How many times a year does some twenty-something come up with what they think is the brilliant and innovative idea that, since they can live without a car, no one else should be allowed to have one either? The answer probably roughly corresponds to the number of twenty-somethings who think about transportation. I know I thought of that idea, at least with respect to downtown Portland, when I was a twenty-something.
The latest to come up with this idea is Treehugger writer Lloyd Alter, who teaches “sustainable design.” From his photo, he looks to be older the twenty-something, which means he should know better, but apparently doesn’t.
Alter’s argument is simple. A single-occupancy vehicle weighs something like 20 times as much as the occupant, and it is a waste of energy to move that much mass to move just one person. So therefore cars are a waste and should be banned.
Let’s think this through. A Toyota Prius and many other small cars weigh about 3,000 pounds. So, by Alter’s argument, anything that has a weight-to-occupant ratio of 3,000 pounds or more should be banned.
A light-rail car weighs about 100,000 pounds and in 2016 carried an average of 23 people. That’s more than 4,000 pounds per person. So I guess light rail should be banned. Subway cars weigh about 90,000 pounds and in 2016 carried an average of 27 people. Ban them. The typical transit bus weighs about 30,000 pounds and carries an average of nine people. I guess we need to ban them too.
Amtrak’s Amfleet cars, which are typically used on non-Acela Northeast Corridor, weigh about 110,000 pounds, have 80 seats, and on average are about half full. Locomotives used in the Northeast Corridor weigh about 215,000 pounds and often pull ten-car trains. Added together, that’s a weight-to-occupant ratio of 3,250 pounds. Ban them.
An Acela train set weighs 1,246,000 pounds and has 304 seats. Even if they are all full, that’s a weight-to-occupant ratio of more than 4,000 pounds.
A typical Amtrak long-distance train consists of four coaches, two sleepers, a diner, a lounge car, baggage car, and two locomotives with a total capacity of 400 passengers. The Superliner cars all weigh at least 150,000 pounds. The locomotives weigh about 268,000 pounds, while the baggage cars are about 120,000 pounds for a total weight of about 1,650,000 pounds. That’s more than 4,000 pounds per seat and on average the trains are about half full.
On the off chance that you thought important source buy cheap levitra the best way to mix plaster. For men who hesitate while going for ED treatment can seek for some medical help discount generic levitra from internet. Bottom Line Do midwayfire.com cost cialis not merely focus on the beautiful, happy people in the ED ads displayed on the television. straight from the source order viagra generic Uses: The main advantage of Tadagra tablets is that it is incredibly not bothered in approaching PDE-5. Astute readers will note that, when Alter calculated the weight-to-occupant ratio of cars, he used single-occupant cars even though the average car carries about 1.6 occupants. All of the above calculations of weight-to-occupant ratios for transit vehicles use average occupancies. If we use the average for cars, then the threshold for banning a vehicle is 1,875 pounds.
On the other hand, the latest Boeing 737 weighs under 100,000 pounds and has more than 100 seats, which keeps the weight-to-occupant ratio well below 1,000 pounds. So I guess we get to keep flying.
Megabus’s 81-seat, double-decker buses weigh about 57,000 pounds. They claim to fill an average of two-thirds of the seats, but even if they fill just half, they beat the 1,875-pound threshold.
Clearly, however, Amtrak trains and most urban transit must be banned.
Alter no doubt fantasizes that, once we ban cars, trains and buses will be more heavily loaded. But, unlike Megabus and most airlines that operate with no intermediate stops, multi-stop transportation will almost always have average loads of 50 percent or less to maintain room for new riders. Transit systems that operate during both peak and non-peak periods are going to have even lower load factors. On top of that, the costs of mass transit are so much greater than the costs of driving that, if cars are banned, most people who previously drove won’t be able to afford to ride trains and many won’t be able to afford buses.
I wonder what Alter thinks of lightweight cars such as the trusty old Citroen 2CV, which weighed only 1,300 pounds. Japan has many minicars that can seat up to five people and often weigh under 1,875 pounds. These cars might not meet U.S. safety standards, but after cars become driverless, it should be possible to make them much lighter in weight because of the reduced risk of accidents. But they are cars, so Alter would probably ban them.
