backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Feb 28 at 5:03 PM


Bill Ford Jr.  (Source: idetroitonline.com)
Ford said as the population increases, auto sales will increase, but congested highways will prevent us from traveling/commuting

At the Mobile World Congress (MWC) conference today, Bill Ford Jr. addressed his concern regarding future auto congestion in urban areas, which he says could eventually threaten our freedom to commute.

Bill Ford Jr. is the great-grandson of Henry Ford, who founded Ford Motor Company on June 16, 1903. Before the introduction of the Ford Model T in 1908, many people did not travel more than 25 miles from home. However, having an automobile made further travels possible -- it gave them freedom.

But Bill Ford Jr. said this freedom could be at risk due to increased population, which means increased auto sales and congested highways that could one day limit the number of automobiles that can be sold or used on the roads at a given time.

"What I'm really worried about is the role of the car in the long-term," said Ford. "If we do nothing, it will limit the number of vehicles we can sell. If we can solve this problem of urban mobility, I think there's a great business opportunity for us."

According to LMC Automotive, a consulting firm in Michigan, there are currently 1.2 billion vehicles on the roads globally.

While issues like the environmental impact of vehicles have already been addressed via efforts like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal that intends to boost fleet wide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025, Ford is moving on to other issues that are not so close to being addressed. His issue of choice is what to do about future traffic jams once the population increases, and urges the mobile technology industry to take action in developing solutions.

Ford already has a few solutions in mind, and they're all communications-based answers. Some are currently being developed, and some are not. For instance, Ford sees cars having radar-based cruise control and blind-spot monitoring systems in five years that allow vehicles to communicate with one another. These systems are currently being developed, where vehicles can "talk" to each other, offering information like the speed of another vehicle nearby. This could potentially avoid fatal crashes. Toyota is just one automaker that discussed the introduction of smart road technology back in 2010. Others like Ford and General Motors have worked to offer better and smarter safety systems as well, but they're mostly crash-based instead of traffic congestion-based.

Ford envisions a future beyond 2025 where cars will drive themselves as close together as possible to use the maximum amount of space on a highway. Vehicles will also do the same in parking lots to make more room for others. In addition, he imagines automakers building smaller cars that can offer additional space for other drivers.

"Even if the technology is there, there's still going to have to be tremendous thought by urban planners," said Ford. "That [driving] freedom has been threatened unless we redefine what personal mobility can be in a congested urbanized world."

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By Netscorer on 2/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2012 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
No thanks.

I'm all for telecommuting but I do not want to sit in my house each and every day. Nor do I want massive tolls for driving my car.

You Europeans can do things however you want. We'll do things our way.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By Netscorer on 2/27/2012 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, no one forces you to stay at home. You want to come to the office - enjoy, you want to sit in the park or cafe - if it works for you, why not. Telecommuting is about choices. Working in the office Mon-Fri, 9-5 is not.

Secondly, knowing you, you don't like any taxation at all and I am with you in this regard, but somehow city congestion needs to be solved. Everyone living in any large metropolitan area feels the pain not to mention pollution and other hazards that come with millions of cars trying to get in and out of city each day. Next time you drive into the city, say Hi to the kid who has to breath your truck's exhaust gas just because you want your freedom to drive how you like. And if you don't give a sh..t, then government needs to step up to make sure society as a whole does not have to pay for your privilege.

Just providing a Mass Transit option does not work. Americans like their cars too much and in some examples (NYC, San Francisco, etc.) city layouts just do not leave much options as entry points are limited to begin with. In most European cities, companies that require employees to commute to city center compensate for the increased tolls, so if you have to drive, be a guest.

Oh, and on the technical note, I live in US and have to commute 80 miles each day because I don't have Mass Transit option and my company does not give a damn about telecommuting as all head-shots live within 5 miles of the office.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
By retrospooty on 2/27/2012 5:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
"Go to hell you retarded liberal ass."

