My fix for global warming: outlaw personal autos in cities

[desy]

Well, used to be only the rich owned stables and rode around on horses

 

[Martin]

Which is more livable, dense high rise or suburban areas with green belts and parks. I really question the sanity of what greens call livable.

False dilemma dude. My idea of a dense, livable neighbourhood is 4-6 story buildings with heavily mixed commercial and residential usage and lots of green space and parks.


Also, it's not just about green, but about practical things that make sense. Suburbs leave you completely and totally dependent on your car (even as a car-lover I find that unacceptable) and constantly at the mercy of ever-worsening traffic. The average commute time here is 80 minutes and the highways are basically unusable 3pm - 8pm. During the weekends, every large mall and plaza and it's surrounding streets are also jammed. People that live in the burbs have to spend hours each day stressed and frustrated just so they can have a tiny private yard.

Me? My "commute" is a 5 minute walk, grocery shopping involves walking across a small park (about the same size as a walmart supercenter parking lot), I go to the local bars and pubs whenever I want without worrying about DUIs, and a 10-15 minute bike ride will get me to the sailing club, windsurf club, the beach, all the nice parks and more shops and restaurants than I can every visit.

So I have to give up all of that, just so I can have my own slice of this hell?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/203835362/

No thanks.

 

[zsdersw]

So I have to give up all of that, just so I can have my own slice of this hell?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/203835362/

No thanks.

Tell ya what... you keep your situation and everyone who wants their car(s) can keep their car(s).

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't get your point. Are you Texans all royalty and too good to ride a bus or train? And size makes not a bit of difference, with express buses it doesn't take that much longer to get somewhere via bus than by private car. I bet the vast majority of urbanites never go more than 5 miles or so from home or work in any event. And if you do go beyond that regularly, you probably should be living in a suburb anyway since you miss the entire point of urban life.

So people located near the middle of town should no longer be friends with suburbanites?

 

[sandorski]

I disagree. This isn't like a new product.. this is something fundamental to the economy of the civilized world: transportation and energy. If you don't think the market can move swiftly in a direction that is vital for its own survival, you're not paying attention.

Sorry, you're the one not paying attention.

 

[piasabird]

It would make more sense to limit the size of all cars and crush all these gian SUV's. It would also make sense to limit the square footage of houses. If you are burning coal to make electricity, then the size of the house is directly related to pollution. One of the biggest poblems is people are having to live further from city centers because they cant afford the housing. Cities in the midwest are designed around the car being the primary source of transportation. A lot of these cities are also in flood plains and building anything underground is the best way to kill people from flooding. When the price of Gas was cheap, and the engineering of cars made them more dependable we significantly closed down a lot of rail roads so that makes rail service kind of difficult in some places also. So in a few large cities that happen to have good rail and bus service, maybe cars could be significantly reduced. However, for the rest of the country this is a bit difficult.

 

[Zebo]

lolz stupid liberals, any conservation uses more petro according to jevons paradox & fractional reserve banking. And more importantly "I" don't get to enjoy it but someone else.

This problem is self correcting when/as oil runs out.

 

[zsdersw]

Sorry, you're the one not paying attention.

Yes, let's see... I'm sure the market will just let transportation and energy fail when the oil runs out or gets too expensive. That's good for long-term growth. /sarcasm

 

[sandorski]

Yes, let's see... I'm sure the market will just let transportation and energy fail when the oil runs out or gets too expensive. That's good for long-term growth. /sarcasm

lol wut?

 

[zsdersw]

lol wut?

Given the extreme necessity of transportation and energy networks to not only consumers but business and commerce, the market is extraordinarily driven on both the supply and demand sides of the equation to fill the gap with good alternatives when oil prices itself out of economic viability. In other words, don't underestimate the market.

Your contention was that the market is "too slow" to bring us good alternatives to oil. I'm pointing out that for something as essential to everyone, businesses and consumers alike, as transportation and energy the market is not going to move "too slow" at all.

 

[sandorski]

Given the extreme necessity of transportation and energy networks to not only consumers but business and commerce, the market is extraordinarily driven on both the supply and demand sides of the equation to fill the gap with good alternatives when oil prices itself out of economic viability. In other words, don't underestimate the market.

The Market is too slow to react to such things. Society will be severely disrupted by waiting on the "Market".

 

[Martin]

Tell ya what... you keep your situation and everyone who wants their car(s) can keep their car(s).

Sounds wonderful, but only if it's a two-way deal. Suburbanites can keep their 3 cars, 2hr commutes and Walmart Supercenters, and urbanites get to build dense, livable cities. Suburbanites have an incredible sense of entitlement and always demand that everything be built to be car-friendly, even if it doesn't concern them.