In addition to not carrying his idea through to its full implications, Alter’s simplistic thinking fails to account for the huge benefits provided by cars. Where train transportation has always been for the elites and bicycles are for the young and healthy, cars have democratized transportation: 92 percent of American households have cars, which is far more than the percentage of people who regularly rode streetcars, intercity trains, or bicycles in the decades before cars became affordable.
Alter is typical of the elites in that he can’t imagine that anyone else might not be able to afford light-rail trains that can cost up to ten times as much as driving, per passenger mile, or that everyone else might not be capable of cycling ten or twenty miles a day. In designing a world for themselves, they would destroy it for everyone else.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Speaking of smaller or lighter, I’m curious to see that Deutsche Bahn is testing out a driverless minibus on real streets. Do they only do trains? If so, are they planning on dropping them for buses if these tests turn out well?
http://www.dw.com/en/self-driving-bus-starts-first-route-in-germany/a-41116211
DB hopes that similar buses will soon operate like a private car service, traveling to passengers’ homes on demand and bringing them to the station.
“Autonomous driving will become reality on German streets,” said Lutz.
Read more: Daimler and Bosch team up to build ‘robo-taxis’
Several similar lines are set to be launched in Germany next year, including one in Germany’s second largest city, Hamburg.
Other cities across the world, including Paris, Lyon, Las Vegas and Dubai are also experimenting with autonomous vehicles.
“Japan has many minicars that can seat up to five people and often weigh under 1,875 pounds. These cars might not meet U.S. safety standards, but after cars become driverless, it should be possible to make them much lighter in weight because of the reduced risk of accidents. ”
This. Chinese manufactures are producing sub-750kg electric cars for the PRC market. They have no airbags and no weighty crumple zones so they weigh about half as much as a Nissan Leaf. If autonomous cars reduce traffic accidents ten-fold, which they should, then those weighty safety features could be eliminated.
From the article:
But it [switching to electric cars] doesn’t change sprawl, congestion, parking or safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Switching to AVs does change all of those things for the better.
Humans Need Not Apply :$
You know what is demonstrably inefficient? Thousands of different brands of cleaning supplies, paper supplies, make up, etc. So many brands are almost identical and similarly priced. Plus advertising is inefficient as everybody is going to buy toilet paper anyway, so why advertise to choose a brand. That whole system is ridiculously inefficient.
Unless you compare it to the systems without competition — monopolies and Communism. Then suddenly it is clearly more efficient by a long shot.
With a car, a person can easily travel a hundred miles when and wherever she wants in a few hours in almost any weather. Try to match that with all these other “better ideas”.
“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Tue, 26 May 2015
Which leads to the obvious conclusion:
Deodorant appliers need not be humane :$
Hah – hah, I was thinking of that Bernie statement too. I made sure to share some photos of all the ranch dressings at the grocery store after that one. In the sense of priorities Bernie’s not all that wrong. We should value things like making sure children are well fed over spending $9 on a bottle of organic vinaigrette made with Tibetan glacier water. Or we should ask why anyone would need to own 3 houses when their are children starving. But let’s not ask that because then Bernie might feel bad for enjoying some perks from his own hard work.
” Or we should ask why anyone would need to own 3 houses when their are children starving.”
I’m pretty sure that’s never happened in the history of humans.
Bernie’s an old red diaper baby, brought up being bottle-fed Marxist pap from the time he was born. The fact is that capitalism has saved more lives than any other economic system ever. Check out how fast China’s health and wealth grew after Deng pronounced To get rich is glorious:
http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_chart-type=bubbles
Ah, yes- the wondrous insights of people who believe that the world will be a more perfect place once everybody else becomes just as enlightened as they are.
The Antiplanner; not carrying his idea through to its full implications
THWM; How are people with no money going to buy things?
There’s no need for the forklift driver, if the forklift drives itself :$
CapitalistRoader; ” Or we should ask why anyone would need to own 3 houses when their are children starving.”
I’m pretty sure that’s never happened in the history of humans.
