inevitable? Do you think all that petro-capital is going to evaporate? They're going to fight to the last drop.
Warning I may not understand the details of VAT. The VAT is a 20% charge on sales, but the seller can recover a 20% a rebate on their own cost of sales. Which is why I think it is called a tax on value added. So I think there are subtleties to the VAT that make it very different from a typical American sales tax.
Great video as always. There is something odd at play that I didn’t hear you mention. Fuel efficiency. I have a Mazda CX-3 here in Vienna. 2020. 6 speed manual. It gets 53mpg on the highway (my actual mileage). The same (ok, automatic) 2 liter CX-3 in the US is rated at 34 mpg. That means I use 45% less fuel here. But I’m paying $6.40/gallon. So folks back home pay half for gas but get 45% less efficiency. Hear this from other folks who have lived in both places. Is that really so car centric ? Yes. But no. Coz folks probably don’t realize they’re being duped by the car manufacturers in this regard. Thankfully I average only 500-600 miles per month in the car due to about that much in cycling and great public transit here. But maybe a topic for another video on why there is a huge efficiency gap.
Nope, it's government regulations. Small, high mpg cars are not allowed into the US because they want to force people into battery powered cars (which are so great, the government has to force people to buy them).
@@Kriss_L but this has been going on since before there were electric cars. I once asked Ford if I could get a Ford Ka in the US. Mid 2000s. The car was being produced by ford in Europe. Got 55mpg. They simply said we’ll never offer that in the US.
@@TravelsWithTony does your CX-3 have a gasoline engine or diesel engine? If your car has a diesel engine that would account for your higher MPG vs the car in the US. The last time I looked the Mazda Skyactive diesel engine still isn't approved for sale in the US because it doesn't meet the EPA emissions standards.
@@andrewvenor8035 it’s a gas engine. Skyactive. It also has a feature where it switches from 4 cyl to 2 cyl when cruising at a consistent speed. That certainty helps as well. It would be good to understand the big difference
@TravelsWithTony part of the difference might be because your CX-3 has the 2.0 liter engine and a manual transmission. In the US market, Mazda uses the 2.5 liter Skyactive engine and the automatic transmission. I believe the 2.0 liter engine and the manual transmission were only offered in the US for one year on the base model CX-5 when it was first introduced in 2010. As for the cylinder deactivation, my CX-5 has that as well. Not only does that save fuel, but it also works with the cruise control to shut off two, and sometimes all four cylinders to engine break on down slopes to maintain the programed speed.
I'm French and a reason I was given for the lower diesel tax was the lower CO2 emissions of diesel engines. Recently we've taken into account the particles emissions too, so recent diesel prices have caught up to unleaded.
@@dragnflye3797 Haha no. I discovered coal burning a couple years ago on the internet. I'm pretty sure we have rules against that and you'd get your car seized by the first cop who sees that. We have something in France called technical control that you have to pass every 2 years where they check that your car is still up to road standard. I know the pollution standard on that test is light enough for well maintained older vehicles to be able to pass but I think and hope it is able to ban "coal burning" vehicles. The other thing is that gas prices have always been high enough. Since the euro (2002) don't think I have seen gas prices (including diesel bus excluding LPG or alternative gas) under 1€/L so roughly 4$/Gal.
Great video, but I find this kind of analysis of “driving is too cheap” an unfortunate takeaway from the video. It seems to me like car subsidization has led to car dependence, but removing those subsidies will only make people’s lives much harder. Investment in transit should happen first, I would think, before we can afford to increase the cost of driving
The US sprawl is so big that public transport doesnt make sense besides big dense cities, you could make (good) public transport everywhere but the subsidizes would have to be bigger ironically then the current ones for fuel....
Port Angeles is right by the Olympic National Park and other awesome natural areas. We have a housing crisis here, but the city has updated their zoning to allow for greater density - still, we have people coming here who destroyed where they live but want a chunk of land all to themselves. I'd be happy if more people who are anti-car moved here, because we have a lot of potential.
Almost wish you reached a final dollar amount of the cost of car culture. Probably too complicated to be very accurate but I’m guessing it would exceed $1 trillion. Could look at differences in property values between walkable areas (using walk score) vs non walkable areas. (All per Arce). And then multiply that by number of suburban/urban acres. And then of course all the other costs you mentioned (injuries, delays, environmental harm both local and global, etc). Infrastructure costs are relevant too but then you’d probably need to account for better transit both locally and regionally. Also, maybe a dive into initial/annual registration tax? Perhaps as a method to disincentive larger cars with lower MPGs.
London School of Economics calculated the annual cost of sprawl in USA at $1 trillion annually !! This is traffic injuries and fatalities, congestion, pollution, more vehicle costs, more expensive complex junctions , more wear and tear due potholed roads ( cities/states cannot maintain all those roads), health effects due to inactivity/obesity etc .. 1 trillion is $3000 per capita .
Great video! I always look at car dependence from a more climate change perspective, but it is really important and interesting to hear about the other equally important issues that arise from car dependence. Another big thing that makes driving cheap are fossil fuel subsidies, both direct and indirect. It's estimated that in the US we pay about $20 billion dollars per year in direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of course, these make driving cheap but they also make, well, everything cheap, most importantly food. So it's a tricky subject, because repealing fossil fuel subsidies might effectively be a regressive tax on everything, but I do not know the math well enough to argue either way. What I do know is that maybe we should be concerned with the fact that natural disasters, famines from crop failures, rising sea levels, as well as non-CO2 related issues like traffic violence, habitat destruction, and aerosol air pollution affect the poorest most. Which leads me to indirect fossil fuel subsidies. Those are harder to calculate. The use of fossil fuels is obviously the main factor in climate change. To frame it in a way for people who care more about money than human lives, not to mention all other lifeforms: when fossil fuels are extracted and used, it causes untold amounts of harm that we pay real, actual money for. Just from the effects of climate change, it's estimated we pay trillions of dollars globally and that will rise because the emissions aren't going down anytime soon. Traffic violence is certainly an awful awful consequence of all of this and it is a very real immediate problem we need to address, but the effects from climate change are so mind boggingly catastrophic for life on this planet. Simply put, driving is too cheap. In my opinion, if everyone who is empathetic is fully aware of all the negative externalities of driving and fossil fuels, it would help this fight immensely. But just the plain scientific fact that climate change is going to be so awful isn't even enough to convince people, or maybe it is drowned out in all the noise that people think that the real issue are plastic straws and if only we just recycle a bit more we can stop this. They will only care when they experience it firsthand, and by then it would be too late.
"It's estimated that in the US we pay about $20 billion dollars per year in direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of course, these make driving cheap but they also make, well, everything cheap" Finally someone with more then shallow knowledge... I like also how he "forgets" just like other ytubers that even if you dont have a car you pay the subsidies because you still benefit from the road How is the food and other stuff showing up in stores? on what is your bike/bus driving, on what are you walking, what makes society funtion? :) Best solution would be making a weight/efficiency/car size limit for personal cars, less fuel burned, less damage to the road, more space in cities Something like the tango t600 (but semi trucks will still have to exists because they are crucial to how society funtions and transports stuff)
It might have been interesting to mention that Politicians often are forced to keep gas prices low, as how well their reelection chances correlate with how expensive gas is
Love this vid. Did you study economics in undergrad? Also would LOVE a top ten mountain cities or cities with Mountain Views video that also factors in transit!
If a gallon of gas is artificially cheap because of subsidies, why does a gallon of gas only about $5 in Japan? That country imports nearly 100% of their oil.
Whew, that's a bit of a downer but it's such an important point to get behind. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the cost of public transit for the user. Like, is there a place that's a happy medium for a transit system that isn't being funded enough, without making it undesirable to use? You seem to have a way with numbers and cost analysis. Maybe even a video on how transit costing compares across the US? (I'm Canadian but I know what your wheelhouse is.) The cost of a ticket for Calgary transit keeps rising every few years, it's right now at $3.60 for 90 minutes to a train or bus, with $11.25 for a day pass. Something feels wrong about the day pass cost, I always want to go for it but I realize I'll never use transit more than 3 times in a day. It's cheaper to sneak onto a bus at a station, or ride a train and hop off when you see an officer approaching. (Calgary doesn't have ticketgates, it's weird.) Of course I'm too anxious to face the risk of fines or just bothering people providing a public service so I pay the fare. There is actually a low-income option for as low as $5.60/mo, which is only really findable in their main office and their website. It just feels weird and half-hearted, like there could be a way to make paying the fare feel self-evidently cheaper than owning a car than just constantly making the service feel worse and unpredictable as time goes on. Now our free fare zone downtown is sponsored by the banks. 😅 At least gas prices keep rising as transit's value becomes more evident to others.
Transit pricing is weird. Farebox recovery tends to go _up_ with ridership (and transit quality), so if you dare to invest in higher frequency, you'll likely get more of it back. If you work from economic principles like "price should equal marginal cost" then a lot of the time the price _should_ be zero; an extra subway rider costs nothing, at unless until you get to crowded levels. And it would be totally legit for the public to decide to just buy a transit system, the way we commonly buy free highways. OTOH, given real world starting points, extra money would be better spent on improving transit than on making it free. Free shit is still shit, and most US transit is shit.
i don't buy the question asker's argument, here in Portugal fuel and cars are both heavily taxed, we have lots of toll roads, and yet sprawly suburbs still exist around most cities and there's a chronic lack of rail investment in the last 40 years. I'm really skeptical that this can be solved with the sole use of taxation. Political will towards rail investment is crucial too
And overall wealth. The U.S. government borrows and spends HUGE amounts of money on a vast array of projects, mostly for the good of private corporations. I don't think Portugal is that corrupted.
