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

Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#131

Post by nvoorhies »

greggman wrote: post #129
donw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've done a great job of summing up one of the reasons that public transit in the US is as bad as it is. My goal is to safely get from Point A to Point B, and I don't want to spend a lot of time waiting around at Point A, or sitting and waiting on the way to Point B. We have three goals here, in order of importance. Let's call them safety, convenience, and speed. Taking a bus with a bunch of drunken hooligans doesn…

I don't expect to ever see safe public transportation in the USA in my lifetime. Our culture sucks. Japan works partly because like many other cultures in that area it's a community comes before the individual culture. We've put up with crime for so long in the USA we've forgotten places actually exist without most of it. We've gotten so used to it we think it's normal to "avoid dark alleys" to "pull out your car ste…

Avoiding dark alleys is certainly normal advice in Japan as well. http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/201112/13/73/b0015373_19495370.jp...

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#132

Post by benjiweber »

burgerbrain wrote: post #36
cpt1138 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, you spend 40 minutes driving. How much time do you spend in the gym? What if you rode a bicycle for 1.5 hours and skipped both the driving and the gym? The problem with a car in your situation is contextual. You are supposed to spend that 40 minutes of driving concentrating on driving. Not talking on cell phones, not texting, not talking, not even listening to music but DRIVING. The context of where you are driv…

If more work places had showers, that might be a workable solution. Also: "I drive 40 minutes each way " 1hr20min of driving is not going to translate into 1hr30min of biking, with the only possible exception being if you spent the entire car ride in gridlock or parking lots. And: "I couldn't find a job here, but I could find a job there". That you can find a job within 20 miles does not help him. "You are supposed t…

People who don't cycle much often think showers are necessary.

In reality once you get fit you don't sweat much (I get far sweatier on the tube than cycling), and if you're overheating you can always slow down slightly.

* Shower before leaving then you get rid of the dirt + bacteria that makes the sweat smell.

* Wear clean lycra - this wicks sweat away before it has a chance to start smelling.

In London my cycling commute of 1hr would take over 2hrs by car, and 1hr15min by train. Cycling is often the quickest way. You also combine exercise and commuting time which leads to a significant overall time saving. I don't feel the need to do a lot of other exercise after cycling 200 miles a week.

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#133

Post by konstruktor »

pjkundert wrote: post #87

The Accountant's Falacy: Anything for which the debit doesn't appear on your balance sheet is "free". Follow busses in traffic for a while, and add up the total fuel, time wasted, etc. in all the traffic impeded by the less then 1/2 full (on average) bus. There is no branch of mathematics that could be used to argue that busses save the civilization money. Consider if everyone was not disallowed by law(1) from carpoo…

Whose vehicle wastes the fuel in the situation you described? That of the, usually one, individual who chose to incur much higher marginal costs by taking the car instead of the bus in the first place. Just like you cant't blame a cyclist for the fuel wasted by the people in cars waiting to overtake him on their 2km trip...

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#134

Post by m0nty »

emmelaich wrote: post #101
m0nty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "ban cars" I must have missed the bit where he said that. I thought he was saying that we could find better solutions.

Then the article would be better titled a future that "doesn't need cars" than one "without cars".

I got further than just reading the title as well.

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#135

Post by jacquesm »

waqf wrote: post #116
emmelaich wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am amazed at the amount people spend no cars but again be wary of the thought that this inherent to cars. It's about culture and keeping up with the Joneses. My 15 year old 4 cylinder car costs not a lot to run and takes me everywhere. You can prise out of my cold dead hands :-)

4 cylinders isn't the norm any more? I knew I didn't stay up to date with the automotive world, but blimey.

Europe has been flooded in recent times with three cylinder cars, the Citroen C1, Toyota Aygo and Peugeot 107, VW Polo, Seat and a whole slew of others.

By American standards these are tiny but for EU commuting / shopping / city driving they're fine.

Fiat even has a two cylinder car on the market.

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#136

Post by nosse »

exue wrote: post #49

Problem 1: This article is a giant anti-car rant with a few points of rational debate baked in that might help public policy. It's no more objectively helpful than reading a spiel from BimmerForums or ClubWRX on why they love their 300hp sports cars and would never give them up to be herded in a big, crowded, smelly bus. Problem 2: Cars are currently the best solution to the problems we have. That's why they are #1 i…

I agree on most parts but.. "The average car beats the average city bus in terms of energy efficiency." You're just doing it wrong. Your American mass transit systems are organized badly, if you get so few customers, that they don't beat cars in efficiency.