LOL. You are priceless. =)

Funny as hell aside, you are right. No-one forces you to live in one place and work 40 miles away. Its a choice. I am not sure what liberals have to do with it, conservatives commute too. But your point is taken.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2012 7:37:18 PM , Rating: 1
Trust me. Anyone who demonizes someone because they are trying to choke "kids" with smog by driving into a city, is a 100% liberal moron. Anyone who demonizes someone for exercising a right freely to the point that they are made out to sound evil, is using the liberal playbook.

You really need to recognize blatant liberal ideology when you see it man. His post is dripping with it. Listen to what he's saying! It's crazy.

quote:
I am not sure what liberals have to do with it, conservatives commute too.


HUH? What are you even talking about. The commute itself has NOTHING to do with it!

Also, another big liberal trademark, he's admitting his hypocrisy by doing what he attacks others for. So it's okay if HE commutes 80 miles a day and throws pollution everywhere, but if someone else drives into a city, they just want to fill kids lungs up with smog...


By retrospooty on 2/27/2012 8:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think we agree on most of what you are saying, its just not a liberal issue to me.

Kind of like with govt. You blame all the overspending on liberals, even though conservatives do it too. I blame all the overspending on our elected officials, rep, dem, lib, con... all of them do it. Its not because they are liberals, its because they are criminally negligent... Or just plain criminals. Call it what you want, it does suck.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2012 8:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
No it's not a Liberal issue. I'm not saying it is. His tone and words is what makes him one, not where he stands on the issue.

quote:
You blame all the overspending on liberals


I don't think that's fair. ALL spending? No. All spending under Obama, most certainly yes.


By retrospooty on 2/27/2012 8:54:47 PM , Rating: 3
Ya, but you use the word liberals like I would use the word "loser" or "dumbass". Its become a bucket for you to throw anything you don't like into. I just think you are losing sight of what Liberal is and putting alot more into it than what is real. Liberals are not what ruined the country. The CRIMINALS we elect and have been electing for decades have ruined our country. They have sold us out. They are reps, dems, libs and cons. They are all of the above, its not just a liberal thing.

I agree with almost all you say, as far as what pisses you off, it pisses me off too... But my point:

"Anyone who demonizes someone for exercising a right freely to the point that they are made out to sound evil, is using the liberal playbook."

No, that isnt in the liberal playbook. That is in the political playbook and its called hypocracy.

"another big liberal trademark, he's admitting his hypocrisy by doing what he attacks others for"

Again, not simply a liberal trait. Reps dems, libs and cons all do this.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2012 9:05:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ya, but you use the word liberals like I would use the word "loser" or "dumbass".


Well of course. Liberal is a 4 letter word :)

quote:
No, that isnt in the liberal playbook. That is in the political playbook and its called hypocracy.


Oh come on now. Not even you can believe that. Don't be intentionally naive bud.

Of course anyone can be a hypocrite, but on the typical ideological scale, liberals score higher at being hypocrites. Big time.

It's really hard to be a rich politician living in Washington flying everywhere in private jets or taking limousines, while at the same time railing against the "rich" and demonizing others for not being environmentally friendly enough, and NOT come off like a hypocrite.

quote:
Again, not simply a liberal trait. Reps dems, libs and cons all do this.


Again, missing the point. Of course Conservatives can be hypocrites at times. But Liberal Democrats have built an entire national platform on HYPOCRISY! "Do as I say, not as I do" is their slogan.

quote:
Liberals are not what ruined the country.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.


By retrospooty on 2/27/2012 9:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion."

I think we can at least agree on this... The criminal/hypocrite politicians we elect and continue to elect have ruined us.

You call them liberals, I call them politicians, they are all the same to me.


By Spuke on 2/28/2012 5:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You call them liberals, I call them politicians, they are all the same to me.
This is the boat I'm on.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2012 5:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, knowing you, you don't like any taxation at all


100% false.

I have absolutely no problem paying taxes. What I don't like are taxes that are unreasonably high or designed to shape how we live by punishing us for doing certain things and rewarding us for doing others.