One of the best ideas I heard spitballed by a random pundit in 2008-09 was a variable gas tax that would go up as the market price went down and vice versa, it would essentially set a price floor of probably $4/gal in today's money which would at a minimum hold back selection of those vehicle characteristics that exacerbate pollution and safety issues you were talking about.
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
So. You thought you could just scroll on down and leave a comment without being subjected to more self-promotion? Joke's on you. Support the channel and get access to great ad-free (and promotion-free!) content on Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/citynerd
Jokes on you, I seek out self promotion in the comments.
Jokes on you, I'm already a happy nebula supporter!
Where are you in EV - even cheaper driving - but less externalities with air pollution - it is still a car.
So I guess you are done gaslighting your viewers in believing automobile ownership is expensive. Truth is it is not. If a working class person buys a 2 year old used car and then drives it for 10 years. The cost of ownership spread out over those 10 years is only couple thousand per year. This is why even teenagers with part time jobs can easily afford to drive in America. Driving is dirt cheap and you know it. Thanks for making this video and setting the record straight.
@@Novusodlmao nice bait
In passing you touched on the psychological cost of antisocial behavior that permeates all the bad land use, and that is likely the most poisonous pill of our transportation system. My right to personal transit overrules the right to create good public spaces, it allows me to alienate me from the rest of society that I see from a distance in my car, and it creates a captive audience for the whims of the energy and auto industries. When gas prices in the US went up last year, the public at large was just kind of gobsmacked by it. They didn't really know who to blame (despite what all those spicy stickers on gas pumps try to tell me) or what to do about it. The distrust and disillusionment has to have a role in why the political system in the US is loco bananas.
Absolutely. *So* much energy in terms of the public's view of whether or not politicians are successful is focused entirely on the price of gas, and much of the reason we don't increase the gas tax is because doing so would be absolute political suicide.
Don’t fool yourself. The executive branch was complicit.
So many people like their privacy. Maybe this is the point of the American dream? Create your own little world. Your own house. Your own car. Of course we should all have choice to live the urbanist dream too!
Most people who are middle class or higher really don’t want to be faced with the effects of poverty and inequality on this country. Suburban housing and cars are almost 100% successful at shielding you from these things. Public transit does the exact opposite. Until we have a more equal country public transit will continue to be seen as undesirable to use by people who have enough to not live in low income communities.
If you use stroad infrastructure, parking, and your own house and land as intended and you can fully afford it, it can be very enjoyable. If you’re an urbanist trying to walk the stroads you’re just doing it wrong.
And yet like the fish who wonders what water is, we don't see the horribleness of our cities, suburbs and roads. It's just there and we accept it.
Careful, your bias is showing. You choose to live in a big city and whine and complain when the universe fails to revolve around you. I choose to live outside said city and enjoy open space, only travelling to the city when I choose to. At one time, if you wanted industrial work, you HAD to live in the city to be near your employment - now you CHOOSE to live there but want everyone else to live there too so that you can have grass where the roads are. I'll keep my suburban home, my cars, my cottage and my boat thank you, because even though you think I am "antisocial", it's quite the opposite - people in my town don't try to rob me, join gangs, try sell me drugs or do drive by shootings in my neighborhood.
My transmission went out over 2 years ago on a gasohokic SUV. I haven't bought a vehicle since. I've bought two higher end hybrid bicycles and a $30 a month bus pass. I wake up earlier, got into even better shape,and managed my time better, in addition I'm able to live in downtown areas with higher rent but accessible to trains and buses.
And I’m sure you see a lot more of your city that way, getting to know it better and having a lot more variety in your day! being largely car free is so nice, even if I don’t hate driving.
@@camdynclarke You are 💯 correct. I'm not from the city I currently live in but know the city more in 6 months than people born and raised here.
holy a real life human comment
Well Bully for U!
...amazing story.
Topic idea: I use to live in Chicago and GLADLY gave up my car for both cost and convenience matters. One of the things that made it real easy was that there were a number of Zip Cars (shared car services) in and around my neighborhood that I could rent on a moment's notice for an hour or two, or a whole day, if I had a need that public transport wasn't suited to. What happened to this concept? Why didn't it work? Is there a place for shared car services in breaking car dependencies?
One more hidden subsidy, TX set aside $600 million to fund specific highway improvement projects in the Permian Basin (one of the world’s largest oil and gas producing regions). Quote from TxDOT "Increased truck traffic on the area’s largely rural highways has stretched the available road capacity and driven up crash rates." $600M to drive oil around.
By comparison they only set aside $70M for public transportation for the whole state (bike/ped is rolled under public transportation).
$600M is around the value of the Permian produces in a single day.
Yup Texas is a public transit hellhole and they are proud of the fact. I spent a month there as a test and would never consider living there mainly because I don't want to have to drive.
Well trucks move america so it's important to have the infrastructure for them to deliver their products including gasoline and diesel
@@truckercowboyed2638 True! And we need to improve our long distance rail
don't forget that Texas also has some of the largest solar and wind farms in the world. Also, public transportation is more funded at the local level. For instance, Austin is currently spending $8 Billion to expand its light rail system.
I would like to see a video showing us your favorite places to walk. Doesn't have to be a top ten list, doesn't even have to be salty about the internal combustion engine. Just walking you enjoy.
Oh it'll be salty. Thanks!
Topic suggestion: I went down a rabbit hole and learned about Airparks - communities that you can fly into with amenities such as extra wide streets so you can taxi your plane to your house. They seem to be an almost comical extension of the idea of suburbia reliant on private, polluting mobility - and therefore just right for your channel
Seconded. WTF
Woah! That is a wild concept. Do you have any links to any videos for these air parks?
@@dimvoly th-cam.com/video/H-J22GZ8FKE/w-d-xo.html also they try to justify commuting via private plane by showing the congested highway trains and bus lanes or simply living closer to work just didn't ocurr to them
Air parks are very rare, and not commonly used by commuters. Most do not have wide roads and have grass strips with no real taxiways. There are a few swanky places, but many of the videos are deceiving. If you go there, you’ll likely be disappointed.
Most of the owners own very light aircraft with small efficient engines used more for recreation than travel. Often, they build the planes themselves. They get very good mileage compared to airline travel and even cars, though it depends greatly on the route. A large portion of the homeowners are retired people, and middle class.
All attacks on private aviation over the last twenty years have led to the industry becoming dominated by private jets. What happens is policies aimed at bizjets inevitably hurt piston plane use even more while bizjets continue to proliferate.
It used to be common for truly middle class people who loved flying to rent or even own light aircraft. Small businesses used to commonly use high performance pistons for business. The business users either quit or moved up to turbines now.
Like most classist attacks aimed at the rich, they generally hit the other classes the hardest and benefit the really rich. Aircraft manufacturing in the US is at a fraction of its historic level costing thousands of jobs.
Ok how the hell did you never go down that rabbit hole before. It'd literally what the jettison wanted it's flying cars... also arguably would bring down pollution and walk more walkable cities then cars. It's just loud af sometimes
My god these 70 Billion seem extremely little considering the size of the U.S. and how much people drive. Just looked up for my country Switzerland and we get approx. 4.5 Billion in fuel taxes from a population that is 40 times smaller. So almost three times as much per person and that's considering we drive exactly half as much!
Sounds about right
UK its £25 bill for 65 million people so equiv in the US would be nearly 300 bill pounds or 350 bill dollars. So yeah night and day different compared to European countries
one gas station chain reduced their gas prices to $1.776 yesterday. people lined up for hours waiting for gas
Last summer, when fuel prices were in the low to mid $4 range, there was an intersection off I-25 in CO where three of the four gas stations dropped their prices to ~$2 a gallon in some kind of price war. It was absolute madness upon leaving that exit. Still don't fully understand that business strategy as fuel sales are low-margin to begin with. Selling gas a major loss, in hopes of attracting customers into your convenience store so you can sell high-margin convenience items, seems like a crackpot idea. They must've been eating ten thousand, if not tens of thousands, of dollars a day in fuel losses.
You might’ve forgotten to mention that most EU countries also have incentives NOT to drive. So, for example, the bus pass in my city is so cheap it costs about 1/4 of the fuel cost for me to get in and out to work. We also have tax rebates for bikes (including electric bikes) to encourage workers to cycle to work.
I think over taxing car purchases is a dumb idea though. If you pay a lot of money for something, you’ll want to use it to recoup its value.
I’m a tight git so I usually buy depreciation free cars which are so old and cheap they no longer lose value but my mates who spend €30,000-40,000 on a new car are gonna want to get some return.
not per se, they might just think its too precious to really use instead.
Ye, my town even has free bus tickets but it's a smaller town(20K) so i guess that explains it
Anyone willing to spend that much on something already intends to get lots of use out of it. So yes you'd probably see the people buying cars over there drive them more on average, but it's because if you didn't feel you really needed it then the high cost would put you off. So it's getting the direction of causation reversed.
so the solution is to make small cars way more expensive. got it
"I think over taxing car purchases is a dumb idea though. If you pay a lot of money for something, you’ll want to use it to recoup its value. "
On the flipside: If it costs you a lot to get it in the first place you will prioritize cheaper options first and probably only buy a car if you really need it.
