Ban urban vehicles

[Nobel Hobos 2]

electric auto pods

I'm going to call them that now. "Car" and "taxi" come loaded with so many preconceptions, the idea that just not having a driver would make them radically different is inconceivable to most people.

2035: Now where's my pod? I don't have a pod!? Someone converted my garage into a little house and someone tore up the driveway to plant trees! Oh that's right. I did that. I'll just get out my phone and call a pod ... hey, where's my phone?

[Jedi Council]

I'm not opposed to banning urban vehicles, if a city has a well developed public transit system or the capacity to quickly build one.

Taking my hometown as an example, Vancouver has pretty limited public transit unless you live in a few rapidly growing suburbs like Surrey. The downtown core itself is not terrible for transit, but again its primarily oriented towards getting people in and out, rather than about. As an aside, a european friend of mine used our SkyTrain system to get from YVR to the downtown core, and she did not believe me that it was actually one of our primary modes of transport; she thought it was a monorail just for the airport from one terminal to another.

In any case, there is an argument for it, but there would need to be a pretty massive investment in oublic transport.

[Novus America]

electric auto pods

I'm going to call them that now. "Car" and "taxi" come loaded with so many preconceptions, the idea that just not having a driver would make them radically different is inconceivable to most people.

2035: Now where's my pod? I don't have a pod!? Someone converted my garage into a little house and someone tore up the driveway to plant trees! Oh that's right. I did that. I'll just get out my phone and call a pod ... hey, where's my phone?

Why would I not want to own my own pod? Even if sometimes calling one is more convenient?
One will not appear immediately especially as I live in a suburban neighborhood and with interesting geography.

Owning my own increases my net wealth and actually would provide me a source of supplementary income if i rented it out...

And if average people do not own them who does? Tech bros? Screw that.

Anyways who keeps their car in their garage anyways?
Garages are for storing everything other than cars

And again where are these pods stored during times of low demand? Not many will be needed at 0200 on Monday Morning but a heck of a lot will be needed at 0800.

Why not store my pod in my driveway when nobody is trying to rent it?

Removing the driver actually does not make it that fundamentally different.

By your logic nobody would ever buy a house when renting one is often more convenient.

[Bombadil]

Why not store my pod in my driveway when nobody is trying to rent it?

Don't see anything wrong with that, you pod home and it stays in your driveway, in the morning you pod off into the city and then perhaps someone else takes the pod while you're at work. Out of work you come, jump into a another pod and pod off home.

[The Orson Empire]

As of right now, I don't see a full ban on cars in cities being possible, let alone practical. This is especially true in the United States, where public transportation networks are totally unsuitable to fully replace cars, and where cities are outright designed around automobile use. A major revolution would have to occur in public transportation before this ever becomes feasible.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm going to call them that now. "Car" and "taxi" come loaded with so many preconceptions, the idea that just not having a driver would make them radically different is inconceivable to most people.

2035: Now where's my pod? I don't have a pod!? Someone converted my garage into a little house and someone tore up the driveway to plant trees! Oh that's right. I did that. I'll just get out my phone and call a pod ... hey, where's my phone?

Why would I not want to own my own pod? Even if sometimes calling one is more convenient?

I never said you can't. If you're willing to pay for it and pay to maintain it. Sure go for it.

It will be a luxury though. Most people won't spend the extra. Reason being that when the driver is factored out, pods are a vast human resource, they're just units in a big public transport system. "Tech bros" aka big business will have a huge advantage over little you. They'll be able to buy pods cheaper (in bulk) they'll be able to maintain them more cheaply, and they'll be better placed to provide a pod on call anywhere.

So go ahead, buy and maintain your own. But don't think that you networking with other private pod owners will ever be able to provide as good a service at the same price, as big corporations can. It will not be a business opportunity for you, sorry.

Public transport is a natural monopoly. Small players will never prosper. But since monopolies are bad, I think government will be too concerned with keeping that from happening (splitting up big providers when they get too much market share) to be concerned with the prosperity of one-pod owners.

By your logic nobody would ever buy a house when renting one is often more convenient.

You really haven't given this much thought have you?

If not for the inflation of real estate that sits under every house, nobody would in fact buy their own house. Houses depreciate (they become broken, dirty and unstylish) but it's outweighed by real estate appreciation. Houses (with real estate) are investments so people buy them. Pods become broken, dirty and unstylish ... only an idiot would buy one if hiring each and every day was a cheaper option.

That said there may still be some people who travel so much that buying a pod is a cheaper option than always hiring. But expect the hire price to be very low (close to maintenance cost) for people who travel a lot: every company will want their business. And give up the idea of pods being a personal investment, that's car thinking.

[Novus America]

Why would I not want to own my own pod? Even if sometimes calling one is more convenient?

I never said you can't. If you're willing to pay for it and pay to maintain it. Sure go for it.