People I know personally often hear me arguing how eventually states will need to implement laws that will charge sales tax for online transactions. I have no problem paying sales taxes on online purchases because I know what the point of them are. Schools, roads, police, firefighters, etc. People who complain about these things being underfunded or in disrepair shouldn't complain when they don't want to pay these kinds of taxes. All I ask is that they be collected at the time of sale.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By Netscorer on 2/27/2012 7:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
Please, spare me.
Every tax shapes how society and people operate. Some directly (alcohol, tobacco), some not (investments, property). Sometimes (in US more often then not) it's not the taxes but tax breaks (which is essentially the same thing if you come to think of it as every tax break has to be paid by some other tax). let's take mortgage deduction, for example. It directly influences peoples decision to own property vs rent. I have not heard you complaining about this break, though it penalizes folks who don't want or can't own their property as it essentially puts them at higher tax rate.
Now with your example on retail taxes, or Internet retail taxes. The decision not to tax online purchases was initially implemented with a specific agenda to drive eCommerce. It was government who decided to put moratorium on online taxes and I have not seen you demonstrating in front of White House, demanding that they collect the money you own on your Internet purchases. Now you are saying that you are OK with paying these taxes (eventually). How nice of you! So what benefits you is fine but what does not, you are up in arms, protecting your rights.
Please, spare me.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2012 8:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
Netscorer that was a really bad post. Lotta problems here.

quote:
Every tax shapes how society and people operate.


That's never been the purpose of taxation. EVER. Taxes shouldn't be used to shape society or punish/reward.

quote:
(which is essentially the same thing if you come to think of it as every tax break has to be paid by some other tax)


BIG TIME false statement. Completely false. Taxes don't work this way, sorry. If you get a tax break on something, someone else pays higher offsetting taxes? Since when?

quote:
I have not heard you complaining about this break


Red Herring. You haven't heard him complain about it because it's probably never come up for discussion on DT. Or are you claiming to be psychic?

quote:
The decision not to tax online purchases was initially implemented with a specific agenda to drive eCommerce.


Uhhh this is completely made up. There was never a "decision" to not tax eCommerce. There just isn't a way to enforce this tax. Called a "Use tax" and implemented by most every state for decades now.

The problem is states can't enforce taxation across State lines, but the Constitution prohibits the Government from forcing such policies on the states and individual e Retailers.

quote:
Please, spare me.


And please, spare US. From this ignorant trolling posting of yours utterly bereft of facts, logic, and common sense.


By Paj on 2/28/2012 8:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's never been the purpose of taxation. EVER. Taxes shouldn't be used to shape society or punish/reward.


Er, yes it is. It may smack against your conservative/libertarian leanings, but that's how it is.

It's a pretty basic tenet of economic theory. Governments use taxation to implement policies across the entire spectrum - health, defence, infrastructure, energy, trade.
Domestic industries are encouraged through subsidies and tariffs, which are another form of taxation.

I can understand why you hate the idea though, considering how emblematic it is of big government and reduction of personal liberty and so on. Saying it shouldn't happen is one thing - it's your opinion and your entitled to it if you want it. But saying it DOESN'T happen is something else completely - it's simply not true.


By Rott3nHIppi3 on 2/28/2012 11:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
@ Reclaimer...

I believe taxes do shape the landscape to some extent. The eastern half of PA is a good example. Lots of people live in PA and commute to NJ/NY simply to avoid the huge discrepancy in property taxes. Businesses also move their headquarters to states offering up the best tax incentives (which is why a lot of North East companies moved to NC and SC). Dell Computer and CAT are good examples (I think). But in reality, yes..... no one is stopping anyone from moving closer to their job. Hell, most people commute 80 miles one way to work EVERY DAY just so they can be 10 miles away from mom on the WEEKENDS. I blame babies! LOL! Good thing our other big business is abortions... less future commuters every day!


By shin0bi272 on 2/27/2012 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
so you understand the economy is 22.1% manufacturing so your 85% is wrong right there. On top of that the chunk of the economy that is service oriented includes house cleaners and doctors. You cant telecommute to clean up a hotel room... yet. And when you can those jobs will be done by androids and those people will be out of work.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 2:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
True, service oriented also includes people like plumbers, waiters, bank tellers, cashiers, and many others that still much travel to their work. Not all the service oriented jobs are in sales, computer programming and engineering. Even my work as a chemist requires me to be in the lab since I can not do that work from home.