Growing up in NYC I used mass transit often. Once leaving NYC, I found it impossible to live without an automobile. I lived in San Mateo CA for 11 years. Various towns in NJ. I currently live in Charlotte NC. Until a national plan for mass transit is developed and implemented, it’ll be impossible to live wiyhout an auto. One additional point I wish to add. I traveled internatioally for workfor many years. My first trip on a bullet train in the 80’s opened my eyes to how far behind the USA has become in implementing more advanced transportation technology due to political and economic ptessures placed on our politicians by the big energy companies.
an "auto?" bot detected
COme live in my neighborhood. You can easily live without a car. No national plan needed.
You forget about walkability, no amount of transit can save a lack of mixed use and its effects on walkability
Walkability, bikeability weren’t overlooked. They’re both important for the psychological health of the nation. Though, I believe they weren’t included in the original post for which I replied.
Canada and US could use a mass high speed cross country transit system, no doubt! But they’ve put even modest public transit developments off so much that, interestingly, they may be able to skip some steps and go to the most efficient and safe form of transit. I don’t see it developing for 10 years so by then they can go Flux Jet TransPod for city to city and then something like SkyTran or Transit-X for inner city personal rapid transit.
You know who convinced me that gas was too cheap? damn Click and Clack the tapperrt brothers of Car Talk. Shoutout for two dudes running a show about cars willing to straight up say "Gas should be 9 dollars a gallon" in ~2007
The Tappit brothers are defunct since one of them died, but “Car Talk” was a great public radio show. I’m glad to hear you can apparently still access their content now.
@@birbluv9595 one of the brothers is still at answering questions in the newspaper.
Yes,I miss those guys and I listened in spite of the fact I view driving as a necessary evil and as for cars,meh.
Visiting an elderly relative in Los Angeles, CA right now, and this very true. L.A. invented car-oriented culture. To ride a train across town takes about 2 hours, and to take the car, it's half an hour to an hour depending on traffic. (edit) The price-per-gallon for gasoline is $5.50, but that price does NOTHING to change much about the place; the damage was already done when they built the first freeway and designed the first soulless, car-oriented suburb.
Surely Detroit invented car-oriented culture tho?
@@tomchamberlain4329 Detroit supplied the drug and marketed it because $$$. Los Angeles invented the addiction and its lifestyle.
@@joekelly7505 Our towns and cities across the country died so that a million or so people could have decent paying manufacturing jobs in Detroit. Drive through the rust belt and you'll find these dead agriculture towns that died off because you don't actually have to live as in do things in your town anymore, most small towns are glorified bedroom communities nowadays. Their kids might not even go to the school of the town they have their house in. If you love your f-150 you essentially love the death of farming communities who's farms are mostly Big Agriculture now.
@@jmd1743 Definitely the rural areas of the country have changed so drastically over the past century thanks as you mention to industrialization and because of the consolidation of Big Ag. I'm not sure what the solution is.
@@valleyofiron125 yet they wonder why churches are dying off, churches use to provide a community center like function when the only way to get around was walking or use horses, but now it's super convenient to drive a half hour away to the cool new mega church 1 county away.
Counties need to become the voter districts so it's impossible to gerrymander because everything is done by the county lines.
You would give each county a state representative.
Abolish the EC voting system, and have the first state that votes be the one with the highest percentage of voter turn out.
The problem with America is that it gives too much voting power to the people who turned their communities into bed room communities and to those who hate socializing with their next door neighbors.
Most of the Republican hate for California comes from republicans who fled themselves or know others who've fled.
These assholes would flee from Texas once things go off track because so many of them are intellectual lazy, that is if they had another 50 years of life span.
They honestly think that the wealth that's being generated by Texas is by insufferable like them instead of young adults.
So once things become too much the way they don't like then they'll move to Kansas or Idaho before fleeing from those new states.
Thank you so much! Another great video I can send to friends, family, and detractors who are clearly confused about the “natural” tendency toward constant automobile usage in an “unsubsidized” market environment.
Along those lines, I shall now shamelessly plug my donation with a video (series) request: We desperately need a sort of “Urban Designer/Engineer’s Toolbox” video series that visually demonstrates, along with supporting data, the individual design elements that can be used to improve an urban environment.
As an example, a “Street design toolkit”, with examples of lane narrowing, chicanes, alt paving surfaces, bollards, etc and explanations for why these can lower automobile speeds and improve walkability. This would be great resource that could be shared to help educate people about the unnoticed design aspects that make places better or worse.
So many people I talk to are puzzled when I suggest design changes to lower driver speeds, which isn't surprising given the homogeneity of most streets (at least in TX) and how arcane the topic is amongst non-nerds. These series would be great AND actionable!
Thanks for the donation, and I'll save your comment for additional cogitation! What would be cool would be to do a joint series with NACTO, which puts a lot of thought into this stuff and publishes guidebooks and toolkits (just not in video format) along these lines. I am kind of itching to branch into new territory, so we'll see!
@@CityNerd A NACTO series would be sweet! 😃 Probably could work a series of topics, like Fundamentals of Transit, Pedestrian Infrastructure…a legion of activist students await to enroll in the Urban Planning program at CityNerd University 🤣
First, thank you for being a coherent voice in this area. I drank a lot of “Capitalism Koolaid” in business school, and it’s been hard to question literally everything I thought I knew. But it’s also fun as hell now that I’m retired! So it’s good to find sharp analysis like yours. Following your lead, then…
What’s the name of the field that studies this complex set of trade-offs between power density and quality of life? I’m phrasing it that way because it’s either fossil fuels or honey bees, I think…Right?
Second question: If population density goes up in order for energy density (cars and logistics in general) to go down, what’s the sensible limit for population density, given sanitation, healthcare, fire risk, and other “old world issues”? I’m assuming 1850s London is not where we’re trying to get to… but if not, then what? I find that I am so steeped in “car-centrism “ that all I can imagine in my “alternatives” zone is that cars solved a serious problem with horse pollution, back in the day. And I don’t even know if that’s true!
I have already found “Not Just Bikes” and “Strong Towns” and “Arguing with Zombies” but given my complacency was only shattered with the election of Donald Trump, I have a lot of homework to do!
The other day I took a wagon and walked to the grocery store, and I brought home the “car standard” grocery haul… then I realized another layer of economy I have to crack! (I crossed the Stroad. But also, about half of the distance I walked was JUST THE PARKING LOT of the grocery store. About two blocks in total. My kids have never walked that far except in PE class!
So when we break the scale of grocery stores back below the current scale, won’t average costs go up? Big box stores at the edge of town seemed to reduce the cost of stuff, as did global supply chains, or so I thought… But what’s the reality? Walmart and Amazon are aggregators, right? I’m not sure I have formulated the question, but I’m sure people smarter than me must have done so…?
Please suggest some sources for additional reading? Keep doing what you’re doing. I would welcome some analysis of trade-offs that brought us here, so I can frame this thought process for myself…?
A good book to check out if you haven't already is Ed Glaeser's "Triumph Of the City" --- he comes at things from a deep economics background so it should be right up your alley, and he touches on a lot of the questions you're asking. Great comment, and I trust the wagon was a radio flyer
@@CityNerd Hah! :-) The Radio Flyer and the little wheel barrow didn’t last long enough. Plus, evidently those things are not meant for Dad to relive his childhood. I guess 155lbs is just too much!?
I found that book on Audible. Great for (face palm) listening in the car… After two hours of chaining from one algo recommendation to another, I’ve reached somebody named, Vaclav Smil. Looks like he’s doing alright too!
In the back of my mind, I am now also thinking about how you guys deal with city planning at modern scale while somehow leaving room for personal liberty? I spent enough time in the telecom industry to think that there’s no such thing as market forces in huge monolithic systems like streets and utilities…The efficient scale is basically infinite or undefined…?
What do you recommend for understanding the ethics of city politics? I’m ready for anything on this front. HOAs are bizarre enough, even at small scale and without pension funds!
And a huge thank you again for these additional sources! I may be imagining things, but it feels like TH-cam and you and other creators who are it’s “best of” are reaching a point of excellence that’s not talked about in general society very much… I can at least say that I am hardly watching any conventional streaming at all, nowadays! (I mean Netflix or HBO or the like…) Again: thanks for producing such awesome content and sharing your knowledge!
@@blinkingmanchannelI don’t have a book recommendation for you, but I am a city council member who cares about this stuff. The ethics of it is an interesting topic imo. My answer is specific to Germany but I think aside from the legalistic details it should apply.
We are first and foremost concerned about our constituents, not our voters mind you, but all the residents of the city. Legally and imho ethically we are bound by constitution and law of both the federal and state levels.
The law outlines quite a few duties that are maybe common sense. We need to provide all the essential services, like the city administration, sewage, garbage, fire fighting services, maintain the schools, kindergartens, maintenance of roads and street independent paths…
We are also ethically and legally responsible for keeping the budget tight enough for the benefit of future generations. The city can be in the red but not by too much or else austerity measures are forced upon us.
What irks me are some of the things that are not official, but are important to me personally. The services we aren’t legally required to provide, like sports, greenery, public transportation… I think these things benefit our children especially and should concern us more than they currently do. Cynically I might say this may just be because kids don’t vote.
Another big one is climate protection. This is a global priority and both the EU and the German government have formulated goals for emission reductions and passed them as legislation. The constitution even says we need to do it, according to our federal constitutional court. However so far there is no law that says a city must do it. Which is very shortsighted as we only have 20 years until the federal target for 2045. This is not a timeframe in which German cities accomplish anything big especially if they are broke.
