Ban urban vehicles

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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.

That's true. Furthermore if busses or trains are full (at some time) government has reason to run more services (at those times).

I'll just mention that modern communications make it safe to run trains more frequently. And maybe even to drop a carriage off the back of one train, stop that carriage at a station, get it back up to speed and join it to front of the next train. So neither train actually has to stop at the station. I know, I'm quite insane.

[The Two Jerseys]

No, building a transit system capable of accommodating the surge in demand would be prohibitively expensive.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No, building a transit system capable of accommodating the surge in demand would be prohibitively expensive.

Driverless cars will create a considerable surge in demand. Unless you tax it, people will use their cars to send children individually to school, to drive without them to where they can recharge or park, even send them all the way back home for someone else to use. They will used them for goods delivery. Shopping unattended.

Tax them then. According to the means of the passenger (rich people pay more for the same service). This will reduce demand a bit. Further specific taxes for anything government deems frivolous. Pack more cars at higher speeds on the same road (driverless remember). Build subways (which would be free). If necessary, put car tunnels under existing roads.

It's expensive and disrupts the lives of current car owner/drivers. But if equal transport opportunities are to be provided for everyone, with the best of public transport and the best of car systems, it is well duh going to cost a bit.

[The Two Jerseys]

No, building a transit system capable of accommodating the surge in demand would be prohibitively expensive.

Driverless cars will create a considerable surge in demand. Unless you tax it, people will use their cars to send children individually to school, to drive without them to where they can recharge or park, even send them all the way back home for someone else to use. They will used them for goods delivery. Shopping unattended.

Tax them then. According to the means of the passenger (rich people pay more for the same service). This will reduce demand a bit. Further specific taxes for anything government deems frivolous. Pack more cars at higher speeds on the same road (driverless remember). Build subways (which would be free). If necessary, put car tunnels under existing roads.

It's expensive and disrupts the lives of current car owner/drivers. But if equal transport opportunities are to be provided for everyone, with the best of public transport and the best of car systems, it is well duh going to cost a bit.

What does "fuck the rich" have to do with banning cars from cities?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Driverless cars will create a considerable surge in demand. Unless you tax it, people will use their cars to send children individually to school, to drive without them to where they can recharge or park, even send them all the way back home for someone else to use. They will used them for goods delivery. Shopping unattended.

Tax them then. According to the means of the passenger (rich people pay more for the same service). This will reduce demand a bit. Further specific taxes for anything government deems frivolous. Pack more cars at higher speeds on the same road (driverless remember). Build subways (which would be free). If necessary, put car tunnels under existing roads.

It's expensive and disrupts the lives of current car owner/drivers. But if equal transport opportunities are to be provided for everyone, with the best of public transport and the best of car systems, it is well duh going to cost a bit.

What does "fuck the rich" have to do with banning cars from cities?

I was talking about ways to reduce demand, in the scenario where demand on current roads increases.

Higher taxes (say for frivolous use by the rich) would work the same way higher speeding fines for rich people would work. You want to provide the same disincentive to all, regardless of their means; it can't be the same fine for a poor person as for a rich one. $100 is a much stronger disincentive to someone with $250 weekly income, than it is to someone with $5000 weekly income. The rich person can speed all they like, the poor person can hardly ever speed. That's unfair: the ability to break road rules should not be available to one more than the other.

That traffic fines may not work that way isn't the point. They should.

[Cisairse]

>no public transit
>miles from your place of work
>no sidewalks

You don't live in a city.

Could well be LA..

If that's the case, then L.A. isn't a city

[Slavakino]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

[Necunda]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Glad to see someone see the imperfections of electric cars, I don't understand why people think that "Electric is the future" Bro, we already in that future and it doesn't seem that effective and efficient. The problem is with companies that don't want to invest their research on viable energy sources like for example some fallout-esque hydrogen cell or fusion cell or god knows what else is there.

[Bombadil]

Could well be LA..

If that's the case, then L.A. isn't a city

Pretty sure there's some quote out there along the lines of 'LA is a collection of suburbs trying to be a city.'

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Main problem with petrol is the ground level fumes they emit, damaging the health of those in the city. One can argue back and forth between electric and petrol efficiency but it's those fumes that causes blackened cities and blackened lungs.

[Slavakino]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Glad to see someone see the imperfections of electric cars, I don't understand why people think that "Electric is the future" Bro, we already in that future and it doesn't seem that effective and efficient. The problem is with companies that don't want to invest their research on viable energy sources like for example some fallout-esque hydrogen cell or fusion cell or god knows what else is there.

Likewise to see another person to see the flaws of electric cars

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Main problem with petrol is the ground level fumes they emit, damaging the health of those in the city. One can argue back and forth between electric and petrol efficiency but it's those fumes that causes blackened cities and blackened lungs.