It will be a luxury though. Most people won't spend the extra. Reason being that when the driver is factored out, pods are a vast human resource, they're just units in a big public transport system. "Tech bros" aka big business will have a huge advantage over little you. They'll be able to buy pods cheaper (in bulk) they'll be able to maintain them more cheaply, and they'll be better placed to provide a pod on call anywhere.

So go ahead, buy and maintain your own. But don't think that you networking with other private pod owners will ever be able to provide as good a service at the same price, as big corporations can. It will not be a business opportunity for you, sorry.

Public transport is a natural monopoly. Small players will never prosper. But since monopolies are bad, I think government will be too concerned with keeping that from happening (splitting up big providers when they get too much market share) to be concerned with the prosperity of one-pod owners.

By your logic nobody would ever buy a house when renting one is often more convenient.

You really haven't given this much thought have you?

If not for the inflation of real estate that sits under every house, nobody would in fact buy their own house. Houses depreciate (they become broken, dirty and unstylish) but it's outweighed by real estate appreciation. Houses (with real estate) are investments so people buy them. Pods become broken, dirty and unstylish ... only an idiot would buy one if hiring each and every day was a cheaper option.

That said there may still be some people who travel so much that buying a pod is a cheaper option than always hiring. But expect the hire price to be very low (close to maintenance cost) for people who travel a lot: every company will want their business. And give up the idea of pods being a personal investment, that's car thinking.

And I am no neoliberal, big businesses taking away wealth from the rest of us is not something I support even if it might be “cheaper” and I will support action against it.
Because I value the freedom and prosperity of the individual not just the megacorp. But again I do not think that very likely.

Your assumption that taking the driver out of the car makes it fundamentally different I believe is fundamentally incorrect. Many companies do not want to invest the money and legal complexities in buying their own when they can actually make far more money just running an app without owning any cars (or pods) at all. Why pay to fix them?

Sure the company might make a bigger profit then I would owning the car and renting it, but they will make an even bigger profit not owning the car at all. It might cost them less to buy it then me to buy it but it costs them even less to not buy the car at all. Plus them having to store unused ones during down times or while recharging.

And outside city cores you still will have to what for one to show up. They will not be continually around suburban and rural areas.
They only real excel in the type of areas that already have taxis. They are really just cheaper taxis but taxi price is not the only reason people use private cars. (And taxi companies often do not own their taxis).

And no, land value appreciation is just one of many reasons people buy houses. People like to be able have the freedom to customize their house, and even with the depreciation of the house it still has value. Cars depreciate too yet still retain some value, thus can still contribute to your net wealth, especially once paid off.
Plus people buy has a pint of status and pride, as well as the freedom to do what they want with them. To store things they do not want other people getting to (again as said before people store various things in their cars) as well.

You seem to have a very narrow set of priorities the mean YOU would prefer to just get the cheaper taxi but the problem is not everyone shares your priorities.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I never said you can't. If you're willing to pay for it and pay to maintain it. Sure go for it.

It will be a luxury though. Most people won't spend the extra. Reason being that when the driver is factored out, pods are a vast human resource, they're just units in a big public transport system. "Tech bros" aka big business will have a huge advantage over little you. They'll be able to buy pods cheaper (in bulk) they'll be able to maintain them more cheaply, and they'll be better placed to provide a pod on call anywhere.

So go ahead, buy and maintain your own. But don't think that you networking with other private pod owners will ever be able to provide as good a service at the same price, as big corporations can. It will not be a business opportunity for you, sorry.

Public transport is a natural monopoly. Small players will never prosper. But since monopolies are bad, I think government will be too concerned with keeping that from happening (splitting up big providers when they get too much market share) to be concerned with the prosperity of one-pod owners.



You really haven't given this much thought have you?

If not for the inflation of real estate that sits under every house, nobody would in fact buy their own house. Houses depreciate (they become broken, dirty and unstylish) but it's outweighed by real estate appreciation. Houses (with real estate) are investments so people buy them. Pods become broken, dirty and unstylish ... only an idiot would buy one if hiring each and every day was a cheaper option.

That said there may still be some people who travel so much that buying a pod is a cheaper option than always hiring. But expect the hire price to be very low (close to maintenance cost) for people who travel a lot: every company will want their business. And give up the idea of pods being a personal investment, that's car thinking.

And I am no neoliberal, big businesses taking away wealth from the rest of us is not something I support even if it might be “cheaper” and I will support action against it.
Because I value the freedom and prosperity of the individual not just the megacorp. But again I do not think that very likely.

Your assumption that taking the driver out of the car makes it fundamentally different I believe is fundamentally incorrect. Many companies do not want to invest the money and legal complexities in buying their own when they can actually make far more money just running an app without owning any cars (or pods) at all. Why pay to fix them?

Sure the company might make a bigger profit then I would owning the car and renting it, but they will make an even bigger profit not owning the car at all. It might cost them less to buy it then me to buy it but it costs them even less to not buy the car at all.

If you give them that option, I guess they would. Let private citizens stump up, then use their cars when they don't.