Now ethically I do see a problem in my concern with climate change, because I am of course not just concerned with heavy rainfall in my town or the local farmers revenue, but with humanity as a whole, who aren’t my constituents (mostly). I think it’s moronic to say we can’t change anything anyway, we are just a small town. Everyone everywhere needs to reduce emissions as much as possible as quickly as possible, it’s as simple as that, or else.
But yeah, I am wondering when it will finally become a legally mandated duty for the city to reduce emissions. As long as it isn’t it will always lose out against other priorities for budgets.
I guess this is a pretty top level overview considering you are looking for a book, but I hope it helps. Cheers!
@@incarnate3276Thanks for your note. I love a good conversation.
This is a topic that I've thought about a lot. The price of gas in the US is much cheaper than other countries. People were complaining about $5 a gallon for gas, but back in the 1980s, I was paying $1.50 to $2.00 a gallon and that was decades ago so it seems that $5 a gallon isn't that expensive when given time and also shortages. The earth is being furthered destroyed to drill petroleum including drilling through shale.
Still less than digging for lithium for EV batteries, lithium destroys the land
Meanwhile in Australia, we pay about $2 a litre (so about $7.50 a gallon) and people still drive like crazy
@@psychic_bethIs that in AUD or USD?
You must have been born in The Gobi Desert because your humour is fantastically dry. I love it.
The main issue with raising fuel taxes in the US is it's regressive-- people are priced out of living in city cores and are basically forced to commute by vehicle. Additionally, the people most likely to afford cars that cost less in gas mileage are going to be in higher income brackets, meaning people who can't afford to buy better/more fuel efficient cars, who are priced out of the cities they work in, are then forced to pay more for gas.
It's a cyclical issue, and I'm definitely no expert, but my feeling is that until mega corporate real estate holdings and rent jacking are quashed, and denser zoning in city cores is green lit, it isn't really feasible to tackle car dependency with higher gas taxes first. All it will do is punish the poor. I think an instinctual clap back is that rents will go down if people are forced out, but that isn't happening; tons and tons of housing sits empty while poor people bus or commute in, usually to multiple jobs at a time because poor pay and shitty hours is very common. Megacorps need to be severely regulated to keep people inside the cities where they work and play. People want to live in cities, and not just the rich fuckos in $3400-5000/mo units. But that's just my feeling.
pretty much nailed it. there should be less red tape for developers to build too
Unavoidable taxes on car ownership can be used to fund public transport projects. But the negative impacts on the poor in car dependent hellholes are severe. It's a difficult one to get past policy makers.
Do you mean poor folks who drive, or poor folks without motor vehicles? I can see how higher gas taxes would sock the former especially hard.
@@stanyu2029 The former is definitely meant. This is admittedly hard because so many people are locked into car ownership whether they decide to be or not. You basically don't win in the short term in the U.S. with these taxes because you hurt poorer, disadvantaged people and you anger wealthier people who show up to vote more often because those trains you want to fund would take years to build. Politicians think only in the short term because that's all they've got before another vote comes up.
@@stanyu2029 Even poor people who don't have motor vehicles would have negative effects. A lot of poor people live in outlying areas and are dependent on people driving them places if they don't have their own car. And the cost of that will go up.
raise taxes on gas, raise minimum wage and lower income tax?
@@nilremkfulincome tax is already progressive based on your income, which is why tax hawks hate it most of all.
This topic is so vast, we only scratched the surface here. Really getting into the nitty gritty of how much car dependency costs, both in terms of monetary economic costs as well as non-quantifiable externalities, really starts to reveal that this development pattern was one of the worst possible ones we could have ever gone with.
It was inevitable though. I know people who have a point of view similar to the guy talking in the video point to Europe as a panacea, but the reality is much different. Living in tiny flats, having to "go out to a park" to get a tiny taste of nature. It's a highly unnatural way to live
In addition, our cities are too far apart to support anything but our current transportation system. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people adapting to the best solution they could afford.
Maybe I missed it, but some states use their fuel tax to actually fix their roads while other states just add the money to the general fund and neglect their infrastructure. This is really unfair especially in light of Biden's infrastructure bill. Do the neglectful states get more money?
@@teekay_1 "Living in tiny flats, having to "go out to a park" to get a tiny taste of nature. It's a highly unnatural way to live"
you don't need to lie just to show your preference. What do you think people did before the invention of cars? They lived in the city where they could walk to where they needed to go so it being "highly unnatural" is a really funny way of describing high density housing that existed for centuries. Needing to get into a metal box to drive 1-5 miles is more unnatural than walking or biking there. Also tiny flats aren't the only options in a city with sane zoning laws..
"In addition, our cities are too far apart to support anything but our current transportation system. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was people adapting to the best solution they could afford."
So in one breath you agree that it's a problem but defend it? We literally created this system in the golden age of the US where we were effectively the world's only superpower and was very wealthy so it wasn't the "best solution we could afford" We just spent money propping up a system for a military reason rather than a people reason (The highways was intended to be so that we could move our assets around quickly by any means we can in case of war). Our cities "being too far apart" doesn't excuse the poor use of lands or transits offering that they have. It would only really explain city to city transit (which it doesn't but that's an entirely different topic).
@@Shadowninja1200 People have lived in the wide open for dozens of millennia. Large cities has been around for only a fraction of that.
Don't care that you've convinced yourself that you enjoy living in cramped city, but it is odd that you don't let the people who have decided not to live that lifestyle must be forced into a system that you approve of.
@@teekay_1 The suburban experiment was a planned system that forced people into the car dependency we have today. That sounds much more like forcing people into a lifestyle they did not choose. If we followed traditional urban development, suburbs and rural areas would certainly still exist and people would be free to choose to live there. I would argue they would be better without car dependency, since less car dependency would literally free up the roads for those who do drive. Urban areas have become so expensive because they are constrained by suburbs and still have high demand. Additionally, car dependent suburbs are not financially sustainable for so many towns and cities. Building roads and single family houses use so much land that generate little revenue for the towns and cities responsible for maintaining them. This literally bankrupts towns and cities, and also forces them from properly maintaining themselves which contributes to so many run down towns.
Additionally, the government building infrastructure in such a way that requires citizens to pay thousands for a car, and hundreds to own and maintain it is a failure. We should be much more upset that most people cannot live without sending so much of their money to car companies, insurance companies, oil companies, etc. Our government built infrastructure that benefits these companies far more than it does the people it was built for.
Maybe an interesting video idea would be exploring any connection to car dependence and the health of the residence of the area vs health of places that are less car dependent. I was thinking about everyone is saying "fix your posture, fix your posture!" which is great if you can incorporate it, but why don't we ever talk about how every single part of our life is designed around sitting? Even when we're moving in cars, we're sitting. How much does this contribute to bad posture? Back and neck problems? Obesity? Heart conditions? Vision? Mental health. Hell, whenever I ride my bike, as long as I'm not in a place where I'm going to get ran over, I find it almost meditative. That has to have some good effects on the brain over a long stretch of time.
Define "every single part of our life," because there's a HUGE amount of people throughout the USA (and the world) where they're on their feet for 7 or more hours of their day at their job.
@@ViperOfMino I think work in tons of scenarios is also horrible for your health. Sitting all day, or standing in place all day, or doing hard manual labor for long stretches of time, etc.
So work can be a place designed for sittign, isn't always though, though does often cause health problems in other ways.
@@dominoot2652 also doing strenuous physical labor into advanced ages, especially with politicians wanting to increase retirement ages.
you get to stop and take in your surroundings rather than them being muffled like you're in a phone booth. biking to work everyday got me out of my anxiety shell and I started to wave and chat with people in my city and feeling more connected to the place you live definitely helps
@@Littleweenaman automobiles definitely contribute to social isolation.
Love that shot of Madrid Metro. We are watching this from our hotel room in the Schwepps building overlooking Callao station! (Americans on vacation lamenting the stupidity of our urban choices while in countries that "get it")
Jacob Geller has an amazing video essay called Cities Without People that spends a lot of time discussing the ideas in this video. Absolutely worth a watch!
Gotta love Jacob Geller
Greetings on keeping this channel one of the most trascendent towards sustainable urbanism and mobility.
I dunno, I feel this video came across as classist. Taxing new vehicles higher? That just raises the barrier to entry and the super rich still hardly notice. Any time a punishment is a fine, it's a rule for the little people, not the rich.
@@Mcfunface Acquiring and mantaining a car is not cheap even without taxes. That's what channels as this are all about.
The idea should be geared to improve public transportation everywhere so it is cheap and convenient for everybody to move around without the need to have a car. Now for those that need a vehicle to work, another benefit is that streets wouldn't be choked with traffic.
In the end the idea is that everyone can have enough viable transportation alternatives so that buying a car should not be a "must", but a "maybe" at most.
Thanks! I recently went to Johannesburg (from Cape Town) and it’s really sprawling. But I think that sprawl is based on segregation (there’s lots of apartheid legacy town planning). Like the richest folks live in gated communities in “secure/ safe” housing complexes so the segregation inception probably make’s having a pizza delivered hellishly impossible. In contrast, a TikTok I watched was explaining how in Germany they purposefully mix rich and poor people in the same neighbourhoods. Like you don’t know if your neighbour is living in social housing or is a millionaire. So like if it interests you it would be cool to see how car dependency is related to segregation because the cookie cutter houses in USA look very “Gauteng security complex” to me.
