My fix for global warming: outlaw personal autos in cities

[glenn1]

UPDATE Jan 2015: Evidently our own Al Gore reads these forums and decided to run with my idea.

http://www.businessinsider.com/plan-to-spend-90-trillion-redesigning-cities-without-cars-2015-1

Since evidence of global warming is settled," time to do something about it. I propose that personally-owned/private automobiles be banned within the city limits (excluding national freeways passing through the city) of any urban area above a certain size, maybe 25k (we can always adjust). One caveat would be that public transportation exists in the city, if not, it would it would be immediately built then the auto prohibition would come into play. The only automobiles allowed in city limits would be publicly-owned (buses, firetrucks, ambulances, etc) and delivery vehicles from private companies; the only motor vehicles that private citizens would be allowed would be scooters or similar and most transportation would be via public transit vehicles like bus or train. An exemption would be made for those with physical disabilities to have a ADA-compliant van. All federal highway funds would be redirected to public transit, and some more funds could be added to provide the intra-city high speed rail that the cities seem to crave.

 

[yllus]

Personally, I'm all for that plan. That said, greenhouse gas emissions from personal vehicles is only 10% of the problem. 10% is nothing to scoff at (and urban centres would not even account for the full amount), but obviously it's not a total or possibly even signficant solution. Signficant investments on energy efficiencies in residential and commercial buildings appears to be the easiest first step to take.

 

[Red Dawn]

You must be bored.

 

[101mpg]

Well that's a good first step but will only go far as we are only one nation. We must then go around the world and impose eco-imperialism over other weaker nations, using force if necessary, to get them to eliminate their carbon footprint and save the planet.

 

[xj0hnx]

 

[Murloc]

you would have to destroy all the cities and start over.

 

[Martin]

Yes, because tens to hundreds of kilometers of light rail and subways can be built in a single day...

I know you're just trying to troll urban liberals here, but most of us do want something similar. Except, instead of being trolls writing flippant crap, we advocate things like dense zoning, walkable neighbourhoods, investment in mass transit, bike lanes etc. If you do this over several decades, eventually you'll end up with a very livable city.

 

[boomerang]

Well that's a good first step but will only go far as we are only one nation. We must then go around the world and impose eco-imperialism over other weaker nations, using force if necessary, to get them to eliminate their carbon footprint and save the planet.

Whaaaatt? We're going to send them money. That'll fix it. Hell, it was predicted the seas were to rise so much by 2010 that most of Florida would be under water.

It's coming...isn't it?
This time?
For sure, right?

 

[Tom]

1. by who's authority would cars be banned ?
2. high speed rail only makes economic sense between cities with large numbers of people going to and from city centers. ie, New York, Washington DC, Boston.
3. public transit only makes economic sense when lots of people are going from one particular place to another particular place. This works in New York, not so well in say Indianapolis.
4. people use cars because it suits their needs. It makes more sense to develop cleaner cars, than it does to try to reinvent the way the country has developed geographically.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, because tens to hundreds of kilometers of light rail and subways can be built in a single day...

I know you're just trying to troll urban liberals here, but most of us do want something similar. Except, instead of being trolls writing flippant crap, we advocate things like dense zoning, walkable neighbourhoods, investment in mass transit, bike lanes etc. If you do this over several decades, eventually you'll end up with a very livable city.

You're not being serious about global warming if you're suggesting a light rail and subway build-out where it doesn't currently exist. Not only does the required infrastructure costs make it uneconomical, but purchasing the necessary rights-of-way would be far better spent on other carbon reduction efforts, and by orders of magnitude. No, natural gas or electric buses would be the only way to go.

And there's plenty of cities (probably even the vast majority) that have an adequate enough bus service now to allow an immediate and serious curtailment of personally-owned automobiles. With a couple years of bus purchases most cities could probably be car free. Heck, there's a reasonably decent amount of cities that could go car-free right now (NYC, Portland, etc).

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Most cities can no longer afford to subsidize public transit and you suggest they purchase more buses. Where are the cities going to get funding for the increased infrastructure/purchasing right of ways?

 

[sandorski]

An expert discusses this very subject

 

[marvdmartian]

OP has definitely never visited a city in Texas.

I live in a city of ~100,000 people, and we're only 10 miles by 10 miles (roughly) in size.

Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, on the other hand, is ~60 miles (east to west) by 40 miles (north to south) in size, and is pretty much one continual urban area.

Good luck with that plan, scooter!

 

[Infohawk]

Also not sure if OP is serious.

http://images.whatsyourimpact.eu.or...ide-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-combustion.jpg

Personal transport does not produce the majority of CO2 emissions. If you want to get extreme outlaw high emission vehicles. As a practical matter, most American cities would just not function without cars. If you want to get extreme, tax gas more and require new residential and commercial construction to be denser and accessible from public transportation. Bottom line: the problem isn't cars, it's their emissions.

 

[Jaskalas]

My fix for global warming: outlaw personal autos in cities

You'll dictate what people are allowed to do, and cut less than 10% of our emissions. Meanwhile Asia will double their emissions, along with the rest of the developing world.

Net result, CO2 continues to rise.

 

[monovillage]

What a great idea! Restrict peons in their freedom of movement, making them exclusively dependent on the government to even travel around their own cities. If you put them in leg irons it would be even better. Brilliant! Spending trillions of dollars to solve a non-existent problem.

 

[Argo]

When will people realize that any solution that involves force is:

a) Doomed to fail
b) Infringement of our freedoms

 

[CPA]

Well that's a good first step but will only go far as we are only one nation. We must then go around the world and impose eco-imperialism over other weaker nations, using force if necessary, to get them to eliminate their carbon footprint and save the planet.

What say you, Craig234?

 

[charrison]

Yes, because tens to hundreds of kilometers of light rail and subways can be built in a single day...

I know you're just trying to troll urban liberals here, but most of us do want something similar. Except, instead of being trolls writing flippant crap, we advocate things like dense zoning, walkable neighbourhoods, investment in mass transit, bike lanes etc. If you do this over several decades, eventually you'll end up with a very livable city.

dense zoning is livable?wtf are you serious?

 

[sandorski]

dense zoning is livable?wtf are you serious?

Yes.

 

[Schadenfroh]

OP has definitely never visited a city in Texas.

I live in a city of ~100,000 people, and we're only 10 miles by 10 miles (roughly) in size.

Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, on the other hand, is ~60 miles (east to west) by 40 miles (north to south) in size, and is pretty much one continual urban area.

Solve the obesity problem in one swoop, make the fatties walk 5 miles to work everyday once you no longer have personal automobiles. Once you are no longer overweight, you get to ride the bus.

 

[glenn1]

Most cities can no longer afford to subsidize public transit and you suggest they purchase more buses. Where are the cities going to get funding for the increased infrastructure/purchasing right of ways?

Cities are forced to subsidize public transportation because wealthier urbanites look at it as an occasional mode of convenience but nothing more (i.e. they'll take public transit when it's convenient for them and only then). They also have a fetish for light rail since they will ride buses as an absolute last resort, feeling that they are the transportation for poor people, not them. Take away their cars, and they'd do just fine; they can finally use the public transportation they keep asking billions for every year.

OP has definitely never visited a city in Texas.

I live in a city of ~100,000 people, and we're only 10 miles by 10 miles (roughly) in size.

Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, on the other hand, is ~60 miles (east to west) by 40 miles (north to south) in size, and is pretty much one continual urban area.

Good luck with that plan, scooter!

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.

Also not sure if OP is serious.

http://images.whatsyourimpact.eu.or...ide-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-combustion.jpg

Personal transport does not produce the majority of CO2 emissions. If you want to get extreme outlaw high emission vehicles. As a practical matter, most American cities would just not function without cars. If you want to get extreme, tax gas more and require new residential and commercial construction to be denser and accessible from public
transportation. Bottom line: the problem isn't cars, it's their emissions.

Completely serious. And basically you're saying that it's only the people in Hummers that are fvcking the climate up; since you have a Prius you don't count? Saying the problem isn't cars it's the emissions is a nonsensical statement, without the cars there wouldn't be any emissions so you're making a circular argument. I'm fine with taxing gas more, and since urbanites wouldn't be buying any that would bring down the base price of gas anyway. I'm fine with increasing urban density too, pack in 10s of thousands per square mile for all I care. BTW, cities could function fine without cars; you're making excuses just like the Texan above - your convenience isn't a reason to exempt yourself from carbon reductions while you give guilt trips to a suburban soccer mom driving an oversized SUV.

 

[wuliheron]

My fix for global warming is to legislate that farmers must collect all cow farts. Its a completely wasted resource that merely contributes to greenhouse gas levels. Why some private entrepreneur hasn't already investigated the technology I haven't a clue, but its obviously at least as feasible as banning private vehicles in all cities around the world. I say the FDA should fund the research.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Seriously?

 

[senseamp]

High gas prices will get this done.