 

[theeedude]

Of course! That's why there are no personal use cars, trucks or motorcycles in Europe.

It's much lower, and Europe is much more energy efficient per capita. It's simple economics, higher price = lower demand for energy consuming products, higher demand for energy saving products.

 

[zsdersw]

The Market is too slow to react to such things. Society will be severely disrupted by waiting on the "Market".

There's no way you can reasonably assert that as fact... as we've never been through something like the transition away from oil.

 

[zsdersw]

Sounds wonderful, but only if it's a two-way deal. Suburbanites can keep their 3 cars, 2hr commutes and Walmart Supercenters, and urbanites get to build dense, livable cities.

Sounds fine to me.

Suburbanites have an incredible sense of entitlement and always demand that everything be built to be car-friendly, even if it doesn't concern them.

No more than urbanites, in my experience.

 

[K1052]

A focus on increased density would be a better option, transportation would naturally follow. More restrictive land use regulation and not rubber stamping every greenfield development that comes across their desks would be a good place for cities to start.

Requiring TOD (transit orientated development) along existing transit corridors would be an excellent start to make use of present infrastructure.

 

[Exterous]

Depends on your criteria, but for the greatest Energy Efficiency, Time Efficiency, and overall Convenience, it's near impossible to beat High Density Housing in a well designed Urban environment.

I have been out of it for a bit but when I was working as an Architectural Assistant there were a number of interesting studies coming out about the effects of ultra high and high density cities on the human psyche. Most of them were preliminary and took a look at ultra high density cities (Hong Kong, Shanghai, New York, Dehli) but they found that there was a notably higher number of 'serious' psychological issues per capita including depression and sexual repression. In addition they found people in ultra high density cities to be more aggressive, irritable and more callous towards the common man. The reports then took a look at high density and medium density cities. I want to say they found the increase curve of these issues leveled out in medium density cities but it has been a number of years since I read the studies

Just like the issue with over conditioning of the building environments I think the 'sweet spot' in terms of city density lies in the middle and not at one extreme or the other

False dilemma dude. My idea of a dense, livable neighbourhood is 4-6 story buildings with heavily mixed commercial and residential usage and lots of green space and parks.

Also, it's not just about green, but about practical things that make sense. Suburbs leave you completely and totally dependent on your car (even as a car-lover I find that unacceptable) and constantly at the mercy of ever-worsening traffic. The average commute time here is 80 minutes and the highways are basically unusable 3pm - 8pm. During the weekends, every large mall and plaza and it's surrounding streets are also jammed. People that live in the burbs have to spend hours each day stressed and frustrated just so they can have a tiny private yard.

Is there a city you have in mind that meets what you would consider high density? The definition is varries quite a bit based on area but I believe what you mention is generally considered medium density (which I am generally all for)

It's much lower, and Europe is much more energy efficient per capita. It's simple economics, higher price = lower demand for energy consuming products, higher demand for energy saving products.

Part of the problem is that the car is so centralized to the way we commute in America. Europe was forced early on to adopt other means of transportation due to space restrictions and existing road widths. It was not as convenient for Europeans to adopt such wide scale car use.

I think we will see a continued trend for public transportation in big cities in the US but we won't see wide scale adoption of public transportation until car use becomes more inconvenient (instead of costly) than public transportation.

 

[charrison]

False dilemma dude. My idea of a dense, livable neighbourhood is 4-6 story buildings with heavily mixed commercial and residential usage and lots of green space and parks.

Those are called apartment buildings and there are no shortage of those. I will take a house over that.

Also, it's not just about green, but about practical things that make sense. Suburbs leave you completely and totally dependent on your car (even as a car-lover I find that unacceptable) and constantly at the mercy of ever-worsening traffic. The average commute time here is 80 minutes and the highways are basically unusable 3pm - 8pm. During the weekends, every large mall and plaza and it's surrounding streets are also jammed. People that live in the burbs have to spend hours each day stressed and frustrated just so they can have a tiny private yard.

Maybe you need to find a city that has better roads.
Those tiny yards are far better than tiny sharing walls with your neighbors.

Me? My "commute" is a 5 minute walk, grocery shopping involves walking across a small park (about the same size as a walmart supercenter parking lot), I go to the local bars and pubs whenever I want without worrying about DUIs, and a 10-15 minute bike ride will get me to the sailing club, windsurf club, the beach, all the nice parks and more shops and restaurants than I can every visit.