But that really begs the question why you would do what you're arguing for: buy your own pod. You admit someone else is going to profit from it, for minimal investment, but you'll put your money in so you can leave an umbrella and a spare pair of shoes in the back. Where's the return on investment for you? That usage fee you get paid is going to roughly cover the running costs for the rest of the time, so basically you get to use a pod for free. Which sounds great until you consider that you had to buy it and it won't last forever.

Plus them having to store unused ones during down times or while recharging.

And outside city cores you still will have to what for one to show up. They will not be continually around suburban and rural areas.

There would be plenty in the suburbs. There are people there, people are potentially customers.
If you're really out of town you would presumably ask the pod to wait for you. Doing literally nothing, that would be very cheap.
If you live on a farm, you'd be nothing to do with this thread. You'd probably still drive a car (fuel burning even). The only connection with the thread is what a rural person does if they need to go into town. I'm thinking, park on the outskirts and switch to a pod.

They only real excel in the type of areas that already have taxis.

Yeah cities. That is what the thread is about.

They are really just cheaper taxis but taxi price is not the only reason people use private cars.

The other reasons are basically fetishism. People have all sorts of irrational feelings about things they own.

(And taxi companies often do not own their taxis).

I think you mean taxi drivers? Yeah, you might want to think about why there are so few owner/drivers of taxis, not associated with companies at all. And why you would want to own a "driverless taxi" yourself, if you're not even going to get decent pay for steering it.

And no, land value appreciation is just one of many reasons people buy houses. People like to be able have the freedom to customize their house, and even with the depreciation of the house it still has value.

I never denied that houses have use value. I just said that it's appreciation of real estate (NOT of the house) that lead people to pay so much for them. It's the resale value: and if that was fixed by law at only a modest increase, the cost of all houses would begin to deflate.

Houses as assets almost never appreciate. Like cars (or pods) they wear out and are worth less over time.

Cars depreciate too yet still retain some value, thus can still contribute to your net wealth, especially once paid off.

Unless they're antique cars, cars lose value over time. What you're getting at with "they still have some value" I really can't see.

Plus people buy has a pint of status and pride, as well as the freedom to do what they want with them. To store things they do not want other people getting to (again as said before people store various things in their cars) as well.

You seem to have a very narrow set of priorities the mean YOU would prefer to just get the cheaper taxi but the problem is not everyone shares your priorities.

Oh they will though. When they see the prices. And of course there will be vans for larger items.

[Australian rePublic]

Yea, because overcrowded public transport is the best way to overcome a pandemic. The government here in NSW is trying to discourage public transport use, and encourage car use, because of Covid. I would hope that we learn from this pandemic and learn to make our cities safe from future pandemics. One method of doing so is a viable alternative to public transport, which would be cars

Cars are also better than public transport in the following matters:
1. Cars go everywhere. This is particularly helpful in places with small population densities, such as Sydney, where you otherwise would have had to catch 2 buses and a train
2. National, or even international, road trips. Why should people who live in rural areas be allowed to go on road trips, when people in urban areas can't?
3. Cars bring freedom

I know how bad cars are for the environment, but in the next couple of decades, most will be electric

[Australian rePublic]

This poll is bias AF

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yea, because overcrowded public transport is the best way to overcome a pandemic. The government here in NSW is trying to discourage public transport use, and encourage car use, because of Covid. I would hope that we learn from this pandemic and learn to make our cities safe from future pandemics. One method of doing so is a viable alternative to public transport, which would be cars

Cars are also better than public transport in the following matters:
1. Cars go everywhere. This is particularly helpful in places with small population densities, such as Sydney, where you otherwise would have had to catch 2 buses and a train
2. National, or even international, road trips. Why should people who live in rural areas be allowed to go on road trips, when people in urban areas can't?
3. Cars bring freedom

I know how bad cars are for the environment, but in the next couple of decades, most will be electric

What about the people too poor to afford cars? Shitty old public transport for them?

Let's imagine a society of high prosperity but also social equality. Yay, now everyone can afford a car. But they can't drive anywhere because the roads are too crowded. Those that can't drive a car (eg blind, too old, too young) get ... shitty old public transport.

My driverless electric pods will provide transport for everyone. Working hours may have to be adjusted. And there will be no more shitty public transport because driverless electric pods ARE public transport.

[Australian rePublic]

Oh Nobel Hobos, why do you assume I am against public transport? I am very pro-public transport. It's just that people should have a choice

Yea, because overcrowded public transport is the best way to overcome a pandemic. The government here in NSW is trying to discourage public transport use, and encourage car use, because of Covid. I would hope that we learn from this pandemic and learn to make our cities safe from future pandemics. One method of doing so is a viable alternative to public transport, which would be cars

Cars are also better than public transport in the following matters:
1. Cars go everywhere. This is particularly helpful in places with small population densities, such as Sydney, where you otherwise would have had to catch 2 buses and a train
2. National, or even international, road trips. Why should people who live in rural areas be allowed to go on road trips, when people in urban areas can't?
3. Cars bring freedom

I know how bad cars are for the environment, but in the next couple of decades, most will be electric

What about the people too poor to afford cars? Shitty old public transport for them?

