Ban urban vehicles

[Cannot think of a name]

Moving away from pollution, an other side of the car talk is about space, how much space do cars occupy, and how much more space would open if there weren't cars.
Most roads would be very wide if there weren't cars parked on the sides, nor cars running in the middle.
What that space could be used for i dunno, but it's something to also keep in mind when talking about pros and cons of widespread car usage.

I think of the Oakland Hills fires when expensive neighborhoods went up in flames because they refused to widen their roads so when the fire raged the fire department couldn't get their trucks in the neighborhoods.

This is a product of trying to build big fancy homes on hilly areas and being dicks as rich people do, but narrowing or reducing passage ways has to come with a way to deal with access for emergency services and how those are dealt with. A cute little ambulance is certainly part of it as well as creating a fire suppressing infrastructure. sort of like how hydrants remove the need for numerous tanker trucks.

Elevated through ways is one of the possible solutions, but in cities that would benefit the most from that like San Francisco there's the tricky matter of the land occasionally trying to knock as much shit down as it can.

This is where I start to wonder if starting from the point of being vehicle free or light rather than retrofitting a city is the way to go. Though retrofitting will take so long that we'll adjust to it without even thinking about it.

[Lost Memories]

I think there is some naivety in the premise.

The decrease in pollution during the virus isolation is clear, but the causes attributed to that pollution to start with, aren't as simple.
Most often, the bigger share of pollution doesn't come from trasport, it comes from the housing(not in warm seasons though) and from the industry.


So while the average citizen sees clear skies, and makes the correlation that since the only thing they stopped doing has been using a car, then the decrease in pollution must be because of less cars around.
The likely reality is instead that the lack of pollution was mainly because the industries had to slow down or stop during the height of the isolation.

I agree this is a good chance to rethink the mobility, since even if not the single main cause of pollution, cars still do suck in multiple ways(the lack of noise without cars around is great), and also pollute.
But let's not believe pollution will be solved by just addressing cars and private mobility.
There are more facets of pollution. But the biggest and ugliest face of them being, the industry.

[Bombadil]

I think there is some naivety in the premise.

The decrease in pollution during the virus isolation is clear, but the causes attributed to that pollution to start with, aren't as simple.
Most often, the bigger share of pollution doesn't come from trasport, it comes from the housing(not in warm seasons though) and from the industry.


So while the average citizen sees clear skies, and makes the correlation that since the only thing they stopped doing has been using a car, then the decrease in pollution must be because of less cars around.
The likely reality is instead that the lack of pollution was mainly because the industries had to slow down or stop during the height of the isolation.

I agree this is a good chance to rethink the mobility, since even if not the single main cause of pollution, cars still do suck in multiple ways(the lack of noise without cars around is great), and also pollute.
But let's not believe pollution will be solved by just addressing cars and private mobility.
There are more facets of pollution. But bigger and uglier face of them being, the industry.

The problem with cars is they emit ground level pollution that is a far greater danger to those walking around the cities. And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss vehicles as the major daily producer of pollution in cities.

As the research showed, 70% of pollution seems to be coming from within cities, sure home and other things contribute but I'd suspect the major contributor is the constant thrum of cars, busses, trucks and other vehicles.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, motor vehicles produce roughly one-half of pollutants like VOCs, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Seventy-five percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from automobiles. In urban areas, harmful automotive emissions are responsible for anywhere between 50 and 90 percent of air pollution. All told, that's quite a lot of air pollution coming from our vehicles.

Link.. and yes, I should find the original report..

[Risottia]

Dunno, we have plumbing and electricity and etc., with all the paraphernalia required, to be fair i don't know how it was done. There are a few electric forklift type vehicles you find in factories mostly at the shipping yard.

Ok, how big is your city (population and area)?
Because that looks like something feasible on the small scale, not in cities with more than 500 000 inhabitants.

[Risottia]

Which all is to say, if for some reason you think Tesla doesn't make cars (

They do.
They're just incredibly lagging behind in producing the stuff they already sold.

[Bombadil]

Dunno, we have plumbing and electricity and etc., with all the paraphernalia required, to be fair i don't know how it was done. There are a few electric forklift type vehicles you find in factories mostly at the shipping yard.

Ok, how big is your city (population and area)?
Because that looks like something feasible on the small scale, not in cities with more than 500 000 inhabitants.

Oh for sure far smaller, but these are issues that can surely be resolved. Better than to say 'no, can't be done', which tends to ignoring the issue entirely.

[Risottia]

Volume 10.6m3, with aluminum alloy top cover sealing system.It adopts the lithium iron phosphate power battery.

Nice, but the weight of the batteries is still something you could easily avoid with a trolleytruck, which is fed directly from overhead lines.

[Lost Memories]

Those stats looks odd. Probably because the source research did use a very skewed sample: "only inside a city"
Thank fuck, there are rarely industrial complexes next to residential areas. (aside in poorer nations or areas)

The stats i do remember are close to the ones reported by Minnesota's 2011 report. I'll go look for more updated and recent data. (the data you reported is from 2008 though)

Fine particles (PM2.5)


Nitrogen oxides (NOX)


Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Volume 10.6m3, with aluminum alloy top cover sealing system.It adopts the lithium iron phosphate power battery.

