Is it possible to ween urban USA off of the automobile?

no way, this country is designed for automobiles. we are probably going to CRASH off automobiles. total redesign of the machines might help a lot. there was a company named ROSEN MOTORS that was working on a gas/electric hybrid. it used a gas turbine generator to produce electricity. the power could be stored in a flywheel inside a vacuum chamber. there were electric motors in the wheels which could use electromagnetic braking so the kinetic energy of the car could be fed back into the power system. six moving parts for power and propulsion. how many moving parts in a 4 cylinder engine?

the theory sounded great it was being developed by someone involved with COMPAQ. the glorious automobile industry wasn’t interested.

Dal Timgar

And virtually no economy.

There will always be a need for a “car” if you define a car as a personal, long distance form of transportation. If you define a car as a vehicle requiring a gasoline powered internal combustion engine, well that’s a diferent story.

The USA is just too big and our population is too spread out to not have some form of individualized transport. You don’t need a car if you live and work in a major city like NYC, but try getting the heck out of the city without one. It’s kind of tough.

Remove the automobile and you encourage consolidation into concentrated urban areas. Of course, that drives up real estate costs, encouraging businesses and residents to move out into the suburbs.

dal_timgar - I think that people weren’t interested in a car with a heavy flywheel that might rip through the car in the event of an accident. I don’t know why you would expect the automotive industry to spend billions retooling their factories to produce an experiemental car.

Well, yea…what’s your point?

Many environmentalists don’t give a hoot about the economy…

And those are the environmentalists that you can usually find residing in the fairy tale of their own making.

Azrael, don’t you care about the Earth?

What about the children?!

Surely you don’t believe that the quality of life of a couple billion people is more important than the Earth??

My sarcasm detector just went off the scale but…

**

The only reason we should be worried about the Earth is the degree to which we make it habitable for those “couple billion” people. The Earth will be fine, the human phenomenon is nothing but an eyeblink compared to the amount of time the Earth will be around. I get so frustrated by the environmentalists out there with an anti-technology agenda because technology is the only thing that allows us to support our current population levels.

Azael: I get so frustrated by the environmentalists out there with an anti-technology agenda because technology is the only thing that allows us to support our current population levels.

Well, there are unrealistic idiots in every group, but I think you’ve got some straw environmentalists there. Most people who are concerned about environmental issues—even those of us who think we could use some significant changes in our infrastructure and policy to make them more environmentally sustainable—are not trying to get people to simply dump technology and return us all to a pre-industrial civilization.

msmith: *There will always be a need for a “car” if you define a car as a personal, long distance form of transportation. *

True, but it won’t necessarily be an individually owned one. As I said before, I think that various forms of car-sharing are going to have much more of an impact on urban automobile use than any efforts to replace cars totally with mass transit vehicles.

Yup. Here are some hard numbers on that from the CDC: In 1997, 1.9% of deaths in the U.S. were due to auto accidents. To put that in some perspective: “All other accidents and adverse effects” accounted for 2.3% of deaths. “Homicides and legal intervention” were 0.9%. AIDS was 0.7%.

It’s also worth noting that the data is skewed by the fact that most old people die of various health problems (31.4% of all deaths were due ot “diseases of the heart” for example). If you look at people “in the prime of life”, automobile accidents presumably account for a much higher percentage of deaths.

Also, presumably for each person killed in an automobile accident, several are presumably seriously injured.

Well, I work on a computer. I have a computer at home. The thing is I have to shuffle paper here and there and move products around. Other than that I dont see why I cant stay at home and work off my computer …naked… ok that was tmi I pay about 5 to 10 thousand dollars for a robot I can control from home to move the stuff around at work so I can stay at home. The robot can stay at my workplace so I dont have to commute. I would wear a time collar and turn that on like I was punching in and the boss can see whatever I am seeing from his computer and can check up on me to see if Im goofing off. That’ll save me about 1200 bucks a year in gasoline, wear and tear on my car and I can work NAKED!

You can’t ween the cities off of automobiles without laws to that effect. Places in Europe, especially Italy, have car-free days in the cities that are increasingly popular. But simple logic tells you that without laws restricting car use, the streets in high-density urban areas will always be filled close to capacity - if it wasn’t there would be incentives for peoples to drive.

I think the best we can do is to provide mass transit as an affordable and workable alternative to driving. I take mass transit every day, and wish I could survive completely without my car.

Couple of problems here: The least expensive practical industial “robot” is in the general price range of $30,000. For that you get a robot the size of a medium dog which has a working envelope of about three feet, and can carry about four pounds.