Bernie’s an old red diaper baby, brought up being bottle-fed Marxist pap from the time he was born. The fact is that capitalism has saved more lives than any other economic system ever. Check out how fast China’s health and wealth grew after Deng pronounced To get rich is glorious:
THWM; Capitalism is a myth. Roads are not expected to be profitable to survive :$
The future masters of technology will have to be light-hearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.
Marshall McLuhan (July 21, 1911 – December 31, 1980), Canadian professor, philosopher, and public intellectual
“Bernie might feel bad for enjoying some perks from his own hard work.”
Hard work? Bernie? Actual work? L0L!!!!
The hardest work Bernie ever did is stealing his neighbor’s paper.
”
There’s no need for the forklift driver, if the forklift drives itself :$
“~ The Highwayman
What’s your point? We don’t have cobblers in this country. Yet we all have multiple pairs of shoes on less than a day of work. And the unemployment rate is at levels many economists would consider full employment.
“What’s your point?”
The point of trolling is to disrupt normal, on-topic discussion for the troll’s amusement.
Troll needs to be banned. Blog owner needs to take responsibility and moderate comments.
THWM: Capitalism is a myth. Roads are not expected to be profitable to survive :$
Nor are police departments or court systems or the military, all of which are in the US Constitution, as are roads:
You guys want cake, but you’re against the flour mill, that mills the flour for the cake :$
‘There’s a reason why they call it “The American Dream”, because you have to be asleep, to believe it! -George Carlin’
prk166; What’s your point? We don’t have cobblers in this country. Yet we all have multiple pairs of shoes on less than a day of work. And the unemployment rate is at levels many economists would consider full employment.
THWM; Being pro-fetus, doesn’t mean that you are pro-life :$
Frank; Toll needs to be banned. Blog owner needs to take responsibility and moderate comments.
THWM; So called “Libertarians” against civil liberties, that isn’t surprising actually :$
CapitalistRoader; Nor are police departments or court systems or the military, all of which are in the US Constitution, as are roads:
“The Congress shall have power … To establish Post Offices and post Roads”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7
THWM; Kind of funny that you are referring to a document from the 1770’s. Also just so you know, I’m not against commerce and I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be streets/roads either :$
Kind of funny that you are referring to a document from the 1770’s.
Shades of this left-wing wonk:
My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.
Ezra Klein, Washington Post, December 2010
As I recall, Mr. Highwayman, you live in Canada. Here’s a good explanation of the differences between the Canadian Constitution and the US Constitution:
BTW, the US Constitution was made law of the land on 4 March 1789.
I was wondering why, all of a sudden, there were 22 comments on this post. I figured the highwaymoron threw some feces, and sure enough, that was the reason.
You’re basing stuff on a false premise, not me. I don’t see you complaining about sidewalks not being profitable :$
Frank; Toll needs to be banned. Blog owner needs to take responsibility and moderate comments.
THWM; So called “Libertarians” against civil liberties, that isn’t surprising actually :$
You do not have a right or a civil liberty to fling your feces on private property. This blog is private property owned by one person and hosted on a private web server, so the First Amendment does not apply to retarded shit-flinging trolls like you.
You teahadi’s have made your point and I get it.
You’re hypocrites, liars and thieves :$
You’re hypocrites, liars and thieves :$
And you’re a shit-flinging retarded troll. Your point? Oh yeah, to disrupt. At least you’re good at something.
You do not have a right or a civil liberty to fling your feces on private property. This blog is private property owned by one person and hosted on a private web server, so the First Amendment does not apply to retarded shit-flinging trolls like you.
I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for so many people to understand.
”
prk166; What’s your point? We don’t have cobblers in this country. Yet we all have multiple pairs of shoes on less than a day of work. And the unemployment rate is at levels many economists would consider full employment.
THWM; Being pro-fetus, doesn’t mean that you are pro-life :$
”
So the man who continually claims that some automation to one specific process, driving a car, somehow means that there’s going to be no need for human NOW argues against his same logic? That’s so unsurprising.