Your engine has to be highly inefficient in order to produce so much soot. Modern cars shouldn't have that problem with Injected Fuel and computer based injections giving greater efficiency and complete combustion. Although mechanically its only 20-30% efficient however, with complete combustion. It shouldn't be an issue

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Glad to see someone see the imperfections of electric cars, I don't understand why people think that "Electric is the future" Bro, we already in that future and it doesn't seem that effective and efficient. The problem is with companies that don't want to invest their research on viable energy sources like for example some fallout-esque hydrogen cell or fusion cell or god knows what else is there.

Likewise to see another person to see the flaws of electric cars

Main problem with petrol is the ground level fumes they emit, damaging the health of those in the city. One can argue back and forth between electric and petrol efficiency but it's those fumes that causes blackened cities and blackened lungs.

Your engine has to be highly inefficient in order to produce so much soot. Modern cars shouldn't have that problem with Injected Fuel and computer based injections giving greater efficiency and complete combustion. Although mechanically its only 20-30% efficient however, with complete combustion. It shouldn't be an issue

Incomplete combustion of carbon is only part of it.What's more harmful are the invisible exhaust part.Such as NOX,VOC,PM2.5,etc.In particular, recent news and research have revealed that air quality in some cities has significantly improved as the use of motor vehicles has plummeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Main_motor_vehicle_emissions

[Bombadil]

Likewise to see another person to see the flaws of electric cars


Your engine has to be highly inefficient in order to produce so much soot. Modern cars shouldn't have that problem with Injected Fuel and computer based injections giving greater efficiency and complete combustion. Although mechanically its only 20-30% efficient however, with complete combustion. It shouldn't be an issue

Incomplete combustion of carbon is only part of it.What's more harmful are the invisible exhaust part.Such as NOX,VOC,PM2.5,etc.In particular, recent news and research have revealed that air quality in some cities has significantly improved as the use of motor vehicles has plummeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Main_motor_vehicle_emissions

Ah, thank you, I couldn't be bothered to go look it up.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Electricity does pollute, in fact I said that previously. The effect of more cars using electricity (and they will, environment or not, they will be cheap to run and maintain) will be to drive up the price of electricity. And that's bad ... no, hear me out. Driving up the price of electricity makes high-investment-low-operation-cost sources more competitive: especially solar and nuclear. Eventually the price comes back down and voila, oil is only needed for aeroplanes.

Hybrid is a transitional technology, for the time when batteries could still be better (there are four axes: capacity, weight, durability and price), charging points aren't common, and cars can't drive themselves.

[Galloism]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Funnily enough, I can run my electric car almost entirely on coal energy and put out less emissions than either hydrogen or mobile LPG, because of the way energy recapture works.

Electric produces less than petroleum on every single power source except 100% dedicated coal, and there it's really close.

[Cisairse]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

[Galloism]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

Excellent!

[Shanghai industrial complex]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

Great.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

Another great prototype killed by Big Oil!

I particularly like how they've left so much space around the reactor. In case something goes a bit wrong.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

You heard it here first boys, the Ford Nucleon is back on the menu

Another great prototype killed by Big Oil!

I particularly like how they've left so much space around the reactor. In case something goes a bit wrong.

Very easy.Traffic accident.

[Galloism]

No. Bugger off flaming environmentalist. Also, electric cars are not viable when most energy sources come from coal, also no manual gearbox. You're better off developing a nuclear car, advancing Hydrogen or LPG. Electric cars are for people who are environmentalists who know jack about the environment or people who know no nothing about cars. Petrol may not be perfect but it certainly pollutes less compared to electric. Hell hybrid exists for a reason.

Glad to see someone see the imperfections of electric cars, I don't understand why people think that "Electric is the future" Bro, we already in that future and it doesn't seem that effective and efficient. The problem is with companies that don't want to invest their research on viable energy sources like for example some fallout-esque hydrogen cell or fusion cell or god knows what else is there.

We get hydrogen for hydrogen cars via expending electricity and water via electrolyzing the water.

Batteries are way more efficient than that, especially as hydrogen is so small it can escape through solid tank walls.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Another great prototype killed by Big Oil!

I particularly like how they've left so much space around the reactor. In case something goes a bit wrong.

Very easy.Traffic accident.

I think that's covered. See how the reactor is partly separate from the car? I think you could pull a lever in the cab, and the reactor would drop on the road. And you coast to safety!

(Everything about the Nucleon is a joke btw)

Micro-nuclear itself is not just a joke. Cars or even trains, should not have reactors. Big ships maybe.