If you’re talking about an Android, an autonomous human-like “robot” who can perform various tasks, no production model exists yet that is capable of doing the jobs you suggest. If they did, they’d cost about the same as a very nice suburban home, something in the neighborhood of a quarter million.

The Segway was intended to minimize the reliance on the automobile in urban areas. It may yet, the jury is out. It’ll have to get lots cheaper, which it will, and it will have to be accepted by city planners, which right now, it isn’t.

I lived downtown Chicago for a brief time. I walked everywhere, or took a cab. I liked it a lot. I’d probably be in better shape if I had reason to walk more. Unfortunately I have a 7 year old and the bohemian life I lived on the south side isn’t well suited to childrearing, IMHO.

b.

Oh, and you seem to think that working naked is something you can only do at home.

The U.S. is a free country. People have chosen cars. They like them, they want them, they need them. The only way you are going to take them away is to use force, either through more stringent laws that limit where they can go, or heavy fuel taxes, or outright bans.

Is anyone here advocating using government force to stop people from travelling?

I can’t stand the notion of ‘engineering’ society. Society can’t be engineered. Attempts to try are usually colossal failures.

The market will take care of the problem. When gas starts to become more expensive, it will bias decision-making towards smaller vehicles, hybrids, etc. If it continues to increase in cost, the price of commuting will start to become a factor in home-buying decisions. People will start to cluster homes more around light-rail stations. More people will telecommute, because it will become an increasingly valuable ‘perk’. Cities will start to organize around ‘centers of activity’ in the suburbs (this is already happening - here in Edmonton, each quadrant of the city has local shopping malls and other services. Privatization of government services has decentralized it so that people can go get licenses and take drivers tests in dozens of small offices instead of having to drive downtown, etc).

In the meantime, social demand will stimulate added research into alternate fuels and transportation. The problem will be solved, and it will be solved through gradualism with plenty of feedback from the marketplace. People will still be free, the government can stay out of it, and choices will be made because of limitations of the real world, and not at the point of a gun from some eco-warrior in the government. And, we’ll get a healthier, sustainable new infrastructure.

Try and mandate this and force people to conform to your idea of what they should want, and you wind up with urban planning disasters, slums, trains that no one rides, and massive inefficiency from forcing people to do things that do not make economic sense.

For one thing, the “when-gas-prices-become-expensive” is a big IF. The market is already strongly regulated to keep gas prices at a low price. The rest of your futuristic vision where the market by itself helps design a sustainable society sounds great. But, it will not happen.

What on earth is “social demand”? We have been environmentally aware for well over 3 decades and except for a fringe section of society whom the mainstream ridicules as hippie-loonies (some of them very well are!), I don’t see very many who even think about power, gasoline, and concepts of sustainable development in their everyday life.

A car is indeed a useful tool, but when some one can take public transportation with little difficulty, why take their car? It is ingrained within the culture to pop into a car for any movement. Those strange creatures that ply around (city buses, say) are for the poor. Carelessly burning electricity at home, humungous consumption that spews out mass amounts of non bio-degradable disposables, to name a few more.

Take a look at the ecological footprint measure for North America (Canada is 30% lesser than US). http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/figures/index.html

I am NOT advocating governmental coercion. I am advocating increased awareness. I am advocating removing the stigma of public transportation. I am advocating much improved planning of urban and sub-urban communities that allows for people to use their car for reasons other than daily commuting for work. Chicago has a decent suburban-to-downtown train system, and guess what, people take it. Planning and executing the latter does require governmental action. There are things we can do to “engineer” a better society for ** us ** and our future generations — it’s not for the commies, Sam :slight_smile:

Gee, I guess because millions of people have decided that the ‘little difficulty’ is worse than the cost of driving a car. You gonna tell them they are wrong and take their cars away?

In case you haven’t noticed, we are an incredibly wasteful society, and much of our waste comes from getting rid of ‘little difficulties’. We keep our houses warmer than they need to be. We live in bigger houses than we need to. We keep too many lights on. We drive cars. We use many power appliances instead of doing things by hand. We used disposable goods of all sorts rather than go through the ‘little difficulties’ of re-using things.

And YOU do 98% of it all. And yet you have the nerve to focus on the .2% where someone uses slightly more resources you do, and declare them evil and march against them.

BTW, this is the generic ‘you’. I’m not aiming this at any poster in particular, but at the mindset. Like people who throw paint on people wearing fur coats, then go home and remove their leather shoes, leather belts, and put down their leather briefcases and go off and eat some meat.

BTW, I grew up in a farmhouse without running water or indoor plumbing. Those ‘little difficulties’ add up pretty fast, and make life pretty freaking miserable.