How's that different from our current system? I'm not saying we should get rid of public transport. Eff no. I love public transport, and we should definately be improving it, but we do need alternatives. In fact, I don't think our governments are doing enough to improve public transport. Sydney's rail network, should, at absolute least be doubled, for starters. Gladys was even looking into exempting people from parking fines because of Covid (or was that Jodi McKay?) Besides, the vast majority of people can afford cars

Let's imagine a society of high prosperity but also social equality. Yay, now everyone can afford a car. But they can't drive anywhere because the roads are too crowded. Those that can't drive a car (eg blind, too old, too young) get ... shitty old public transport.

Public transport is not shit. Public transport is great. Congestion and parking prove that. I hardly ever drive to the city because of those reasons. (And, when we don't have Covid), I go to the city a lot. A lot.

My driverless electric pods will provide transport for everyone. Working hours may have to be adjusted. And there will be no more shitty public transport because driverless electric pods ARE public transport.

I don't trust driverless cars. But, that's another discussion

[Necunda]

Now I dont usually go on general for many different reasons but ill give my four cents into this topic.

Banning urban vehicles for many is such a far stretch but in this case i have to agree their decision here. India is such an extremely overpopulated country, keyword EXTREMELY (this may be overexaggeration so apologies) Space, even with there relative size occupying an entire sub-continent is a persistent problem, and one of the most crowded spaces in India is the streets as far as im concerned (Note I am NOT from India so apologies for this view.) Banning urban cars would extensively minimize noise and air pollution to such a degree like what happened in Jalandhar. Of course it is impossible for such a suggestion like "banning urban cars" to be passed as most people have at least one car but instead some sort of compromise can be executed.

1. Total banning of privately owned vehicles. They are one of the main causes of the pollution. Their cars can be either be parked on a designated area when requiring to leave their area/city/region/province. This also applies to outsiders and require their vehicles to be parked on that designated area.

2. Specialized vehicles such as ambulances, police cars and firefighter trucks can be the only allowed urban vehicle to cross the streets there. Due to the relatively easeness of travel without traffic due to the non-existence of private vehicles on the street, services like these may have a higher success rate/efficiency/response time.

3. Persuade people to use bikes. Bikes are a good exercise and a good way to go from point a to point b, simple as that, still bike lanes.

4. Trolleys, light rail vehicles, monorails, extensive rail systems that are electric should be expanded.

The effects of this would outweigh the negatives.

1. Pollution will drastically decrease, health would rise proportionally, decreasing the cases of pulmonary-based diseases.

2. People will be more active, IF the persuasion of using bikes is successful, people will become healthier but even without the usage of biking, walking will be the main way of travelling.

3. Although the usage of electricity may increase significantly if public rail transport systems are installed, the usage of fossil fuels will be decreased and the demand of it will subsequently decrease as well.

Thats all I have and a note, this is all just speculation and i apologize if i am incapable of adding sources.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Oh Nobel Hobos, why do you assume I am against public transport? I am very pro-public transport. It's just that people should have a choice

What about the people too poor to afford cars? Shitty old public transport for them?

How's that different from our current system? I'm not saying we should get rid of public transport. Eff no. I love public transport, and we should definately be improving it, but we do need alternatives. In fact, I don't think our governments are doing enough to improve public transport. Sydney's rail network, should, at absolute least be doubled, for starters. Gladys was even looking into exempting people from parking fines because of Covid (or was that Jodi McKay?) Besides, the vast majority of people can afford cars

Let's imagine a society of high prosperity but also social equality. Yay, now everyone can afford a car. But they can't drive anywhere because the roads are too crowded. Those that can't drive a car (eg blind, too old, too young) get ... shitty old public transport.

Public transport is not shit. Public transport is great. Congestion and parking prove that. I hardly ever drive to the city because of those reasons. (And, when we don't have Covid), I go to the city a lot. A lot.

My driverless electric pods will provide transport for everyone. Working hours may have to be adjusted. And there will be no more shitty public transport because driverless electric pods ARE public transport.

I don't trust driverless cars. But, that's another discussion

I like public transport too. But it has known drawbacks, like being point to point when neither point is your house or where you're going, like having to share an enclosed space with strangers*, and actually being quite polluting at times of low capacity.

Driverless electric pods are public transport done right. Anyone can use it. It's cheap. It's as flexible as a car in start and destination (actually more flexible, you don't need to park), and you don't need to share an enclosed space with anyone. If what you like about public transport is the public ownership: we can do that too!

The pods would still cause pollution. Electricity doesn't come from nowhere and it doesn't come from fusion any time in the foreseeable future. But the more things we convert to electricity the more demand we create for low-emission electricity, I think we get emissions from energy down even if the short term consequence is just to replace oil by gas.