Nice, but the weight of the batteries is still something you could easily avoid with a trolleytruck, which is fed directly from overhead lines.

Do you want to use trolleybus to transport engineering materials in the city?The trolleybus is not flexible enough because its lines are fixed

[Cannot think of a name]

Those stats looks odd. Probably because the source research did use a very skewed sample: "only inside a city"
Thank fuck, there are rarely industrial complexes next to residential areas. (aside in poorer nations or areas)

The stats i do remember are close to the ones reported by Minnesota's 2011 report. I'll go look for more updated and recent data. (the data you reported is from 2008 though)

Fine particles (PM2.5)
(Image)

Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
(Image)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
(Image)

That's cool and all, but we were talking specifically about pollution in cities.

[Bombadil]

Those stats looks odd. Probably because the source research did use a very skewed sample: "only inside a city"
Thank fuck, there are rarely industrial complexes next to residential areas. (aside in poorer nations or areas)

The stats i do remember are close to the ones reported by Minnesota's 2011 report. I'll go look for more updated and recent data. (the data you reported is from 2008 though)

Fine particles (PM2.5)
(Image)

Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
(Image)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
(Image)

Sure, but hence why I specifically mentioned 'inside a city' in the OP. I don't see much solution for public transport in more rural areas, though I'd argue many towns could probably do similar.

Given, as noted, haulage will likely go electric anytime soon then we're going a long way to cutting overall emissions.

[Risottia]

Nice, but the weight of the batteries is still something you could easily avoid with a trolleytruck, which is fed directly from overhead lines.

Do you want to use trolleybus to transport engineering materials in the city?The trolleybus is not flexible enough because its lines are fixed

You are aware that modern trolleybuses also have backup IC engines or batteries? You can have them run on overhead lines on the main roads (while recharging batteries) and then switch to internal power, thus saving the weight of the batteries completely or partly.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Ok, how big is your city (population and area)?
Because that looks like something feasible on the small scale, not in cities with more than 500 000 inhabitants.

Oh for sure far smaller, but these are issues that can surely be resolved. Better than to say 'no, can't be done', which tends to ignoring the issue entirely.

Less than half a million? Is it in the Arctic Circle?

Electric forklifts have been around for a long time. Generally speaking, the torque of electric motor is greater than that of gasoline engine.Some mine transporters use internal combustion engines to drive generators and then use electric motors to work

[Bombadil]

Oh for sure far smaller, but these are issues that can surely be resolved. Better than to say 'no, can't be done', which tends to ignoring the issue entirely.

Less than half a million? Is it in the Arctic Circle?

Electric forklifts have been around for a long time. Generally speaking, the torque of electric motor is greater than that of gasoline engine.Some mine transporters use internal combustion engines to drive generators and then use electric motors to work

Well it's not a city though it's part of a city.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Do you want to use trolleybus to transport engineering materials in the city?The trolleybus is not flexible enough because its lines are fixed

You are aware that modern trolleybuses also have backup IC engines or batteries? You can have them run on overhead lines on the main roads (while recharging batteries) and then switch to internal power, thus saving the weight of the batteries completely or partly.

I don't know it.But isn't that supposed to be a wire in the street?Or underground circuits

[Bombadil]

You are aware that modern trolleybuses also have backup IC engines or batteries? You can have them run on overhead lines on the main roads (while recharging batteries) and then switch to internal power, thus saving the weight of the batteries completely or partly.

I don't know it.But isn't that supposed to be a wire in the street?Or underground circuits

Long ago a former mod, Lunatic Goofballs, suggested, I think, some form of photovoltaic roads that not only collect and store energy but could also be used to power vehicles similar to Scalextrics.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't know it.But isn't that supposed to be a wire in the street?Or underground circuits

Long ago a former mod, Lunatic Goofballs, suggested, I think, some form of photovoltaic roads that not only collect and store energy but could also be used to power vehicles similar to Scalextrics.

It sounds stupid. There's obviously not enough sunshine in the city

[Bombadil]

Long ago a former mod, Lunatic Goofballs, suggested, I think, some form of photovoltaic roads that not only collect and store energy but could also be used to power vehicles similar to Scalextrics.

It sounds stupid. There's obviously not enough sunshine in the city

The volume of traffic imparts energy itself, it's not a total solution but it still contributes to efficiency.

[Lost Memories]

That's cool and all, but we were talking specifically about pollution in cities.

By assuming industrial or housing pollution also doesn't affects cities, in relevant shares.

That's what i was pointing out. Pollution in cities doesn't come only from cars.
Then there are geographical differences, some cities are far enough from industrial complexes, or have a geography which helps to wind away the pollution such as reducing its impact on nearby cities. While some cities don't, either because of closeness to industry, or because all the pollution gathers up without getting winded away, which is the case i think for the indian city used in the premise of this thread.

If the thread is set-up to only talk about car pollution in very specific cases of cities which aren't affected by any other kind of pollution, that's going to be a very narrow set-up.
Most cities have very diverse sources of pollution, with cars being one of the major actors, but not the only one.

