Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cars Kill Cities

progressivetransit.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#191

Post by lambda »

ghaff wrote: post #175
lambda wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. The driver takes something like 60% of the fare you pay for a taxi; I'm sure insurance eats up another sizeable chunk, and if self-driving cars are ever allowed on the streets, they will have to be safer than human drivers, and thus will have lower insurance costs. Furthermore, eliminating the driver means that you could use even smaller, cheaper cars, or fit mor…

>Taxis are a lot more expensive than self-driving cars. But they have the advantage of actually existing. Whatever relatively near-term possibilities there may be for cars to operate on "autopilot" on certain highways, an urban environment where taxis are most common is probably one of the last places you'll see self-driving cars.

Sure. I'm just pointing out how these hypothetical self driving taxis/car shares would be a substantial improvement over actual taxis, enough so that they would be able to displace more than just the niche that taxis currently occupy but also car sharing programs like Zipcar and probably a substantial portion of car ownership.

I think that I'll see them in my lifetime; I don't know if it'll be in 5 years (though I think that would be pushing it), 10 years, or 30 years, but I'm pretty sure they will come about, and will be a huge improvement over our current system of letting distracted, impatient people try to pilot cars through chaotic conditions.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#192

Post by lambda »

dllthomas wrote: post #88
GuiA wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True; although one major problem is that for n taxis, you have to pay for n cars and n human salaries, and human salaries end up being the biggest proportion in the final price. How much will the cost be reduced when we don't have to pay for human drivers anymore? Will we see 50$ a month (2013 dollars) plans for 50 hours of "chauffeuring"? (a quick google search shows that the average american spends ~40h driving a y…

In some areas, rent to medallion holders might end up being the biggest proportion in the final price...

According to [this resarch](http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf), 57% of the fare (including tip) goes to the driver, 24% to vehicle and gas, 15% to the owner, and 4% to other expenses.

So, the driver is a pretty substantial portion of that. Taking the driver out of the equation would substantially reduce the costs. If you increased medallion availability as well, and the owners were able to work with lower margins (or they were cooperatively owned), you could get the cost down even further, to maybe 1/3 of what taxis currently cost. That would be a huge difference in affordability for everyday use.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#193

Post by robomartin »

mikeash wrote: post #184
robomartin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? I used to live approximately half a mile from the epicenter of the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake. I was actually at my desk programming at 4:31AM when it hit. It was, by far, the most violent quake I have ever experienced. The vertical component was brutal. It actually shot me up off my chair when it compressed the height adjusting air cylinder and propel…

I don't understand your last paragraph at all. Inverters aren't all that expensive and will run all those basic necessities you mention from a normal gas-powered car.

Something like a Tesla has some 80+kW available at 500V. This is very different from running an inverter off a 12V lead acid battery. This is power at an entirely different scale. As battery technology evolves I can easily see cars, and particularly trucks, having far more than 80 kW available. A household with a couple of cars would, effectively, have a roving UPS that could provide lots of power during any time of need.

Heck, even a camping trip could change radically if surplus electrical power is available from your electric vehicle. I don't know about you, but I'd rather cook my food with electric power at the campsite than burn wood or charcoal. Over the last year or so I've convinced myself there's very little you can do with a BBQ that you can't do with a skillet and an oven. I am actually considering getting rid of my outdoor BBQ.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#194

Post by robomartin »

Segmentation wrote: post #182
robomartin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? I used to live approximately half a mile from the epicenter of the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake. I was actually at my desk programming at 4:31AM when it hit. It was, by far, the most violent quake I have ever experienced. The vertical component was brutal. It actually shot me up off my chair when it compressed the height adjusting air cylinder and propel…

The original article explains it well. It's okay to own a car, maybe even one per adult in the household (though I would advocate greater car sharing). The original article's point is using the right tool for the job. In your cases the car was the right tool. For many people, especially city dwellers, you can leave your car at home and ride a bicycle for your daily city commutes. If everyone physically able followed…

> For many people, especially city dwellers, you can leave your car at home

I do one better: I work from home now. When I had an outside office it was less than five miles away. Now I try to concatenate as many trips as possible into a single loop. Works out well most of the time.