We have higher fuel tax than USA (not quite European) but still have the sprawl problem - partly apartheid but also partly copying the USA approach to economics and planning
This is super interesting, thanks!
Trust me, the actual millionaires (with more than a million disposable cash, not in real estate value) know very well how to not live among the plebs. In Germany and elsewhere.
In many EU countries, like mine, cars are taxed depending on their engine power. So cheaper, smaller and more efficent cars are extra xheap in the long term. While SUVs for example are much more expensive.
Yeah, I used like a 90th percentile worst case example of vehicle type for Denmark
I'm glad to see you talking about this! I've been looking into the cost of vehicle ownership lately as I've been looking at moving to a place that will allow me to live car free. One other (not so) shocking thing the US does to keep gas prices low is offer massive subsidies to the oil industry. Apparently 2022 was a record year for how much the US government gave to big oil too.
Probably has something to do with the Covid shutdown. Prices crashed very temporarily, but long enough for companies to write down the value of their reserves and wells (which is largely how the US subsidizes oil; it's not direct like Saudi Arabia).
Cheers. I always think about it terms of our social quality as well. Since we are so socially isolated in our micro mobility pods (in our cars), it really separates us from the rest of our community. Instead of saying hello to our neighbors, we are looking at their blinker to see if they are merging with our lane. There is no easy and quick fix. It'll be important for us to know which ways that we should improve for the future. Your channel helps to highlight real improvements in transit (like rail) for a collective societal focus.
Love seeing ads for Shell interspersed throughout this video. The TH-cam algorithm really knows how to pair advertisers with a receptive audience!
Another huge subsidy is parking. Zoning laws mandate a surfeit of off-street parking, curbside parking is given away for free or at least very cheap (like $25/year where market prices are $100-300/month). The value of all the parking spaces is plausibly greater than that of a new car, especially if any of them are in multi-level garages.
I don't know how the EU handles it, but in Japan, overnight street parking is banned by national law, and in order to buy a car you have to show the police that you have a space for it. Either one at home (and they'll come look) or a long-term commercial lease, which in the big cities is probably costing you $300/month. Oh, and parking requirements are much lower or even non-existent, so if you want parking with your apartment you pay separately for that.
Strikingly, despite having to pay for parking, and about twice US gas prices, and steep tolls on intercity highways, Japan still has a lot of cars. But it's a lot easier to live without one...
Living here in North America it seems like the philosophy is "this place sucks so we made it ultra easy for you to drive somewhere else, like so easy you barely have to move your arms". Then when you get to that other place it also sucks because of all the cars driving through it to another place that also sucks and so on. It's like all public space and government is obsessed with getting cars and trucks through and out of their own area and spends almost no effort on making a neighborhood or downtown a destination you'd like to go to or stay in.
Private businesses, restaurants, cafes, are trying to attract people while the infrastructure is designed to get rid of people. Even if you buy into car culture as soon as you want to stop to have a coffee or buy something then everyone is honking at you for daring to turn into a driveway or parallel park. In North American cities if you are travelling from out of town if you go with the flow the road network and other traffic funnels you through with no chance to stop and see anything and the next thing you know you're on the opposite side of town leaving city limits.
Not only automobiles but also air conditioning and cheap wood frame house construction have opened otherwise unappealing regions up to intense development. Suburbs wouldn’t exist in the American sunbelt if not for air conditioning and cheap driving.
Something that's always funny to me when I lived in Houston was that people will admit the city kind of sucks (especially the ones who grew up there) and that the best thing to do was to take a flight to somewhere else. Houston is one of the most car dependent large cities in America and isn't a good tourist destination, of course you want to go someplace else!
@@machtmann2881 so much for a city that's famous for being "cheap".
A great thing in France for exemple is that there are taxes based on engine size, power, and emmissions. When I moved to north america I was quite shocked to discover that there is no incentive here for you to drive a Corolla instead of a pick-up truck. Gas is so cheap relative to wages that you don't even think about fuel economy when shopping for a car. The base engine for a familly minivan is a 200hp 3.0L V6, wich is nuts !
I live near a very busy street in Berlin. When the war in Ukraine started, gas prices skyrocketed to some 2.20 € per LITTER (about $8 per gallon!).
Yet, the same congestionv as always. Every morning. Only one person in most cars.
I wonder at what price people would finally start to car pool (which should be much easier in the age of smartphones), work from home or use other modes of transportation.
And other options do exist: There is an underground line under the same street, the trains run every 5 minuets. There are buses at night. There are cycling lanes on that street. Rental bikes and electric scooters are everywhere. And btw, the city is totally walkable.
Some people are hell bent on driving for no good reason. and in my opinion, costing them more money and inconveniencing those types is a good thing for our cities.
You touched on a very important point early on. The EU is currently extremely focused only on the emissions issue with cars. Electric cars are stupendously subsidized. Compared to a ICE powered car, an electric vehicle comes with enormous subsidies. Gas tax is only one of them - they are also typically exempt from annual registration taxes, less employment benefit taxation, usually get some form of free parking and often times are subject to higher speed limits on urban highways. It is a horrific spiel by the auto industry to try and rectify the situation over here to come closer to the US way of life while looking all green. And I wish I was joking...
I'm not sure that I buy that the EU is attempting to convert non-drivers to drivers with the expansion of electric vehicles, I think they're just trying to convert gas and diesel drivers to EV drivers which is an absolute net win. It would be better if they converted to non-drivers, but that's a low probability for at least the medium term.
Well, before electric vehicles can seriously augment conventional ones, there'll need to be a fairly extensive infrastructure of charging stations and repair and maintenance facilities that won't be economical to provide for a mere handful of electric vehicles. To me, it seems more reasonable to subsidize the proliferation of electric vehicles and let the market assume a bigger role in providing the ancillary stuff than to subsidize the ancillary stuff and hope the market for it materializes.
Can you name any places where EVs are subject to higher speed limits on urban highways?
Electric cars are not green
@@railroadforest30maybe not but they stop us being reliant on oil producers.
Another thing about the cost of car ownership. When a person owns a car, there are sunk costs that like insurance and the cost to own and maintain the vehicle. When deciding whether or not to make a trip in their vehicle, the marginal expense of the alternative relative to your own vehicle isn't accurately represented.
It’s a good point and he has mentioned it before that the key indicator if a person will use a car is if they own one.
In car-centric areas without transit as an option, it basically has to be cheap. Otherwise, people simply wouldn't have the option to travel anywhere, and many people would be without a job. Many jobs I've had specifically required me to have my own vehicle. Some jobs even require you to have specific insurance coverage for your vehicle, because it's used for work. Keeping driving inexpensive (relatively speaking) makes living and working in those areas possible.
I'd love to live in an area where driving isn't required. And anecdotally, I know many other people would as well. But we would need to seriously invest in transit before that could be possible. It's worth noting that many jobs that require a vehicle don't offer mileage. That means the entire burden falls on the shoulders (and bank account) of the worker. Forcing them to spend even more money out of pocket would be a serious punishment. And it would target the people who can least afford it.
many cities in EU did exactly that and it made more people poor and loose their jobs.... :( I still remember how my uncle in vienna had to lose his job because someone decided that parking should cost more then a apartment and that a biking path is more important then someones parking...
@@faustinpippin9208 Honestly, I think the aversion to anyone losing a job, ever, is one of the political sentiments that has kept the boot on top of the poor. If a job doesn't pay well enough to cover fuel, or rent, or whatever else, it shouldn't exist. The job should pay better (or cover it's own costs, same difference) and if that's not economically viable, the business should fail. There are other things society could be using it's labour force on besides minimum wage service jobs. We do not need a minimum wage part time job that barely pays rent for everyone. We need better jobs, and fewer barely profitable businesses squatting on land and leeching off society by not paying a living wage.
@@faustinpippin9208wouldn’t it be nice if your job payed for your gas money. And if you didn’t drive they payed for part of your rent
@@darthmaul216What's the point of your hypotheticals?
@@faustinpippin9208 The bike path probably serves hundreds of times as many people as the parking spaces it replaced.
I often think about all the deaths, injuries, and emissions couldve been prevented if we never became a car dependent society in the first place. Makes me sad to think about
I was almost hit by a car at least twice when crossing the crosswalk when the signal was given for me, and a car was turning right each time. Unfortunately in most of the United States turning right is allowed on a red light.
Not just the deaths and injuries. Think about how much of a problem it is if all of a sudden you don't have a car anymore? You are isolated and you put your job at risk not having a reliable transportation. Cars are expensive and probably one of the main reasons people are struggling financially imho.
Also the environmental damage
Cars are fun. Death happens. US emissions is a penny in the sea compared to other countries.
Definitely a breath of fresh air after listening to so many people whine about the cost of gas. I don't think most Americans realize how much cheaper it is here than in Europe.
Unfortunately at this point the country is already built around cars and I just don't see high gas prices creating a strong incentive to invest in public transit when the easy "shortcut" of simply making fuel cheap again will have massive political momentum. Even a modest $4 is enough to motivate war and destructive drilling practices.
Gas has been around $5.00 per gallon here in the San Francisco Bay Area seemingly for years. Sometimes it's a bit less, usually it's a bit more. Nobody cares. If it was above $8.00 per gallon or whatever the "electric charging" equivalent is, then I do see serious upgrades to public transportation in many areas. It would have to be at that higher rate for at least three to five years before political pressures build enough to seek substantial change.