Freeing people from being burdened with boring, turgid tasks like spending 11 hours in a 5 acre field trying to make hay with a sykle rather than half an hour with a machine is not the end of humanity, it’s just the beginning. Freeing people from having to spend a month carving out a log by hand to turn it and instead automating the process so that now over 25,000 kayaks alone are made each month is not the end of humanity, but just the beginning. Freeing up people from the boring task of driving, one they screw up so frequently that despite first world medicine 38,000 people a year die from it; contrary to claims automating driving is not the end of humanity, just the beginning.
Thanks for your post. I just wanted to point out a few things:
1) I did not make the point about the weight of the vehicles; I was quoting authors from MIT.
2) I am indeed not a twenty-something; I turn 65 next week. But I am tired of billions of tax dollars being spent on highways for big heavy cars, for the police dealing with the 38000 people killed each year in them and the medical costs of treating 4.4 million people injured each year in cars.
Bike infrastructure is almost free and there are few operating costs. Since 69 percent of car trips are less than two miles, which many people can do on a bike, why not just make it easy for people to have the choice? Give people a strip of paint to cycle in, where they will feel safe, give them freedom of choice and they will do it. I do because it is faster and cheaper and it is good for my health.
In fact, it i so good for people’s health that it would significantly reduce the burden on insurance companies and your premiums if more people did it. The roads would be less congested for the people who wanted to drive as well if more people were on bikes. That’s freedom of choice.
And perhaps it is because I am 64 instead of 22 but I would never say ” since they can live without a car, no one else should be allowed to have one either?” – I love driving my little old Miata in the countryside. It’s just not as cheap or convenient in the city. If you are interested, here is more on why I drive less and bike more:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/blogs/when-time-seniors-give-up-driving
LloydAlter,
Thanks for your response. I’m a cyclist as well. During the summer months, at least, I cycle more miles than I drive (and before I worked at home that was true year round). I take my Bike Friday with me whenever I go to other cities for more than a couple of days. And I agree with you that bike paths and bike lanes can increase cycling (though I don’t agree that bike infrastructure is “almost free”).
However, that’s a different question from banning cars. My point was that the simplistic solutions we often hear are also often wrong. Just because a car weighs 20 times as much as the person in it doesn’t mean that it isn’t doing useful work. And just because someone else choses a different mode that you or I would chose doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Automobiles have come with costs, but they have also produced enormous benefits, far more than bicycles or trains or streetcars ever produced. Though I personally hate driving, I can’t deny that those benefits exist nor that there is no other mode of transport that could equal them.
”
Since 69 percent of car trips are less than two miles,
” ~lloydalter
I’d need to evaluate the source of that. Having been around the cycling community for decades, I’ve noticed a long tradition of a similar claim circulating around. Sometimes it’s 80% less than 5 miles, etc, etc, etc. Hell, I live downtown and that’s not true for me. I don’t know anyone that lives like that.
Think about it. If you drive 7 days a week, 5 of those you have 2 trips a day, to and from work. Since the average American commute is far longer than that, it would mean that the average person would need to have another 25 trips each week to get to that.
It seems unlikely. The only way it would make sense if one were to be overly technical and count each trip when people trip chain. And people would have to a HELL OF A LOT of trip chaining. They’d have to stop at the bakery, then drive a block and stop at the dentist, then drive a mile to the grocery store than drive around the corner to Target and then drive across the parking lot to the dry cleaners then 1/2 mile to the school to pick up the kids than a mile to the park and….. *whew*, that’s a lot of chaining. And if any link in that chain is more than 2 miles you’d have to add 3 or 4 more trips less than 2 miles to make up for it .
More so,it’d miss the point. The point of the trip chaining is that you’re really on one big trip with a few stops. So you drive 17 miles to work, then stop at Aldi by work, the book store and then the 17 miles back. A bicycle ain’t going to come into play. Those trips aren’t occurring near home.
I used to have another bike that I dedicated to using for the store and going out ( lights, etc ). I got rid of it. I’d rather do my errands walking or driving. And if I drive, I can use the time saved to bike when and where I want for a real ride rather than having to deal with riding a clunker that handles funny because I have 2 6 packs of beer in one basket and canned goods filling the other.