If Tesla hadn't screwed-up the electric SUV design I would have bought in. I'll have to wait for another company to get it right. That's what's missing in my life right now, an honest electric powered SUV. Short of doing a conversion on something like a Suburban I'll have to wait for something like that to become commercially available. Shame that Tesla decided to go for a Gucci-bat-mobile instead of building a true sports-utility vehicle. I have a horrible feeling their SUV is going to be a failure. I hope I am wrong.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#195

Post by robomartin »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #181
robomartin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? I used to live approximately half a mile from the epicenter of the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake. I was actually at my desk programming at 4:31AM when it hit. It was, by far, the most violent quake I have ever experienced. The vertical component was brutal. It actually shot me up off my chair when it compressed the height adjusting air cylinder and propel…

What if you didn't had your car? Would you have lost any property, or have anyone harmed? Assuming not having your care would have been bad, what is the frequency of such events? Are they, say, more frequent than serious car crashes? Not to mention the sheer costs of having most people owning their own car, compared to a decent public transportation system (which doesn't exist, I know). Even if cars save more lives t…

The problem with decent public transportation in the US is that our cities were not designed for it.

Just one look at a megalopolis like Los Angeles and it becomes clear there's almost no way to exist without your own car outside of a narrow set of locations and life styles.

If you are a single guy or gal living and working in Santa Monica and can bike to work, well, life is good.

The minute you move away from those areas, turn into a family with multiple kids things change. Work might no longer be a bike ride away.

Work for many is anywhere from thirty to sixty miles away from home. Each adult in the family is likely to work at a very different location. Schools are not centralized. You have separate elementary, middle and high schools. Many families have kids in all three at the same time. This means potentially driving and picking-up kids from three different schools at three different locations every day.

Look at Silicon Valley and their commute scenarios.

In general terms, yes, I agree, good mass transportation would be good for many reasons. In practical terms this dream is not really attainable without major structural, cultural and labor changes in most US cities. This, for all intents and purposes, probably means this is a pipe dream.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#196

Post by knowitall »

ctdonath wrote: post #109
jseliger wrote: post #34

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…

Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? (correction applied) Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets included), with a trunkful of cargo, as I see fit. I keep a bunch of gear in my car which makes me pretty much independent. No way I'd be hauling "go camping on a moment's notice" stuff and other equipment everywhere on the bus. Nor would I have the basic equipment…

"minutes later we were making the 1,000 mile drive there. Next morning little Crossley was part of the family."

Obviously this kind of lifestyle is possible today. I don't want to take it away from you. I just want to point out that to me this sounds completely insane. I would say "irresponsible" as well, but I assume you simply have no awareness of the larger issues involved and can't be blamed.

I'm pretty sure that if you hadn't had the car, you would have been able to find a suitable puppy within a 20 miles radius...

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#197

Post by dingaling »

booyaa00 wrote: post #110
jseliger wrote: post #34

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…

Lots of people don't want to live in a city. For me, living in a city is a horrible existence. So living in the unspoilt countryside a car is pretty useful to get around. A car is freedom. Do you really want to be completely dependent and beholden to some public transport system?

> So living in the unspoilt countryside a car is pretty useful to get around.

Countryside is not 'unspoilt' if it features roads and cars, let alone houses and agriculture.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#198

Post by knowitall »

ctdonath wrote: post #186
psychometry wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving your preference for buying puppies from a breeder, it's not surprising that your opinions about transportation also only revolve around what you want and not what is moral or best for society or your community.

A "rescue" bit my daughter in the face and very nearly destroyed her eye. I'll stick with pets of known social and medical histories, thank you very much. BTW: having a car meant I could race her to medical help without having to wait for public transportation (aka ambulance).

And the nearest breeder lives 1000 miles away?

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#199

Post by pouetpouet »

booyaa00 wrote: post #110
jseliger wrote: post #34

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…

Lots of people don't want to live in a city. For me, living in a city is a horrible existence. So living in the unspoilt countryside a car is pretty useful to get around. A car is freedom. Do you really want to be completely dependent and beholden to some public transport system?

If you live there, it's not unspoilt. If you love nature, stay away from it, you have a bigger footprint in the country than in an urban core.

If you have a partner, it's not about the freedom of owning a car. Many couples/families own multiple cars. You can still own a car for "freedom" but live your daily life with one car less.

One car less.

Re: Cars Kill Cities

#200

Post by selmnoo »

rayiner wrote: post #27
gress wrote: 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…

I lived car-dependent in Atlanta, without a car in Chicago and New York, and am car-dependent again in Wilmington, DE. The burden of carrying things never matched the hassle of circling around somewhere looking for a parking spot. Indeed, living in the New York City suburbs with a baby and no car (but on a train line) was way more convenient than living in Wilmington with a car. Running down the block to the store an…

> People have preferences, sure, but I'm sick of subsidizing suburbanization with my tax dollars. The public sector spends about $150 billion per year building and maintaining highways: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120x.... That's not counting local roads and streets. Nobody blinks an eye at that. But they freak out that Amtrak has been given $13 billion in federal subsidies in the 40 years since 1972.

Wow, never thought about it like that. Thanks for the comment.

Post reply on HN