[Cameroi]

zirmatt switzerland, if you want to talk about car free cities on today's mundane earth.

never been there. seen pictures. no idea of current status situation, but it was going good as one last i heard about it.
electric trains in and out. huge car parking facilities at the last train stop before getting there.

a right to drive a combustion powered personal vehicle, is a 'right' to contribute to the collective suicide of the human species.
no truly civilized community depends on everyone having to indenture themselves to a personal vehicle.
battery powered buses and trams go everywhere and there's no place more then a half mile, a tenth of a mile in more dense places like shopping districts, from the nearest bus/tram stop.

and there are a number of ways of powering public transit that don't require reliance on combustion.
of course it takes more then technology. it also requires political will, and in a democratic nation that means public understanding and support.

the problems are not insoluble, but lowering the human birth rate is part of any sustainable and long lasting solution.

inevitably, fossil fuels being consumed at much higher rates then nature can replace them, will reach a point where reliance on them becomes no longer practical.
long before that point is reached, if we want there to be an environment that makes it possible for there to be an us, we can and must, wean ourselves off of dependence on them.

Private cars though can run on electricity just as much public transport, simply converted private cars to electricity allows people the freedoms and flexibility of private cars without the pollution.

true enough, but two things i like to point out, flanged wheels on steel rails use energy more efficiently, and much more effeciently when built to proportions less then half the size of standard gauge trams and trains people are familiar with. likewise consume less real estate thereby less habitat distruction and disruption for species diversity and also air shed. and by more effeciently, i mean enough more for the majority of not totality if charging their storage capicity from clean sources.

super small personal vehicles are fine too, like those mini-golf trucks for delivery and rapid response, and things like segways and electric assisted and full on electric powered two and three wheelers. because the problem isn't just with chemical polution, but there is also thermal polution from the amount of pavement personal vehicles require to park them and for large percentages of people driving them at the same time.

personal vehicles certainly have their place, but dense urban environments, are really not their place. and even beyond the cities, it is desirable to reduce not just polution load, but disruption of land species migration patterns. any place you have more then a hundred people living in the same square mile, it may not be a city, but that's a dense enough population to bennifit from very small form factor systems of verying sorts to meet local conditions. and likewise to interconnect these smaller communities, as well as relieve personal vehicle dependence in larger dense environments.

as for freedom of movement, a simple button at every stopping place, like the button to call an elevator, keys into a.i. assisted dispatching, reducing wait time.
and on board, vandel risistant user interface enables each person bording, again as an elevator, to choose destination. and intelligent systems again keep track of each rider their own destination and calculate most effecient routing on this basis.

freedom, yes the holy grail. but is it more free to crawl under a greasy personal vehicle to maintain it, or work the additional hours to pay someone else to do so, or read a couple of pages out of your favorite novel, or maybe hunt an extra pokimon on your cell phone, while waiting five minuets, seldom more the 15, for an a.i. dispatched system? and if a personal vehcle isn't brand new and or in purrfect condition, does it even not take almost that long, just to get rolling?

and then there's the aesthetics, which you're not personally paying someone else to maintain, or doing so yourself, in ether case bearing the total cost, with a personal vehicle, vs the much lighter burden of everyone's taxes pitching in to support this.

[Slavakino]

Very easy.Traffic accident.

I think that's covered. See how the reactor is partly separate from the car? I think you could pull a lever in the cab, and the reactor would drop on the road. And you coast to safety!

(Everything about the Nucleon is a joke btw)

Micro-nuclear itself is not just a joke. Cars or even trains, should not have reactors. Big ships maybe.

Ok hear me out. Fusion Reactors scaled down into a car. Basically a huge lithium doughnut at 10,000,000C powering a steam turbine. 10,000RPM automobile time

[Nolo gap]

i'd love for everyone to be able to get their paws on and use to power their cars or their houses or whatever they wanted to power with it, one of those three year nuclear batteries like on some of the more recent mars rovers. but there's a reason they're on mars and not on earth, and that reason boils down to cultures of insufficient mutual consideration, for there to be few enough people who couldn't be trusted with them.

as for people who cry about, that's its oh such a terrible burden on them, to give a gnat's backside about the environment, i can only say: "TRY LIVING WITHOUT ONE".

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I think that's covered. See how the reactor is partly separate from the car? I think you could pull a lever in the cab, and the reactor would drop on the road. And you coast to safety!

(Everything about the Nucleon is a joke btw)

Micro-nuclear itself is not just a joke. Cars or even trains, should not have reactors. Big ships maybe.

Ok hear me out. Fusion Reactors scaled down into a car. Basically a huge lithium doughnut at 10,000,000C powering a steam turbine. 10,000RPM automobile time

Fusion Reactors?Iron man?It's science fiction.But there is Nuclear battery now.It is used in aerospace, pacemaker and some special military applications. It can provide a million times more energy than a chemical cell of the same volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery