I agree but I think it’s much easier the other way around. First improve the infrastructure, then incentivize people to use it.

I mean, zoning reform needs to happen before transit is a viable option. Miles and miles of low density sfhs and strip malls will never be able to be effectively served by transit because a transit system can't possibly be efficient enough to both serve a reasonable number of people and get people where they are going in a timely fashion. Its just geometry.

Love that you're holding BART up as a shining example.

For getting to anywhere in the city it's awful. Within the city all lines share the same stops. if you want to go east-ish/west-ish either no you don't, or you have to transfer to a bus (which is an additional fare since MUNI is a different agency).

So would it be better at getting people into the city? Again, no. To go from my school (Cal State East Bay) to 16th and mission, a place that I went to basically weekly took about 58% longer than driving (I'm bad at math, so that may be off, but 40 vs 70 minutes). Additionally, I just did a fare caluclation, and now a round trip fare for that trip is $13.50. If I drove, it's 2 gallons of gas and the $8.50 bridge toll. While driving is slightly more expensive, the save time and "last mile" convenience usually outweighed it for me.

Oh, and the hours were super limiting on week nights (when I would go to the city).

Famously amazing BART system

Haha….hahahahHahahahaHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

…you spend too much time on Internet forums and not enough time riding transit lol

Edit: I see the “Your lived experience is invalid” people are showing up today.

Not impossible. Just very difficult. Source: I lived there for several years without a car, moved close to where I worked (twice), biked and walked most of the time, some public transit when the routes lined up, had very little social life. If there was a special event across town, could use some money saved from not having a car to spring for a taxi.

Really? I grew up there and didn't know that.

You have to have a car as it stands today unfortunately

The problem is you can't solve the problem by simply removing the car. There are 3 major phases to commuting: 1st mile, primary transit, and last mile. A car solves all 3 at once, which is why it's very easy to design around cars.

And the frustrating thing is, you really do need all 3 in a lot of places. I live in Texas where it can be triple digit temperatures for 5 months of the year.

Granted I moved away a long time ago, happy to hear it's improved.

it's not a 'pr stunt', it's a research study.

This is the second phase of the program. It's already been successful.

Building on a successful pilot in Santa Monica, Metro is expanding the One Car Challenge to all of LA County in Summer 2026. This time, we’re inviting approximately 2,000 households to participate — and for the first time, one-car households are welcome.

Except those people will tell other people how it went... For better or worse.

yeah, but then the homeless would use it.

I was just at a bus stop and no one wanted to use those awful standing benches so a guy decided to sit on top of a gas line cage instead. It's crazy how infrastructure is somehow more ergonomic than anti homeless furniture.

but then how will we kick people when their down?!

Also roads are typically paid for by new road building subsidies... Meaning more roads and no maintenance.

Yes, but it's more a matter of scale. And most cities still charge bus fare. It costs cities 10x as much money to support one car commute as one bike commute, but you would be hard pressed to find a city that put even an equal amount of dollars into bike infrastructure as car infrastructure.

So just ask people to answer survey questions. Go to some college campuses where a lot of students commute to and ask why are they paying hundreds a semester to park in a parking lot instead of taking the horrifyingly slow and inconsistent public transport.

The point was that it's paying people who have options other than using public transportation, which would also correlate to them having more money than those who already have no other option.

An extreme comparison would be that it's sort of like paying billionaires to try to pollute a bit less.

I think universal programs tend to have more public support.

That's not enough to replace the utility of a car for most people in LA.

because it's not 'right now'. You either get $120 a week or the 600 after five weeks. Emergencies don't just wait for you to have the money for them

No one is stopping a car owner from doing that, but many will forget. And they will be unpleasantly surprised and might not join such a challenge again. Hence my heads up

I've been on plenty of vacations but never one that lasted 5 weeks.

My message was meant for people who do not take these things into account. As there are many of them.

Also, you can definitely permanently damage your battery by letting it discharge too far. This is due to a process called hard sulfation.

It's a stupid study designed to answer the question "if we give money to just car owners or just rich people... will they be happy/comply". One of the problems is it costs money to measure/police compliance for any conditional aid.

Another approach to discouraging undesirable behaviour is to tax it. Revenue instead of expense, including just funding such a pointless study. Parking fees/taxes where you don't want people to go is pretty easy.