It all starts with fixing the zoning code. Cars will always be "more convenient" if we keep destroying our cities to make space catering to them.

Design a city around electric wheelchairs and you’ll have a system accessible to everyone.

Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.

The number you're looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They're almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.

So, how do you do that?

Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.

The private sector is more difficult. We'd need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn't need a car to go between cities.

Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we're incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.

Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people's quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.

While we're in cycles, the elites are riding in their luxurious car, and flying in their private jets producing all the emissions the world needs.

Yet! We have to deprive ourselves from vehicles, and they be enjoying life.

I mean.. they're making things for us generally. I don't think they're emitting recreationally. Look at a pie chart of total emissions and figure what you could cut to hit 50%. Do away with all transportation.. Boats planes etc and you're not even close.

In the USA at least. In Europe it's everything but perfect, of course, but at least we have some public transport in cities and between them.

But yeah, the bike paths here in Austria are just getting bigger since some years again - and every cm seems to be a hard fight...

Cities were not built around cars, they were bulldozed for the car.

Cities were built to be walkable, and had trams for everything else. Then we invented the car and General Motors essentially took america by the balls and forced everyone in americs to become dependant on the car

The problem is that destinations are spread too far apart for walking, viable transit, etc. because the zoning code forces developers to build low density and massive amounts of parking.

Right, that's why we need to stop subsidizing streets and roads, make users pay the cost of them, and put the tax money toward transit. It's really impossible to ask anybody but the most devoted to make extremely inconvenient choices. Certainly, there are some lunatics who'd drive a car even if it took 1.5 hours, but most people would choose the 17 minute bus.

Cheaper, sustainable, safer, better for mental health, better for non-drivers (children, elderly, disabled). It just makes sense.

I also had a commute of about 17min with car. The same route with an electric bike takes me 35min. I'm not out of breath with it and I still have some exercise. I still take my car when it rains.

Alot of people forget that just becuase a bus commute works for them doesn't mean it works for everyone.

Alot of people have a legitimate reason for owning a car, and if we want then to use public transit then we need public transit to fit their needs in travelling.

You don't have to replace your commute, if its not feasable. But you could try replacing other smaller trips with a bike if you can. Like trips to the grocery store or doctors appointment.

Truthfully if the infrastructure to do these things doesn't exist for you, then don't endanger yourself.

40 minutes is a long ride, true. Maybe buy a foldable bike or a bike rack for your car, park your car outside of the city and reduce car traffic by riding from there to your workplace by bike? It sure would make this city a better place.

I used to do a 40 minute bike commute twice a day. Once it becomes part of your routine those 40 minutes are easy to conquer. Now I do the same distance by speed pedelec in 25 minutes. I'm faster at work now than when I used to go by car.

If you can't make the trip safe though, than you shouldn't. But you can, like me, start out on nice days and incorporate into your days as a workout just to try an see.

You're allowed to drive if there's no other infrastructure connecting point A to point B. This post is dumb because it lacks nuance. There are some cases where driving makes sense. If you live in a city where other options are safe and reliable, you should use those instead. And if you live in a city where there should be safe and reliable options but there aren't, well that's what you should be really upset about.

Nobody is trying to get rid of cars for those in rural areas, as that's unfeasible. The ONLY place people genuinely care about cars existing is in cities where they can be built and changed to be walkable. I shouldn't NEED a car to get to a grocery store. I shouldn't NEED a car to get to work. I should NEED a car to get to anything fun to do. This is a feasible goal.

It's about choice. I have no choice but to have a car. I don't want a car. I am forced to have a car because the alternative is... There is no alternative, right now.

It's about the freedom to have the choice to not drive.