That isn't to detract from the talk about the car generated pollution, just to be more realistic and grounded on reality.
Extremizing and black and white thought (or stereotipizing because of a lack of actual understanding) doesn't contribute to useful discussion.

[Bombadil]

That's cool and all, but we were talking specifically about pollution in cities.

By assuming industrial or housing pollution also doesn't affects cities, in relevant shares.

That's what i was pointing out. Pollution in cities doesn't come only from cars.
Then there are geographical differences, some cities are far enough from industrial complexes, or have a geography which helps to wind away the pollution such as reducing its impact on nearby cities. While some cities don't, either because of closeness to industry, or because all the pollution gathers up without getting winded away, which is the case i think for the indian city used in the premise of this thread.

If the thread is set-up to only talk about car pollution in very specific cases of cities which aren't affected by any other kind of pollution, that's going to be a very narrow set-up.
Most cities have very diverse sources of pollution, with cars being one of the major actors, but not the only one.

That isn't to detract from the talk about the car generated pollution, just to be more realistic and grounded on reality.
Extremizing and black and white thought (or stereotipizing because of a lack of actual understanding) doesn't contribute to useful discussion.

Except in accounting for those some 70% of pollution is determined to come from within cities. The study was notable not for being centred on one city but an entire region. Hence it could take into account geography, proximity to industry and other factors and balance out between different cities.

[Ethel mermania]

No, not everyone can use public transportation for all tasks. Super marketing, carrying large loads, travel that is not to and from the hub.

Auto free area's in center cities makes some sense, just banning cars doesnt.

[Novus America]

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.

First of all without a complete overhaul of power electrical power generation like nuclearization, electrification does not work. And also how can public transportation be made safe in a pandemic? Public transport is much more likely to spread disease.

People are simply traveling less, not using public transport more, public transport use is way down. This has hurt, not helped the cause of public transport as a result.

Although public transport still has a role, it alone cannot be a solution. High density cities reliant on public transport have been hit much harder by this, because you cannot safely keep distancing.

Although people fleeing to the suburbs should reduce the number of cars in urban centers.

Simply because fewer people are around.

Rather than banning all cars, we need first nuclear power, then electric cars.

Although removing through traffic from urban streets via tunnels and bypasses is a good idea.

For example to go from 295 to 83 in Baltimore you have to drive through downtown which just clogs the city center with people not actually wanting to be in the city, rather because there is a break in the highway network.

[Forsher]

I suspect if roads, parking, space and emissions were priced properly (or, in many cases, at all), no-one would want to own a vehicle in cities. Actually, they probably don't stack up financially for a lot of people in autodependent cities anyway. It's just that people don't care and, frankly, don't think to evaluate private vehicles in these terms. Look at a fucking car ad. How many of them actually feature other vehicles? How cars will actually be used simply has nothing to do with their value.

Oh, and congestion. That's not really the same as pricing roads properly. Whether it would exist if roads and parking (let alone space and emissions as well) were properly priced is another question, though.

(As a practical exercise, parking and congestion are the easiest things to price. Once those become normal, pricing everything is made easier. While it seems unlikely companies like the Warehouse, Walmart, Tesco etc. would ever expense employee vehicles because, you know, worker exploitation, this is a valid concern when it comes to other kinds of employers. And then there's the question of low paid but home based care professions in ageing societies... plumbers and electricians etc. are in a position to up their already exorbitant rates so I don't think we need to worry about them.)

Banning cars in cities is... limited by the difficulty in defining cities. For example, this and this are both Auckland. And while that seems stupid because obviously the latter is rural, what about somewhere like this? Clearly, semi-rural. And, for that matter, ought we count this as urban? It's obviously suburban, right? But pretty much all of Auckland is like Manurewa, except the fringes which are like Drury. It gets worse when you remember it's all in flux too... only ten years ago, Drury was clearly separated by rural living from Papakura... which brings one back to the political boundaries, but that's that first set of images again.

And here's the other thing... this stretch of the Great South Road has (imo) some of the worst congestion in Auckland. But there's really no particular reason for this to be the case. Even in Auckland, we're talking about an area well served by busses and trains (even if the latter are admittedly really slow). So... the suburban area is getting urban problems... honestly, more so than Symonds St (a major CBD arterial) does.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, not everyone can use public transportation for all tasks. Super marketing, carrying large loads, travel that is not to and from the hub.

Auto free area's in center cities makes some sense, just banning cars doesnt.

Cool. No one said banning cars and the OP explicitly states that less densely populated areas cannot get by without personal transportation, so take that premise no one proposed. Between "Ban" and "Vehicles" is the key term "urban".

[Cannot think of a name]

Although people fleeing to the suburbs should reduce the number of cars in urban centers.

Literally had the opposite effect. The car made the suburbs possible and the proliferation of the car grew the suburbs. Which then meant more cars driving into the city. When people lived in urban areas, or lived where they worked, they didn't need cars as they were more hassle than they were worth. But once they were sold an easy and convenient way to drive out to place with a lawn and a pool, the car became integral to the suburban existence.

Suburbanization doesn't reduce traffic and cars, it creates the need.