I'd have to do some sums to say if the driverless electric pod option uses more energy than public transport for all (which I know you didn't say). I think it probably does. But a fairer comparison is against what we've got: a whole lot of cars AND public transport. It would definitely be better.


*One-person pods would be great from a road congestion and pollution point of view. But I favor two-person pods, or four-person with a boot option instead of the back seats, because families like to travel together, and friends do too. Two or more seats would also allow an economy option: cheaper travel providing you don't mind getting in with a stranger.

[Novus America]

And I am no neoliberal, big businesses taking away wealth from the rest of us is not something I support even if it might be “cheaper” and I will support action against it.
Because I value the freedom and prosperity of the individual not just the megacorp. But again I do not think that very likely.

Your assumption that taking the driver out of the car makes it fundamentally different I believe is fundamentally incorrect. Many companies do not want to invest the money and legal complexities in buying their own when they can actually make far more money just running an app without owning any cars (or pods) at all. Why pay to fix them?

Sure the company might make a bigger profit then I would owning the car and renting it, but they will make an even bigger profit not owning the car at all. It might cost them less to buy it then me to buy it but it costs them even less to not buy the car at all.

If you give them that option, I guess they would. Let private citizens stump up, then use their cars when they don't.

But that really begs the question why you would do what you're arguing for: buy your own pod. You admit someone else is going to profit from it, for minimal investment, but you'll put your money in so you can leave an umbrella and a spare pair of shoes in the back. Where's the return on investment for you? That usage fee you get paid is going to roughly cover the running costs for the rest of the time, so basically you get to use a pod for free. Which sounds great until you consider that you had to buy it and it won't last forever.

Plus them having to store unused ones during down times or while recharging.

And outside city cores you still will have to what for one to show up. They will not be continually around suburban and rural areas.

There would be plenty in the suburbs. There are people there, people are potentially customers.
If you're really out of town you would presumably ask the pod to wait for you. Doing literally nothing, that would be very cheap.
If you live on a farm, you'd be nothing to do with this thread. You'd probably still drive a car (fuel burning even). The only connection with the thread is what a rural person does if they need to go into town. I'm thinking, park on the outskirts and switch to a pod.

They only real excel in the type of areas that already have taxis.

Yeah cities. That is what the thread is about.

They are really just cheaper taxis but taxi price is not the only reason people use private cars.

The other reasons are basically fetishism. People have all sorts of irrational feelings about things they own.

(And taxi companies often do not own their taxis).

I think you mean taxi drivers? Yeah, you might want to think about why there are so few owner/drivers of taxis, not associated with companies at all. And why you would want to own a "driverless taxi" yourself, if you're not even going to get decent pay for steering it.

And no, land value appreciation is just one of many reasons people buy houses. People like to be able have the freedom to customize their house, and even with the depreciation of the house it still has value.

I never denied that houses have use value. I just said that it's appreciation of real estate (NOT of the house) that lead people to pay so much for them. It's the resale value: and if that was fixed by law at only a modest increase, the cost of all houses would begin to deflate.

Houses as assets almost never appreciate. Like cars (or pods) they wear out and are worth less over time.

Cars depreciate too yet still retain some value, thus can still contribute to your net wealth, especially once paid off.

Unless they're antique cars, cars lose value over time. What you're getting at with "they still have some value" I really can't see.

Plus people buy has a pint of status and pride, as well as the freedom to do what they want with them. To store things they do not want other people getting to (again as said before people store various things in their cars) as well.

You seem to have a very narrow set of priorities the mean YOU would prefer to just get the cheaper taxi but the problem is not everyone shares your priorities.

Oh they will though. When they see the prices. And of course there will be vans for larger items.

Actually taxi drivers tend town their own taxis over the taxi company but anyways.

The fact you do not see what I am getting at (it is pretty simple really, sure my truck is worth less now than it was new, but it is still worth a good chunk of money and it is paid off, it still increases my net worth over not having it) is the crux of the problem here.

You are just repeating yourself. As irrational as you might feel it is actually all, probably most people do not think in the same manner or make their decisions using the same calculus.
Again many people have priorities different than you. You have made a decision based on your priorities which are very different than the priorities of their people.

People rarely buy things like cars and houses using a purely monetary ROI calculus with the exception of professional investors. What you consider “fetish” other people consider their priorities.
And you fully acknowledge driverless taxis, if they ever become viable would be in dense city cores anyways where they would not have as much impact as in those areas fewer people have cars in the first place.

[Eikotomi]

Just impose a stringent congestion charge and price cars high enough to discourage driving.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If you give them that option, I guess they would. Let private citizens stump up, then use their cars when they don't.

