Live data from Hacker News

Cars Kill Cities

progressivetransit.wordpress.com

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#41
post #7

The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather, and are much less tiring than trying to lug bags from one place to another on buses or other public transport. They also place far fewer constraints on when you can travel. Of course it's possible to structure…

[deleted]

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#42
post #35

FYI, the author of that post address self-driving cars in his next post: http://progressivetransit.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/self-driv...

That betrays the basic attitude of these anti-car folks. It's not the cars, but the freedom to live where you want that they detest.

They also detest the democratization of wealth, which invariably results in some form of "sprawl." It's either the horizontal sprawl of endless little palaces of Versailles with their little lawns, or it's the vertical sprawl of monstrous energy-sucking megastructures full of luxury condominiums. But in either case the result of democratized wealth does not give fellatio to agrarian-utopian fantasies.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars doesn't change much. Supposing that there would exist car sharing systems such that a single car may be used throughout the day by several people, then we could cut back on parking spots, but I'm sure there will be many that own their own self driving car and share it with no one. During morning rush hour the only difference from now would be that commuters could do the crossword puzzle instead of f…

Incorrect. If you have self-driving cars, the entire flow of traffic could be much more efficient, virtually eliminating traffic jams. You could drive at the speed limit with a lot smaller distance between cars, etc, packing in a greater density of people without sacrificing speed.

I think you'll see some gains in efficiency, but negligible compared to how efficiently we can move people via rapid transit. At the end of the day you're still going to be having most often a single person in a large vehicle that takes up a lot of room on the road.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#44
In the East Bay, I ride a 3000w electric scooter. A kWh of power is a good days ride, commute, shopping and socializing (I tend to charge twice a day, because I can).

Please consider joining me: the more scooters there are the safer we all get to be. It's fun! When you get going fast, you can't even hear the motor, just the wind.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#45
New York City recently launched it's CitiBike program and set up bike racks in spots that used to be reserved for street parking and you should have seen people flipping out despite the fact that less than 50% of us actually own cars. And let's not forget about the amount of space we dedicate cars being able to move around.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#46
post #9
post #7

The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather, and are much less tiring than trying to lug bags from one place to another on buses or other public transport. They also place far fewer constraints on when you can travel. Of course it's possible to structure…

Self driving electric cars that people pay for on a subscription model (rather than ownership) are the future I'd like to see. I hope it happens during my lifetime.

Yep. I've used Zipcar in lieu of a car before (and now own a car that I use maybe once every two weeks), but there was just enough friction due to having to walk to the nearest available car (the closest location to us wasn't always available, so we'd have to walk a few blocks further for the closest available car), having to pay for the time when the car is just parked at your destination before you return it, and not being suitable for the kind of longer range, weekend or week long trips that are a lot of what we need a car for.

If the cars were self-driving, however, that would solve the majority of those problems. No need to hike to find the closest car, it would come to you. No need to pay for the time that it's parked while at your destination, it could be used by other people, and another car could come pick you up when you needed to leave. No need to return the car to where you picked it up, it would just go back to the closest available station and they'd rebalance themselves automatically.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#47

If self-driving cars become a reality, it is interesting to think of what happens to all this space & infrastructure. If the model is that we don't own cars, but rather share them like taxis, then there is no need for parking: the car will just drop you and go to its next trip. If the model is that we own our self-driving cars, it may be that they can be parked at much greater distances (10+ miles) from where we spen…

- Self-driving cars will still need to park at off-peak times. Unless they just keep driving in circles.

- Having your car park 10 miles away from you after every trip adds some forty miles of travel per commute. That's forty miles of fuel and forty miles of maintenance, every day.

- I'm also not thrilled about the prospect of already-dense cities shrinking streets to one lane. We call them concrete jungles now- can you imagine if all the roads were only 15 feet across? Goodbye, sky.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#48
post #7

The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather, and are much less tiring than trying to lug bags from one place to another on buses or other public transport. They also place far fewer constraints on when you can travel. Of course it's possible to structure…

> Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather... If only there was such a thing as a car that you could call on-demand, make use of when you wanted it, and then got rid of it when you were done. Even better, what about one that comes with a driver? A crazy idea, I know. If you live in the right neighborhood, a car is a nuisance. I can go somewhere and just walk right in. I don't have to…

The following page estimates the true cost of car ownership at approximately $1.38/mile: http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html

That's still quite a bit cheaper than taxi fares or the minimum $2.75 that Uber charges. Assuming that you spend $20k on purchasing the car, you'd make up for the cost of the car in just under 15,000 miles driven compared to taking Uber at the quoted rate.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#49
As a life long ATLien, I want to know when Atlanta was walkable, and if it could have even been considered the same city as it is now. For those of you who don't know, the population of metro Atlanta more than doubled between 1990 and 2010.

Yes, all types of transportation suck in Atlanta, but roads and cars are an extensible, scaleable solution with most of the costs being marginal as opposed to fixed, meaning additional demand can be handled easily. Like others have noted, you offered no real solutions to that problem. MARTA is kind of a joke of a system for anyone that values their time. A trip on MARTA will take about twice the time it would take to drive in a car. At the average commuter distance, you recoup the cost of buying a $5,000 car in a year if you value your time at minimum wage. If you actually care about fixing the problem, fix the economics of alternatives. Don't just go about complaining about the fact that you don't like not being able to walk where you want to go, suggest solutions.

And please try to consider this problem outside of the perspective of being a student, because that honestly seems to be the only perspective you've given to this. A lot of the vehicles you see in Atlanta are work vehicles, and that mobility makes a lot of things possible that you probably are a fan of. You may want to consider the dynamics of the local economy further.

Honestly, I have to say this article isn't up to the standards I'd expect of a fellow Tech student, particularly a PhD candidate. You are very well intentioned and undoubtedly intelligent, but simply pointing out what everyone knows isn't very helpful. I'll be interested to see the future posts you promised.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#50

If you're interested in this topic, Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking and Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City are both worth reading. The former explains how "free" parking isn't really free and how it distorts a lot of behavior, and the latter is about what cities are good for and how to build healthy cities in general. Personally, I wonder why people would want to own a car if they can avoid it: htt…

> The High Cost of Free Parking

convince me that 800 pages is worth it (reviews so far haven't).

Post reply on HN