"As of 2006–2007, the total energy cost of London’s trains was 15 kWh per 100 p-km, about 5 times better than a personal car.[45] For busing in London, it was 32 kWh per 100 p-km, or about 2.5 times that of a personal car.[45] This includes lighting, depots, inefficiencies due to capacity (i.e., the train or bus may not be operating at full capacity at all times), and other inefficiencies. Efficiencies of transport in Japan in 1999 were 68 kWh per 100 p-km for a personal car, 19 kWh per 100 p-km for a bus, 6 kWh per 100 p-km for rail, 51 kWh per 100 p-km for air, and 57 kWh per 100 p-km for sea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport#Environmental originally here: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_12...

That templetons transit myht too states that "it is generally the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car"

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#137

Post by DennisP »

kposehn wrote: post #32

This article, while well written and trying to think ahead, forgets something very important: cars are such a symbol because they appeal to one of the core aspects of human nature. The freedom of movement, the ability to choose where you go, the notion of being unrestricted and able to move about freely. Being herded on a bus is not in our nature. Furthermore, to some degree, cars are actually more efficient from a p…

"The average joe is not able to properly handle a flying craft...The most promising advance so far is driverless cars."

What about driverless flying cars?

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#138

Post by pimeys »

There's a big reason I don't want to move to bay area to work. I love to live in Berlin just because I can get anywhere with a train anytime I want. And the funny thing is, in Berlin it is allowed to drink beer in the trains and subways and still I don't feel afraid at all, people behave. Trains work, are fast, safe and reliable most of the time.

When I visited in Berkeley I was horrified how bad the public transportation was in there. BART trains were most of the time fully packed, had only a few trains in an hour and traveling from the stations to home was slow and annoying. The bus transportation was horror. Most of the time they were late or not arriving at all.

I may have an European mindset, but living in the USA is just out of the question. Manhattan would be better, but then again paying above 1000 dollars per month from your apartment is kind of silly.

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#139

Post by jandrewrogers »

ken wrote: post #79
exue wrote: post #49

Problem 1: This article is a giant anti-car rant with a few points of rational debate baked in that might help public policy. It's no more objectively helpful than reading a spiel from BimmerForums or ClubWRX on why they love their 300hp sports cars and would never give them up to be herded in a big, crowded, smelly bus. Problem 2: Cars are currently the best solution to the problems we have. That's why they are #1 i…

> Cars are currently the best solution to the problems we have. That's why they are #1 in the US. Granted -- so long as you take the legislative and tax situation into account. That's part of the "problem" to which cars are currently the best solution for most people, but it's not unchangeable. Or from a different perspective, you could say: the "problem" is that people want to live in places (like suburbs) to which…

Gas taxes (and vehicle registration fees) can completely cover the cost of road construction and maintenance -- several states work this way. A number of US states have constitutional and legal requirements such that this is the only way they can fund their transportation departments. That some states spend many times as much per road mile (I am looking at you California) is a reflection of their inefficiency and politics, not necessity.

I am a strong proponent of the model where all roads and road maintenance should be paid for by gas and use taxes. It works well in states where this is a reality and a couple of studies have shown that they tend to produce better quality roads in addition to being more cost efficient than states where roads are funded out of the general budget.

The lack of a politically guaranteed budget forces a measure of long-term fiscal conservativeness and cost control on the government organizations that maintain the roads. There is a concept of long-term ROI; if doing a better, somewhat more expensive job today significantly reduces costs a few years down the road, it is worth it because it is effectively like increasing the DoT's budget via investment in future years.If they waste money, they can't go back to the taxpayers and ask for more. It provides a bit of negative feedback to the government decision process that is often sorely needed.

Re: Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

#140

Post by a3camero »

greggman wrote: post #129
donw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've done a great job of summing up one of the reasons that public transit in the US is as bad as it is. My goal is to safely get from Point A to Point B, and I don't want to spend a lot of time waiting around at Point A, or sitting and waiting on the way to Point B. We have three goals here, in order of importance. Let's call them safety, convenience, and speed. Taking a bus with a bunch of drunken hooligans doesn…

I don't expect to ever see safe public transportation in the USA in my lifetime. Our culture sucks. Japan works partly because like many other cultures in that area it's a community comes before the individual culture. We've put up with crime for so long in the USA we've forgotten places actually exist without most of it. We've gotten so used to it we think it's normal to "avoid dark alleys" to "pull out your car ste…

Not really a defensive reply, because I don't live in the US, but across the border in Canada we have a very similar culture and very safe public transportation. I grew up in downtown-ish Toronto and never saw a crime. There are crimes, just not too many that people fear taking public transportation. A typical subway ride in Toronto has plenty of people in suits. Bus transport in other cities in Ontario is also quite safe.
Post reply on HN