But that really begs the question why you would do what you're arguing for: buy your own pod. You admit someone else is going to profit from it, for minimal investment, but you'll put your money in so you can leave an umbrella and a spare pair of shoes in the back. Where's the return on investment for you? That usage fee you get paid is going to roughly cover the running costs for the rest of the time, so basically you get to use a pod for free. Which sounds great until you consider that you had to buy it and it won't last forever.



There would be plenty in the suburbs. There are people there, people are potentially customers.
If you're really out of town you would presumably ask the pod to wait for you. Doing literally nothing, that would be very cheap.
If you live on a farm, you'd be nothing to do with this thread. You'd probably still drive a car (fuel burning even). The only connection with the thread is what a rural person does if they need to go into town. I'm thinking, park on the outskirts and switch to a pod.



Yeah cities. That is what the thread is about.



The other reasons are basically fetishism. People have all sorts of irrational feelings about things they own.



I think you mean taxi drivers? Yeah, you might want to think about why there are so few owner/drivers of taxis, not associated with companies at all. And why you would want to own a "driverless taxi" yourself, if you're not even going to get decent pay for steering it.



I never denied that houses have use value. I just said that it's appreciation of real estate (NOT of the house) that lead people to pay so much for them. It's the resale value: and if that was fixed by law at only a modest increase, the cost of all houses would begin to deflate.

Houses as assets almost never appreciate. Like cars (or pods) they wear out and are worth less over time.



Unless they're antique cars, cars lose value over time. What you're getting at with "they still have some value" I really can't see.



Oh they will though. When they see the prices. And of course there will be vans for larger items.

Actually taxi drivers tend town their own taxis over the taxi company but anyways.

The fact you do not see what I am getting at (it is pretty simple really, sure my truck is worth less now than it was new, but it is still worth a good chunk of money and it is paid off, it still increases my net worth over not having it) is the crux of the problem here.

You are just repeating yourself. As irrational as you might feel it is actually all, probably most people do not think in the same manner or make their decisions using the same calculus.
Again many people have priorities different than you. You have made a decision based on your priorities which are very different than the priorities of their people.

And you fully acknowledge driverless taxis, if they ever become viable would be in dense city cores anyways where they would not have as much impact as in those areas fewer people have cars in the first place.

Are you really tired or something? You seem to have stopped arguing with me.

Tell me something. What would it take for you to buy a driverless electric car? Say five years from now, when presumably they'll be finished testing and refining, and have a proven safety record. Would the prospect of hiring it out to strangers (via an ap) for money actually influence your decision?

[Novus America]

Yea, because overcrowded public transport is the best way to overcome a pandemic. The government here in NSW is trying to discourage public transport use, and encourage car use, because of Covid. I would hope that we learn from this pandemic and learn to make our cities safe from future pandemics. One method of doing so is a viable alternative to public transport, which would be cars

Cars are also better than public transport in the following matters:
1. Cars go everywhere. This is particularly helpful in places with small population densities, such as Sydney, where you otherwise would have had to catch 2 buses and a train
2. National, or even international, road trips. Why should people who live in rural areas be allowed to go on road trips, when people in urban areas can't?
3. Cars bring freedom

I know how bad cars are for the environment, but in the next couple of decades, most will be electric

What about the people too poor to afford cars? Shitty old public transport for them?

Let's imagine a society of high prosperity but also social equality. Yay, now everyone can afford a car. But they can't drive anywhere because the roads are too crowded. Those that can't drive a car (eg blind, too old, too young) get ... shitty old public transport.

My driverless electric pods will provide transport for everyone. Working hours may have to be adjusted. And there will be no more shitty public transport because driverless electric pods ARE public transport.

No, your car system is not for everyone. Clearly. They are not for Australia Republic or me. They are for you. It might be the best for some but not for all.
But how your system reduces congestion I have no idea. The same number of vehicles would be on the road as now.

[Novus America]

Actually taxi drivers tend town their own taxis over the taxi company but anyways.

The fact you do not see what I am getting at (it is pretty simple really, sure my truck is worth less now than it was new, but it is still worth a good chunk of money and it is paid off, it still increases my net worth over not having it) is the crux of the problem here.

You are just repeating yourself. As irrational as you might feel it is actually all, probably most people do not think in the same manner or make their decisions using the same calculus.
Again many people have priorities different than you. You have made a decision based on your priorities which are very different than the priorities of their people.

And you fully acknowledge driverless taxis, if they ever become viable would be in dense city cores anyways where they would not have as much impact as in those areas fewer people have cars in the first place.

Are you really tired or something? You seem to have stopped arguing with me.

Tell me something. What would it take for you to buy a driverless electric car? Say five years from now, when presumably they'll be finished testing and refining, and have a proven safety record. Would the prospect of hiring it out to strangers (via an ap) for money actually influence your decision?

I am simply pointing out you think differently than a lot of people do you cannot assume most people want the system you want.

Plus you still have failed to address where they will be stored while charging and on off peak hours.