And people who say using mass transit is only a ‘little difficulty’ usually turn out to be young single people in good health. For them, that may in fact be the case. Wait until you’re 40, with children and a job that is a half-hour drive away. Wait until taking your child to skating lessons changes from a 10 minute drive while you listen to music and sing along with your daughter, into a 30 minute hassle of standing in the cold, standing in a crowded bus, and walking several blocks in the winter lugging around a sports bag.

Not being able to drive would add at least a couple of hours of hassle a day for me. Running out of milk would no longer mean a quick 5-minute trip to the store, but going without rather than walking 45 minutes. Life would be significantly more difficult.

I’m all for ‘raising awareness’. Feel free to write some books, write letters to the editor, organize marches, and do whatever else you want to ‘raise awareness’. The thing is, I think the people are plenty aware. They just don’t agree with you.

And yes, oil will eventually get more expensive. The price isn’t low because of a conspiracy. The price is low because we have a lot of it, and we are currently producing it faster than we are using it. Proven reserves of oil keep increasing, because the exploration technology keeps improving. But one day that will stop (I wouldn’t hazard a guess - maybe 20 years, maybe 2000). But when it does, oil will rapidly increase in price. When that happens, you’ll see a relatively rapid shift away from profiglate oil use. Guaranteed.

And we’ll never run out. Because long before every drop is used up, it will be too expensive to use in mass quantities.

And sure, North America has a large ecological footprint per capita. But is that the right measure? We also produce more goods per capita, more food per capita, and make more wealth per capita than anyone else.

How about about we come up with a new measure, which is ecological footprint per dollar of wealth created? I’ll bet you’ll find out that we’re not so inefficient after all.

And because many of the costs for using it are externalized.

Because the earth’s carrying capacity doesn’t increase just because we become wealthier. (Yes, to a certain extent, we might be able to use of wealth to grow more crops on a given amount of land and such…But, there are limits.)

Sam
Point out where I spoke of taking cars away from people (whether it was for rhetorical effect or not, it distorts what I said). While at it, also point out where I said that improvements in living standards such as running water and electricity are detrimental to sustainable development. How about focusing on what I said instead of attacking strawmen?

To the relevant points you raised, I never urged people to not use cars for buying milk or groceries or to take their kids to classes when it is cold out there. I am talking about raising awareness in people so that they will avail of public transportation when it does NOT prove an inconvenience and to achieve this, to make said transportation option enticing.

Is it too much for someone who lives on a train line straight to work to wait for a few minutes within a station?
Is it too inconvenient to plan on going to the ballgame Saturday afternoon with your kids by bus?

The truth is, some people are already doing it, but right now, many don’t even think of these as options because
(a) awareness - wired to think of car as first resort - gas is cheap, car is in the garage, why bother?
(b) quality of transportation - availability, comfort, tardiness etc.

All I am saying is we could do much better.

As for the ecological footprint, what jshore said. The idea that there is no such proportionality is the foundation for sustainable development ideas.

I specifically put in that paragraph about addressing the generic ‘you’ so you wouldn’t think I was addressing your arguments specifically. I’m well aware that you weren’t calling for a ban on cars or SUVs.

Lots of people, however, are.

addressing these points:

Apparently it is, because they are DOING it. You think they aren’t aware of the alternatives? You think it’s just a quality issue?

I live within five minutes of an LRT station. I rarely ride it, because it’s a pain in the butt. I DO take it to sporting events, because the station is right under the stadium and parking is a hassle. Easier to drive to my local station and take the train in. But for most other things, I really hate riding the train. You can’t claim that I’m not ‘aware’, because I DO ride it on occasions. And the train is perfectly clean and comfortable.

I don’t know how old you are, or what your personal situation is. But I’m turning 40 in a few months, and I have a family and we have two careers. Our time is precious. When you only get 2 hours a day to relax, losing a half hour here and there is a major impact on my quality of life. And if I make $40/hr, then losing an hour a day to commuting costs me $800/mo. So I make a rational decision to optimize that part of my life. No ignorance or lack of awareness involved.

Try hauling a 4 X 8 foot sheet of drywall on a subway. Or loading 20 gallons of paint on a bus. Or delivering a new water heater in a trolly car.

Their will always have to be some other form of transportation available, as long as people remodel or build in non urbanized areas.

As others have said, the problem is the suburban areas. I live in a suburb of Baltimore city and everything is just too far away. My school alone is about 15 miles away. The nearest bus station is probably about 5 miles away. Nearest subway, maybe 15. Can’t ride a bike there, folks. And when I get off that bus, there will be quite a bit more walking. Add the wait time and taking a bus or sub would be very time consuming and a physical pain in the ass.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather just take a car. It makes more sense to find cleaner fuel than getting rid of cars.