No problem with my commute across town. I used to live within bike distance to work, but my job changed and I am not so close anymore. For you utopia to work, one would have to move every time a job changed. Commutes happen, deal with it.

So I have to give up all of that, just so I can have my own slice of this hell?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/203835362/

No thanks.

That might be your slice of hell, but it is better option that high density housing where walls/ceilings are shared. Been there, done that. No thanks on that slice of hell.

 

[ShawnD1]

. In addition they found people in ultra high density cities to be more aggressive, irritable and more callous towards the common man.

You're telling me NYC and LA are full of assholes!?!?! I'm shocked

 

[Martin]

Those are called apartment buildings and there are no shortage of those. I will take a house over that.



Maybe you need to find a city that has better roads.
Those tiny yards are far better than tiny sharing walls with your neighbors.



No problem with my commute across town. I used to live within bike distance to work, but my job changed and I am not so close anymore. For you utopia to work, one would have to move every time a job changed. Commutes happen, deal with it.




That might be your slice of hell, but it is better option that high density housing where walls/ceilings are shared. Been there, done that. No thanks on that slice of hell.

1) There's a huge difference between a neighbourhood with 40-50 story condo buildings and 4-6 story buildings.

2) Toronto is ahead of the pack on this issue, but any city whose growth plan is "spawl & cars" will soon deal with the same problem. 4000sq ft and 3 cars are wonderful in the countryside where there's no jobs, but if mighty impractical otherwise.

3) A house doesn't imply no shared walls, nor does a condo imply small space. Townhouses and semi-detached probably outnumber detached houses, not to mention that having 2 feet between houses makes a mockery of non-shared walls.

4) Yeah, commutes happen. When they do happen a dense city with a variety of transportation options will make it short and painless, otherwise you're stuck wasting hours of your life away crawling at 20km/h.

 

[charrison]

1) There's a huge difference between a neighbourhood with 40-50 story condo buildings and 4-6 story buildings.

shared walls ceiling still suck. If you like them, your welcome to them.

2) Toronto is ahead of the pack on this issue, but any city whose growth plan is "spawl & cars" will soon deal with the same problem. 4000sq ft and 3 cars are wonderful in the countryside where there's no jobs, but if mighty impractical otherwise.

Maybe toronto needs better roads.

3) A house doesn't imply no shared walls, nor does a condo imply small space. Townhouses and semi-detached probably outnumber detached houses, not to mention that having 2 feet between houses makes a mockery of non-shared walls.

A house does not share walls with neighbors. IF it does, then it is something else(duplex, fourplex,...). A house implies a single family dwelling. 2 feet between house+ 2 insulated walls is far better than a single insulated wall. I have more than 2 foot of separation here and I rarely hear my neighbors.

4) Yeah, commutes happen. When they do happen a dense city with a variety of transportation options will make it short and painless, otherwise you're stuck wasting hours of your life away crawling at 20km/h.

Painless here too. My average commute speed is well over 60mph.

 

[JS80]

We should promote and subsidize suicides. Less humans is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[ShawnD1]

We should promote and subsidize suicides. Less humans is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

I've said this for a long time but people on the left and the right try to stop it all the time. Waaah abortion is wrong, waaaah helping grandma die when she's in hardcore pain and struggling to breathe is wrong, waaaaaaah shooting yourself because you lost the baseball game is wrong.

People are stupid. Lower population is the best way to be wealthier. The same amount of resources over a smaller population = more shit for you.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I agree that a Ban won't work, but neither will waiting for the "Market". The "Market" is too slow and needs the appropriate nudges from Regulation to transition in a timely manner. This is especially true when your Competitors won't be waiting on the Market and will take the initiative.

Look at history: government interference via regulation has not been necessary for the invention and development of new and improved technologies. Why does that need to happen now and artificially force an issue one direction or another? Why not let people invent and develop as they have in the past? Why do people (such as yourself) insist that government force is required to do anything?

 

[K1052]

Look at history: government interference via regulation has not been necessary for the invention and development of new and improved technologies. Why does that need to happen now and artificially force an issue one direction or another? Why not let people invent and develop as they have in the past? Why do people (such as yourself) insist that government force is required to do anything?

Government interference largely created the current state of affairs, namely massive funding (and huge non-financial support as well) for road and highway construction. While I don't endorse the OP's suggestion to say that our present situation developed naturally without government involvement would be very inaccurate. Even in recent years the government has more heavily subsidized auto travel by propping up the highway trust fund with general revenue dollars to the tune of $30-40 since about 2008 as I recall. That of course doesn't include the many billions in capital expenditures for roads outside the gas tax system over the decades.