Oh if a safe driverless car (five years is highly unlikely) becomes available at an affordable price I would buy it. I actually strongly support electric cars, and it would be very nice to have my car be able to operate autonomously of me. Sure the ability to hire it out would come into play, when buying a car I consider a lot of things. Some purely financial, others not.

My objection is to your ownership model, not the technology.

[Green October Z]

That would be a major inconvenience. Especially if you live in a big city and don't want to spend hours waiting for buses and trains.

If you live in a major city, you won't be waiting 'hours' for buses and trains.

You do here in Houston.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I wouldn't ban them, no. Although strongly encouraging other methods of transport is ok by me. Some cities are titanic, and not everyone has the ability to realistically replace vehicular transport with bicycles and the like.

Reliable and effective public transport, finding cleaner methods of transport and the like are all extremely positive moves to make though, even if one does not ban fossil fuel vehicles.

Question is, how, if not through drastic measures, are we going to make people actually care enough to support "reliable and effective public transport, finding cleaner methods of transport," etc...?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If you live in a major city, you won't be waiting 'hours' for buses and trains.

You do here in Houston.

A city in a state known for its oil industry isn't necessarily going to be a representative sample of the big picture.

Also, how long you wait for transit depends on how many people use it. If no one's using it, no one has any incentive to fix it. If everyone's using it, they have no choice but to fix it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Are you really tired or something? You seem to have stopped arguing with me.

Tell me something. What would it take for you to buy a driverless electric car? Say five years from now, when presumably they'll be finished testing and refining, and have a proven safety record. Would the prospect of hiring it out to strangers (via an ap) for money actually influence your decision?

I am simply pointing out you think differently than a lot of people do you cannot assume most people want the system you want.

Oh if a safe driverless car (five years is highly unlikely) becomes available at an affordable price I would buy it. I actually strongly support electric cars, and it would be very nice to have my car be able to operate autonomously of me. Sure the ability to hire it out would come into play, when buying a car I consider a lot of things. Some purely financial, others not.

My objection is to your ownership model, not the technology.

The reason I asked is because I know a lot of people really enjoy driving. It's important to their self-respect in a way I don't understand. It "feels like freedom" to them. Those people aren't just going to change their minds, they'll have to be won over gradually.

It will be a long time before market forces (don't be scared, I mean demand for pods and supply of pods) gets optimized so well that something like 80% of transport in a city is by pod. Only then would I consider banning self-driven cars (for safety). Petrol powered cars maybe sooner, but if they're driverless maybe we could just tolerate the low level of pollution. Trucks (lorries?) can be electric, but I see them operating mostly at night anyway so maybe some slack there too.

So what do you want me to do about big capital out-competing individual pod owners? I think your best chance is for you (and a lot of other one-pod owners) to get in and build a network before big business does. If you do that, sure government can protect you: you've proven you can do it. But speaking in the guise of government I am not going to ban industries from starting up, while we wait for the "little guys" to get their shit together.

That model of micro-investments and people maintaining and using their own pods, then a highly technical but not terribly expensive service to co-ordinate rides, might in fact be the best. AND the first to market. But it's right in capitalism's wheelhouse, and I'm afraid government will be too busy being bullied by Big Pod to look after the individual operators. It works best for you if (as a pod owner) you have good bargaining power, including the choice of which co-ordinating service to use, and the power to strike. If there were no big operators (owning their own fleet) you could unionize with other owners. But big business isn't having any of that: they will over-invest in their own pods, warehouse them even, so any time individuals "strike" their pods, they're replaced on the road instantly. Big business will do what it does to any business it wants out of the market: cut prices, run at a loss for years if necessary, and grind down your market share until you fold.

None of this is what I want to happen. It's just capitalism, and even a strong socialist government wouldn't fix it. Socialists would just say "no you can't do that" to big business and never mind the hypocrisy of incidentally crushing individual owners. Maybe a socialist government would build a public option: buy some pods, set up some tech, issue an ap. But it would be no better than current public transport: clean enough, efficient enough, but just not enough of it.

[Novus America]

I am simply pointing out you think differently than a lot of people do you cannot assume most people want the system you want.

Oh if a safe driverless car (five years is highly unlikely) becomes available at an affordable price I would buy it. I actually strongly support electric cars, and it would be very nice to have my car be able to operate autonomously of me. Sure the ability to hire it out would come into play, when buying a car I consider a lot of things. Some purely financial, others not.

My objection is to your ownership model, not the technology.

The reason I asked is because I know a lot of people really enjoy driving. It's important to their self-respect in a way I don't understand. It "feels like freedom" to them. Those people aren't just going to change their minds, they'll have to be won over gradually.

It will be a long time before market forces (don't be scared, I mean demand for pods and supply of pods) gets optimized so well that something like 80% of transport in a city is by pod. Only then would I consider banning self-driven cars (for safety). Petrol powered cars maybe sooner, but if they're driverless maybe we could just tolerate the low level of pollution. Trucks (lorries?) can be electric, but I see them operating mostly at night anyway so maybe some slack there too.