Chester, you would have to also prevent backsliding like electrified is saying. That is indeed the path of least resistance, and requires probably consensus that there is a coming ecological disaster. In the US that probably means the Republican party needs to either change or go extinct. Former is more likely as young Republicans do poll better on climate change, but unfortunately by the time they control the party (decades from now) climate change will be MUCH worse.
This is a really important video, thanks for doing it. I know you briefly mentioned the social isolation of car-dependency, but I think that needs to be talked about more. We're all atomized and isolated from community by neoliberalism and the car-culture that it has constructed in the US and Canada. Bad land use, lack of third spaces, hell even the lack of public transit does so much more to isolate us than we think and it leads to all sorts of socio-psychological issues
Maybe people just don't like other people.
@@sammyrice1182 nah, we're inherently community-oriented. This is supported by all recent anthropological study
Good points. What do you think of the One Small Town strategy to use collaboration, co-operation and co-ownership to create communities of abundance and prosperity that would also incentivize better public transit and walkability?
@@coolioso808 Personally, I think we need to abandon ship on capitalism, but I know not everyone has come to that conclusion yet. I'll have to look into the One Small Town strategy--haven't heard of it! I'm all for public co-ownership and co-operation.
@@sammyrice1182 I can get behind that answer.
I noticed that when US gas prices increased quickly 16 months ago, the President of the one party taking climate change seriously made pleas to Saudi Arabia and former foe Venezuela to increase production. Politicians of both our parties understand that high gas prices affect how people vote.
Strongly recommend reviewing the upper peninsula of Michigan for the outdoor access video. Marquette, houghton, and duluth in Minnesota are worth a check.
Car ownership's cost are front loaded. Where I live the buses only run until dinnertime, so I need a car for those other times (although Uber and Lyft are making that less so... cabs sometimes wouldn't even run out this far, despite being only 8.1 miles away from the NYS Capitol building, in the middle of a 30k pop suburb, in an apartment complex with 155 units on 10 acres, in a cluster of apartment complexes). Since I need a car, I have to own a car ($13.5) and pay car insurance ($80/mo.) I get 35 mpg (I would have gone electric, but since I'm on disability/fixed income I couldn't get the tax credit to upgrade my Spark to the electric version.) That means most places I'm going to drive it actually costs me less to drive than to take the bus. I'll walk to my doctor in the summer (about 6 miles round trip) if I'm not sick, and to the store (1/4 mile) if I'm getting few enough groceries I can carry them. But most trips I take are well under 10 miles, most under 5 round trip. There are stroads to deal with (we do have sidewalks, but they don't entirely connect without having to cross the stroad). The bus is $2 per leg, or $65/mo, for service that only runs in the middle of the day. My apartment complex, when I bought my bike, said they'd put in a bike rack, but they only put them in the far part of the complex and they are full of kid bikes because they don't have enough (and don't have a system to clear out derelict bikes... they had the same problems with cars... we had a car with 10 year expired registration and 3 flats sitting out front... some resident had died... there were actually 3 cars in the lot). They've taken away two of our closets (a storage unit off the laundry room that they stopped letting us use for insurance reasons- apparently they kept getting sued for water damage and because it wasn't technically part of our apartment it wasn't covered by renters, and a large on demand gas furnace/hot water heater that replaced our electric heat... paid for by a government grant). If I want to ride my bike I have to haul it up stairs because I live in a back/basement facing apartment, and the only closet it would fit in is at the back of the apartment across carpet.
Marketplaces can't perform market functions if costs are hidden or externalized instead of being rolled into prices of commodities. Few examples show this principle better than the US transportation sector. Top to bottom, and horizon to horizon, it's so distorted that it's absurd to even call it a market, except in the barest sense that things are bought and sold in it. And here's the secret, hiding in plain sight: that's what makes it profitable. Market features like level competition, and market functions like informing participants and discovering "natural" prices, make for an arena where it's hard for firms to clear a healthy profit. But we are told all day long that what we have here is a market system. It isn't. It's rigged to a laughable extent, and no one seems to question it.
Drivers licenses are way too easy to attain in the US. Making the tests harder would improve traffic, reduce accidents and increase transit use.
LoL no. It would just punish the poor that cannot pay for the test prep. It would also not build any infrastructure just because the test is harder. This is too silly
The fatality stats you brought up are wild.
I remember doing this exercise week 1 of my transportation planning course. Good stuff!
I'm less than 1 minute into the video, so this might be addressed, but I just did a very quick search on why America has cheap gas. It's because we don't pay nearly as much tax as the EU does, which doesn't cover the cost of car infrastructure. Our real cost for gas should be double what we pay right now in 2023.
Since there is such a huge push to going to EV, I think a larger registration tax would be the way to generate more funding for transportation infrastructure. Make the car drivers subsidize the rail, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure so we have funding to make cities more dense and pedestrian friendly.
I used to dive 32 miles for work, have 35mpg car at under $3.00/gallon and my total cost was $350 a month everything put together
After discovering that, I got a job in town and have been living healthier and had more energy (because of cycling being a good workout) and will never go back
And for anything I'd need outside of town that one time a year, I can just rent a car, which is much cheaper than owning one and only using it once a year.
People just drive more if gas is cheaper. The average cost of owning a vehicle is about $11,000 a year from AAA. I had a friend whose father rear ended someone with their company truck. They totaled the company truck that they used to make money, totalled the vehicle they hit, and injured the driver. Their life is about to be real difficult. I'd rather be on the bus than in their shoes.
"
he average cost of owning a vehicle is about $11,000 a year from AAA.
"
It's nothing near that.
@@AllenGraetz driving your mom's car and having your dad pay for gas doesn't apply to you.
@@AllenGraetz "The overall average cost to own and operate a new car in 2022
is $10,728." -- AAA. I would link, but TH-cam.
They do specify new car, and "over five years and 75,000 miles", and it's averaged over everything from small sedans to absurd pickup trucks. You can do better by buying the right car, and then driving it into the ground. But even with very optimistic assumptions, it's still $3000/year.
@@mindstalk When I bought my SUV brand new and the gas prices in California in addition to the California registration fees, insurance,and snog check I was spending about $12,000 a year. Then I moved to Texas so insurance is more expensive but the vehicle inspection doesn't require a smog test and registration is a fraction of what California is but the cost of owning a vehicle still balanced to about the same. Then once the vehicle has about 3 years on it the cost for vehicle maintenance went up.
Video Topic Suggestion: A video on small old cities that are perfect for revitalization. Cities that have good bones, were once walkable and could easily be again, low property values, architecture worth saving, but they have fallen on hard luck or been forgotten for some reason. My suggested city: Elmira, NY.
We (US citizens) do pay taxes for our driving addiction, they're just other taxes that fund the externalities: more expensive healthcare from everyone being sedentary, more crime = bigger police force which uses 1/3 or more of the entire city budget, more taxes to fund government services since they're not getting any substantial revenue from half the city being used for parking, taxes to fund school bus systems because kids can't walk or bike to school anymore, etc -- the list is long.
I wish america could be like Japan, urbanism and trains everywhere with some scenic mountain roads for driving.
If I could walk, bike, or ride a train for 99% of my needs and drive 1% for the pure enjoyment and thrill of drifting through a hairpin turn, I would be so happy. Why can’t america be more like Japan in terms of transportation?
Cars and trucks should be for last mile delivery and recreational drifting on mountain roads. Using either for commuting or long haul delivery is silly.
Because they lost the war.
I completely agree with this, I traveled to Japan long ago when I used to work for the airlines, and I really enjoyed not having to stress of renting a car in a new place, and just relaxing on the train and reading something or having a Bento box with a Japanese meal on the train and easily get around big cities or even walking in the neighborhood easily.
The Japanese get rich exporting cars. They sell the car problem to someone else as Norway exports and gets rich off its gas and oil.
To put this respectfully, it is because Japan is not America. For example, crops from, let's say, Iowa, need to feed Los Angeles, California, and that incredible distance alone is longer than the entire length of the main island in Japan. The 2 are very different societies. Japan also has Tokyo, the most populated metro in the world, it's much more urbanized. Contrast the largest metro in the entire world with America. Here, you have a lot of small towns and so on and so forth. So while Japanese culture has its own way, America is not Japan, respectfully, there are a lot of important differences between the two societies. Hope this comment is polite and respectful, not trying to instigate, but rather draw attention to the important differences.
@@A.L.MitchellDeClerck This video provides a counterpoint to the country size argument: th-cam.com/video/REni8Oi1QJQ/w-d-xo.html
An idea for a future video:
The upside of downtowns that are 50% parking lots and wide stroads, is that they could be converted to usable real estate quite easily if the urban planning paradigm were to shift. Some American cities of quite astonishing size have a very large "property reserve" in all the land they are currently wasting on car dependency. An acre of idle land would go under the hammer for amazing sums if it was located in, say, downtown London or Milan. US cities have idle space all over their downtowns, that would be extremely valuable if they had similar development patterns.
Would it be possible to combine this with the general land value of big cities to rank North American cities based on the potential value of their "property reserve" near downtown? For instance, an acre of land in downtown Houston would be worth more than an acre of land in downtown Tuscaloosa. Comparing land values directly would be too complex, I think, not to mention inaccurate because current land values are based on current development patterns. A simpler metric based on the population of each metro area would be easier, I think. Maybe grouping cities into tiers based on their size, even. Then it'd just be a matter of comparing which cities in each size bracket have the most land currently tied up in parking lots, brownfields, road margins, or urban freeways.
Missed on this one. Moving away from car dependency is not about making driving objectively less attractive, but *relatively* less attractive. In other words, reconstructing the environment such that more efficient forms of transportation become viable alternatives to driving. It's game theory.
Forcing poor people in car dependent places to pay more for their car usage is not the solution. They didn't choose to drive everywhere, they were forced to.
Ok, how about assisting them with relocation to someplace that isn't car-dependent if they can't afford to drive everywhere?
I'm always skeptical when I hear an argument that it's necessary to allow or encourage something that's objectively bad because "economic justice."
a mix of both. build less out and build more dense development.
@@elizabethhenning778 that’s definitely an idea! Not something I remotely argued against in my original comment.
No, fixing things with gas taxes is bad, which may create a incentive to keep cars around. We need cars, becouse so many places were deliberately built for them and raising the cost of driving just raises cost of living until we deliberately build everything to prioritize people over cars.
Even though we have wild prices for buying and owning a car here in Denmark I do still regularly talk with people at work that does not think that their car is more expensive than the good public transport we got near the big cities. It baffles me. A few more kroner pr liter could hopefully go a long way to make people realize that 🙃
People that can't count won't learn by adding a few more numbers.
I know from experience that a car is cheaper most of the time, especially when you do more then just go to work and back (im from the EU so its way more expensive then it should be because of the high taxes but its still cheaper then public transport and way better)
Now factor in all the subsidies that public transport needs....
@@faustinpippin9208 I wonder where you live as excluding taxes and subsidiaries so should public transport still be cheaper then using a car. It's still cheaper in USA and they subsidy the cars.
@@faustinpippin9208 Well, I think your most of the time could be, in fact, wrong 😅 When I moved a year ago i ran the numbers and it just did not make sense.. even _after_ factoring in an e-bike lol. You must live in a place that really admires the US, cuz ain't no way that "a car is cheaper most of the time" in most of the EU :3
@@LisaMiza Im talking from experience, im not the only one who knows this
on top of that public transport will never be better then a car, unless its some high speed rail that goes 500km/h
and if you try making all public transport better then a car you will have to waste way more money then on fuel subsidies
I always share this vid to help people understand what we're up against... Would love to see a top 10 cities with potential that have no interstate. Great analysis!i!i
Thanks for the idea!
And people act like I’m crazy because I want gas prices to go up.
Regarding taxing electric cars:
In the UK, the sales tax on domestic electricity is 5% and subject to the domestic energy pricing cap of 34.34p/kWh. On electricity from public car charging points, it is 20%, and there is no pricing cap. The nearest Tesla Supercharger to me charges 52p/kWh. While you can, and many people do, charge their car from a domestic plug, there is a limit to the number of km you can do per day that way, so anyone doing lots of driving every day is going to have to charge at a public charge point at some point during the day.
And, given that the tax rate on public chargers is already higher, it could be increased in future without any difficulty.
Very few people charge from a domestic socket at home. Most EV drivers have a home charger. Almost nobody drives so far on a typical day that they need to stop to charge.
@@gchecosse That is true if you look at number of people, but not if you look at number of km driven. Most kms are driven by people who drive lots of kms.
I live in Japan. Every two years we have to have our car undergo an "inspection." Depending on the class of your car, this inspection is quite expensive. My cars in the cheapest class, the so-called K-car class which are cars with engines no bigger than 660cc. The 2 year inspection costs about $450. Bigger cars with bigger motors can pay up to $1500. Gasoline isn't so bad at $4.50 per gallon. I think a higher gas tax is absolutely vital in the USA. But that is a third rail issue like gun rights that politicians try to avoid.
Lol I love how your images of NV are meant to show just what a "car hell" it is. Meanwhile I'm looking at it, with the twelve lane road just down the street, I'm just like "dang those are some nice sidewalks!"
The Kyoto Protocol from more than a decade ago is of course dead and was replaced by The Paris Agreement in 2016.
The United States was the first country to withdraw from The Paris Agreement.
(hops on very very high horse)
The US did not withdraw from the Paris Accords. They were never ratified in the US.
@@AllenGraetzTrump withdrew from it and Biden withdrew his withdrawal.
Cheap/free parking is a major factor as well. what if free parking was allowed only for short periods of time or by permit only?
A much higher federal fuel tax could be made bearable for the driving poor by offsetting with an income-based tax credit/dividend, available for up to, say, $40k earners with a steep decline beyond that.
I used to hate the high cost of gas in Europe, but thinking of all this over the last 10-20 years, it makes way more sense to tax it higher to provide better public transit and force the manufacturers to build cars that use way less gas. I just watched a car video with some cars from Mercedes, Audi and BMW and they got about 45 Miles per gallon on average. Since these are more luxurious cars, I am sure that smaller cars are more like 50-55 Miles per gallon. Due to the low taxes in USA, there is no incentive for manufacturers to invest in more fuel efficient cars and people do not care as gas is still comparably cheap.
there is some benefit to producing more fuel-efficient cars in the states but it’s generally outweighed by the desire for space and size. plus the effects from the chicken tax so SUVs and trucks don’t have to meet standards.
Video/topic suggestion: Small scale transportation - elevators vs escalators vs stairs. Maybe in the context of a large transit hub and people changing between metro lines.
Like capacity? There's a whole theoretical thing about how escalators should be used to maximize utility and throughput
@@CityNerd yeah, thinking mainly capacity/throughput, and indeed how one-line queuing is not optimal. I'm sure there are videos on the subject on YT already but maybe a ground hog day type race could be fun and illuminating.
The free market would actually destroy car dependency. If road construction and maintenance had to be privately fundraised to make a profit, they would never build the infrastructure.
11:02 The Danish may be happy, but they’ll never have American freedom!! (Sarcasm mode: ON, full power)
Lol most Americans would be bitching in a week living like the danes
So $70B in annual gas revenues, some googling says road maintenance costs $130B annually in the US. I'm sure there are other revenues (registration, tolls). I think a video showing how much POV roads are subsidized, versus trains, buses and bike/walk paths. Considering California's transit fiscal cliffs, this feels relevant
Since when is driving a low cost?! Cars are the second biggest investment after houses.
Have you compared it to how much a coffee costs at the drive-through?
Don't forget the parking spaces required for our cars at home, work, where you shop and the sea of concrete roads - for something we use 4% of the time. Those space and sprawl forces us to build further and further out. With the Coastal mountain range in California, we run out land to build and house prices skyrocket. If those parking spaces near work were converted to affordable nearby medium density housing, there would be no need for cars and commutes. Not needing to pay for a car and high housing cost would go a long way to making our wages more competitive and lessen offshoring of our jobs.
Meticulous and insightful as always, thanks! [Bonus thanks! for all the Sahara-level dry humor]
Those types of taxes, like against cigarettes, are also called excise taxes.
My finance degree just couldn't resist lol
Sadly, what you say is quite true. Cheap gasoline has made the USA absolutely car & truck dependent. So many people's lives are 100% car dependent. I always wonder how people survived during WWII when gas was strictly rationed and most Americans had to get along with only 3 or 4 gallons per week. Gas chiseling was a national scandal but most people complied, sacrificed, coped and used public transportation or stayed home!
ya i wouldn’t survive. i use a gallon of gas one way to work. even in cities the better paying logistics and warehouse jobs are way out
War state austerity without a war is a sure way to cause your population to start a civil war 😂
The military budget is partially designed to protect a cheap oil supply. Therefore, the gas price should reflect this cost. Cost of extra health care due to pollution, to name a few.
I live in the Netherlands, that one country with the highest fuel related taxes apparently lol, in Hengelo, province Overijssel to be very specific, I can definitely confirm, the high fuel taxes are visible wherever you walk and bike, let alone drive around, there is already a night and day difference when you cross the border to Germany, the moment I do I feel like I left the comfort of my bed, you can just tell it's just not up to certain standards that you're used too, don't even mention Belgium though, I still have nightmares.
Jay Foreman mentioned Stevenage in england as sort of an example of this in one of his “unfinished london”s
Word of the week - "externality"
Please use it weekly. It is definitely an underutilized word.👍
Thanks!
No problem!
Great topic! Don't underestimate the determination and strength of the petroleum-industrial complex worldwide. Why do you assume that the transition to EV's is inevitable? Do you think all that petro-capital is going to evaporate? They're going to fight to the last drop.
Warning I may not understand the details of VAT. The VAT is a 20% charge on sales, but the seller can recover a 20% a rebate on their own cost of sales. Which is why I think it is called a tax on value added. So I think there are subtleties to the VAT that make it very different from a typical American sales tax.
Great video as always. There is something odd at play that I didn’t hear you mention. Fuel efficiency. I have a Mazda CX-3 here in Vienna. 2020. 6 speed manual. It gets 53mpg on the highway (my actual mileage). The same (ok, automatic) 2 liter CX-3 in the US is rated at 34 mpg. That means I use 45% less fuel here. But I’m paying $6.40/gallon. So folks back home pay half for gas but get 45% less efficiency. Hear this from other folks who have lived in both places. Is that really so car centric ? Yes. But no. Coz folks probably don’t realize they’re being duped by the car manufacturers in this regard. Thankfully I average only 500-600 miles per month in the car due to about that much in cycling and great public transit here. But maybe a topic for another video on why there is a huge efficiency gap.
Nope, it's government regulations. Small, high mpg cars are not allowed into the US because they want to force people into battery powered cars (which are so great, the government has to force people to buy them).
@@Kriss_L but this has been going on since before there were electric cars. I once asked Ford if I could get a Ford Ka in the US. Mid 2000s. The car was being produced by ford in Europe. Got 55mpg. They simply said we’ll never offer that in the US.
@@TravelsWithTony does your CX-3 have a gasoline engine or diesel engine? If your car has a diesel engine that would account for your higher MPG vs the car in the US. The last time I looked the Mazda Skyactive diesel engine still isn't approved for sale in the US because it doesn't meet the EPA emissions standards.
@@andrewvenor8035 it’s a gas engine. Skyactive. It also has a feature where it switches from 4 cyl to 2 cyl when cruising at a consistent speed. That certainty helps as well. It would be good to understand the big difference
@TravelsWithTony part of the difference might be because your CX-3 has the 2.0 liter engine and a manual transmission. In the US market, Mazda uses the 2.5 liter Skyactive engine and the automatic transmission. I believe the 2.0 liter engine and the manual transmission were only offered in the US for one year on the base model CX-5 when it was first introduced in 2010.
As for the cylinder deactivation, my CX-5 has that as well. Not only does that save fuel, but it also works with the cruise control to shut off two, and sometimes all four cylinders to engine break on down slopes to maintain the programed speed.
I'm French and a reason I was given for the lower diesel tax was the lower CO2 emissions of diesel engines. Recently we've taken into account the particles emissions too, so recent diesel prices have caught up to unleaded.
I guess "rolling coal" hasn't been an issue in France?
@@dragnflye3797 Haha no. I discovered coal burning a couple years ago on the internet. I'm pretty sure we have rules against that and you'd get your car seized by the first cop who sees that.
We have something in France called technical control that you have to pass every 2 years where they check that your car is still up to road standard. I know the pollution standard on that test is light enough for well maintained older vehicles to be able to pass but I think and hope it is able to ban "coal burning" vehicles.
The other thing is that gas prices have always been high enough. Since the euro (2002) don't think I have seen gas prices (including diesel bus excluding LPG or alternative gas) under 1€/L so roughly 4$/Gal.
Carbrain McDidmyownresearch: “Sorry, ya lost me at ‘Climate Change’.”
Sydney has first class mass transport, but with a family of 4 a taxi ride becomes cheaper and a personal car would be a no brainer.
VMT and weight based taxes now!!!
You should make a video about car dependent cities in Europe
Great video, but I find this kind of analysis of “driving is too cheap” an unfortunate takeaway from the video. It seems to me like car subsidization has led to car dependence, but removing those subsidies will only make people’s lives much harder. Investment in transit should happen first, I would think, before we can afford to increase the cost of driving
The US sprawl is so big that public transport doesnt make sense besides big dense cities, you could make (good) public transport everywhere but the subsidizes would have to be bigger ironically then the current ones for fuel....
Port Angeles is right by the Olympic National Park and other awesome natural areas. We have a housing crisis here, but the city has updated their zoning to allow for greater density - still, we have people coming here who destroyed where they live but want a chunk of land all to themselves. I'd be happy if more people who are anti-car moved here, because we have a lot of potential.
Almost wish you reached a final dollar amount of the cost of car culture. Probably too complicated to be very accurate but I’m guessing it would exceed $1 trillion. Could look at differences in property values between walkable areas (using walk score) vs non walkable areas. (All per Arce). And then multiply that by number of suburban/urban acres. And then of course all the other costs you mentioned (injuries, delays, environmental harm both local and global, etc). Infrastructure costs are relevant too but then you’d probably need to account for better transit both locally and regionally.
Also, maybe a dive into initial/annual registration tax? Perhaps as a method to disincentive larger cars with lower MPGs.
London School of Economics calculated the annual cost of sprawl in USA at $1 trillion annually !!
This is traffic injuries and fatalities, congestion, pollution, more vehicle costs, more expensive complex junctions , more wear and tear due potholed roads ( cities/states cannot maintain all those roads), health effects due to inactivity/obesity etc ..
1 trillion is $3000 per capita .
and that was per person 😂
This videos reminds me of Not Just Bikes
Great video! I always look at car dependence from a more climate change perspective, but it is really important and interesting to hear about the other equally important issues that arise from car dependence. Another big thing that makes driving cheap are fossil fuel subsidies, both direct and indirect.
It's estimated that in the US we pay about $20 billion dollars per year in direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of course, these make driving cheap but they also make, well, everything cheap, most importantly food. So it's a tricky subject, because repealing fossil fuel subsidies might effectively be a regressive tax on everything, but I do not know the math well enough to argue either way. What I do know is that maybe we should be concerned with the fact that natural disasters, famines from crop failures, rising sea levels, as well as non-CO2 related issues like traffic violence, habitat destruction, and aerosol air pollution affect the poorest most.
Which leads me to indirect fossil fuel subsidies. Those are harder to calculate. The use of fossil fuels is obviously the main factor in climate change. To frame it in a way for people who care more about money than human lives, not to mention all other lifeforms: when fossil fuels are extracted and used, it causes untold amounts of harm that we pay real, actual money for. Just from the effects of climate change, it's estimated we pay trillions of dollars globally and that will rise because the emissions aren't going down anytime soon. Traffic violence is certainly an awful awful consequence of all of this and it is a very real immediate problem we need to address, but the effects from climate change are so mind boggingly catastrophic for life on this planet.
Simply put, driving is too cheap. In my opinion, if everyone who is empathetic is fully aware of all the negative externalities of driving and fossil fuels, it would help this fight immensely. But just the plain scientific fact that climate change is going to be so awful isn't even enough to convince people, or maybe it is drowned out in all the noise that people think that the real issue are plastic straws and if only we just recycle a bit more we can stop this. They will only care when they experience it firsthand, and by then it would be too late.
"It's estimated that in the US we pay about $20 billion dollars per year in direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of course, these make driving cheap but they also make, well, everything cheap"
Finally someone with more then shallow knowledge...
I like also how he "forgets" just like other ytubers that even if you dont have a car you pay the subsidies because you still benefit from the road
How is the food and other stuff showing up in stores? on what is your bike/bus driving, on what are you walking, what makes society funtion?
:)
Best solution would be making a weight/efficiency/car size limit for personal cars, less fuel burned, less damage to the road, more space in cities
Something like the tango t600 (but semi trucks will still have to exists because they are crucial to how society funtions and transports stuff)
"
The use of fossil fuels is obviously the main factor in climate change.
"
80-90% of climate change is the sun.
It might have been interesting to mention that Politicians often are forced to keep gas prices low, as how well their reelection chances correlate with how expensive gas is
Love this vid. Did you study economics in undergrad? Also would LOVE a top ten mountain cities or cities with Mountain Views video that also factors in transit!
There's some econ in a planning masters degree
If a gallon of gas is artificially cheap because of subsidies, why does a gallon of gas only about $5 in Japan? That country imports nearly 100% of their oil.
Whew, that's a bit of a downer but it's such an important point to get behind.
I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the cost of public transit for the user. Like, is there a place that's a happy medium for a transit system that isn't being funded enough, without making it undesirable to use? You seem to have a way with numbers and cost analysis. Maybe even a video on how transit costing compares across the US? (I'm Canadian but I know what your wheelhouse is.)
The cost of a ticket for Calgary transit keeps rising every few years, it's right now at $3.60 for 90 minutes to a train or bus, with $11.25 for a day pass. Something feels wrong about the day pass cost, I always want to go for it but I realize I'll never use transit more than 3 times in a day. It's cheaper to sneak onto a bus at a station, or ride a train and hop off when you see an officer approaching. (Calgary doesn't have ticketgates, it's weird.) Of course I'm too anxious to face the risk of fines or just bothering people providing a public service so I pay the fare. There is actually a low-income option for as low as $5.60/mo, which is only really findable in their main office and their website. It just feels weird and half-hearted, like there could be a way to make paying the fare feel self-evidently cheaper than owning a car than just constantly making the service feel worse and unpredictable as time goes on. Now our free fare zone downtown is sponsored by the banks. 😅 At least gas prices keep rising as transit's value becomes more evident to others.
Free public transport is the answer ... well not entirely free but equitably via our taxes
Transit pricing is weird. Farebox recovery tends to go _up_ with ridership (and transit quality), so if you dare to invest in higher frequency, you'll likely get more of it back.
If you work from economic principles like "price should equal marginal cost" then a lot of the time the price _should_ be zero; an extra subway rider costs nothing, at unless until you get to crowded levels. And it would be totally legit for the public to decide to just buy a transit system, the way we commonly buy free highways.
OTOH, given real world starting points, extra money would be better spent on improving transit than on making it free. Free shit is still shit, and most US transit is shit.
Just watched on Nebula, what a haven from YT!
i don't buy the question asker's argument, here in Portugal fuel and cars are both heavily taxed, we have lots of toll roads, and yet sprawly suburbs still exist around most cities and there's a chronic lack of rail investment in the last 40 years. I'm really skeptical that this can be solved with the sole use of taxation. Political will towards rail investment is crucial too
And overall wealth. The U.S. government borrows and spends HUGE amounts of money on a vast array of projects, mostly for the good of private corporations. I don't think Portugal is that corrupted.
One of the best ideas I heard spitballed by a random pundit in 2008-09 was a variable gas tax that would go up as the market price went down and vice versa, it would essentially set a price floor of probably $4/gal in today's money which would at a minimum hold back selection of those vehicle characteristics that exacerbate pollution and safety issues you were talking about.