So what do you want me to do about big capital out-competing individual pod owners? I think your best chance is for you (and a lot of other one-pod owners) to get in and build a network before big business does. If you do that, sure government can protect you: you've proven you can do it. But speaking in the guise of government I am not going to ban industries from starting up, while we wait for the "little guys" to get their shit together.

That model of micro-investments and people maintaining and using their own pods, then a highly technical but not terribly expensive service to co-ordinate rides, might in fact be the best. AND the first to market. But it's right in capitalism's wheelhouse, and I'm afraid government will be too busy being bullied by Big Pod to look after the individual operators. It works best for you if (as a pod owner) you have good bargaining power, including the choice of which co-ordinating service to use, and the power to strike. If there were no big operators (owning their own fleet) you could unionize with other owners. But big business isn't having any of that: they will over-invest in their own pods, warehouse them even, so any time individuals "strike" their pods, they're replaced on the road instantly. Big business will do what it does to any business it wants out of the market: cut prices, run at a loss for years if necessary, and grind down your market share until you fold.

None of this is what I want to happen. It's just capitalism, and even a strong socialist government wouldn't fix it. Socialists would just say "no you can't do that" to big business and never mind the hypocrisy of incidentally crushing individual owners. Maybe a socialist government would build a public option: buy some pods, set up some tech, issue an ap. But it would be no better than current public transport: clean enough, efficient enough, but just not enough of it.

Well capitalism has its place but should be regulated.
But actually I am not that afraid. Because I am okay operating car at a loss, I already do.
Why do I care? As long as the loss is equal or less than my current loss why not?

I am not a business and like I said I do not think the businesses necessarily even want to own them. They can make a bigger profit by not doing so.

Anyways this is still hypothetical because we have not idea when such cars will be available and widely available.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If you live in a major city, you won't be waiting 'hours' for buses and trains.

You do here in Houston.

METRO began running light rail service (METRORail) on January 1, 2004. ... Prior to the opening of METRORail, Houston was the largest city in the United States without a rail transit system --Wikipedia

And that's generous. Light rail ...

The scheduled time for an end-to-end trip through the entire 12.8-mile (20.6 km) Red Line[20] is on average 55 minutes.

It's a perfectly good bicycle lane ruined!

The reason I asked is because I know a lot of people really enjoy driving. It's important to their self-respect in a way I don't understand. It "feels like freedom" to them. Those people aren't just going to change their minds, they'll have to be won over gradually.

It will be a long time before market forces (don't be scared, I mean demand for pods and supply of pods) gets optimized so well that something like 80% of transport in a city is by pod. Only then would I consider banning self-driven cars (for safety). Petrol powered cars maybe sooner, but if they're driverless maybe we could just tolerate the low level of pollution. Trucks (lorries?) can be electric, but I see them operating mostly at night anyway so maybe some slack there too.

So what do you want me to do about big capital out-competing individual pod owners? I think your best chance is for you (and a lot of other one-pod owners) to get in and build a network before big business does. If you do that, sure government can protect you: you've proven you can do it. But speaking in the guise of government I am not going to ban industries from starting up, while we wait for the "little guys" to get their shit together.

That model of micro-investments and people maintaining and using their own pods, then a highly technical but not terribly expensive service to co-ordinate rides, might in fact be the best. AND the first to market. But it's right in capitalism's wheelhouse, and I'm afraid government will be too busy being bullied by Big Pod to look after the individual operators. It works best for you if (as a pod owner) you have good bargaining power, including the choice of which co-ordinating service to use, and the power to strike. If there were no big operators (owning their own fleet) you could unionize with other owners. But big business isn't having any of that: they will over-invest in their own pods, warehouse them even, so any time individuals "strike" their pods, they're replaced on the road instantly. Big business will do what it does to any business it wants out of the market: cut prices, run at a loss for years if necessary, and grind down your market share until you fold.

None of this is what I want to happen. It's just capitalism, and even a strong socialist government wouldn't fix it. Socialists would just say "no you can't do that" to big business and never mind the hypocrisy of incidentally crushing individual owners. Maybe a socialist government would build a public option: buy some pods, set up some tech, issue an ap. But it would be no better than current public transport: clean enough, efficient enough, but just not enough of it.

Well capitalism has its place but should be regulated.
But actually I am not that afraid. Because I am okay operating car at a loss, I already do.
Why do I care? As long as the loss is equal or less than my current loss why not?

OK. I hope a service will be available for you to rent out your pod. At least you won't have to park it anywhere!

I am not a business and like I said I do not think the businesses necessarily even want to own them. They can make a bigger profit by not doing so.

We'll see. Big business likes investment up-front, they can avoid taxes on profits many years after.

Anyways this is still hypothetical because we have not idea when such cars will be available and widely available.

I certainly agree with that. On a bright note, they'll be expensive for quite a while. A comprehensive network of pods depends on them being individually quite cheap, so it's not happening any time soon. Private owners might get in first after all.