RE: Telecommuting will solve most of the problems
By Netscorer on 2/27/2012 7:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are all correct about not everyone in Service industry being able to telecommute. But enough people do and that should be all the difference between morning traffic jam and free-flowing highway. If you notice traffic hour biggest jams, they occur specifically around 9-5 schedule which offices operate. Teachers, plumbers, waitresses, nurses, and other folks operate often on very different schedules. Remove typical office employees from daily commute patterns and you would find that that 3 lane highway suddenly looks very empty.


By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 9:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Where I live now it seems 90% of all workers are on the 8 to 5 schedule with everyone going to work at the same time, be it an officer worker or a coal miner. Luckily there are only 20k people in the town but it is still a jam trying to get through the middle of town to work on the other side. The worse thing is the crazy city council has the street cleaner truck running up and down Main Street right at 8am backing up traffic about once a week lol. Whoever allowed that schedule should be shot.


By kattanna on 2/28/2012 12:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even my work as a chemist requires me to be in the lab since I can not do that work from home.


true.. it is really best to park that RV somewhere besides at home while "working"

;>)


Solution
By Goty on 2/27/2012 10:45:05 AM , Rating: 1
I have an idea for a new technology to solve traffic issues: teach people how to freakin' drive. I'd be awfully surprised if less than 90% of all traffic jams occurred for reasons OTHER than some idiot trying to cut across four lanes of traffic in 200 feet to hit an onramp because he's and idiot and wasn't paying attention.




RE: Solution
By karndog on 2/27/2012 11:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how long it would take to train all the female and Indian drivers on the road?? It would be quicker and cheaper to develop the automatic flying car system from The Fifth Element.

*trollface*


RE: Solution
By Netscorer on 2/27/2012 11:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with how people drive. If you believe that all rush hour problems are because of soccer moms, retirees and (a-hem) Indian drivers, keep smoking what you have - it must be some good weed.


RE: Solution
By karndog on 2/27/2012 11:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing wrong with how anyone drives? Anywhere?
The only one on drugs here is you, you must be in your own world, because there are some TERRIBLE drivers in the real world.


RE: Solution
By degobah77 on 2/27/2012 1:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
SOME terrible drivers? Haha, I fear that no one *drives* anymore these days. Most people are talking on the phone, putting lipstick on, shaving, texting, merging onto the highway at 35mph, slamming on their brakes to change lanes instead of speeding UP to pass, or simply just drifting along in some state of utter mindlessness with no regard for anyone around them.

If people would actually DRIVE their vehicles with a sense of purpose and a timely arrival in mind, we'd all be better off.


RE: Solution
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 2:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that!


RE: Solution
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 2/28/2012 12:21:57 PM , Rating: 1
Its not from smoking... this is a reality. Traffic jams are caused by in large from idiot moms texting/talking and foreigners not familiar with the roads. More importantly, they are not driving the same pace as everyone else AND refuse to allow right of way.

Other examples:
You see it when big trucks are trying to pass each other up-hill; you see it when no one wants to pass the state patrol man driving slowly on purpose; you see it when drivers are trying to exit or enter ramps AND STOP to do it; you see it when assholes won't move the hell over into the slow lane.

Driving is all about creating and maintaining a gap.... and as long as that gap exists, none of this would occur. The DMV promotes a 2 second rule, but no one freak'n follows it. Had they, traffic would flow like a zipper effect whereby there's always that gap to maneuver within. Ramps would work like a cafeteria line. Left car, right car, left car, right car. Lane changes... not problem. Ramp coming up you need to get off.. just speed up in the fast lane and grab the gap in the slow lane.

But they don't teach you common sense in Drivers Ed.


HOV lanes
By lolmuly on 2/27/2012 11:39:41 AM , Rating: 5
Cheapest solution will be to take the HOV lanes and turn them into automatic vehicle lanes (sorry car-poolers). Develop a standard by which all automatically driven cars communicate by, and you can pack them in bumper to bumper at 65 mph in those lanes (think millisecond reaction times). You can then figure that over time as the percentage of manually driven vehicles decreases you can simply re-purpose regular lanes for automatic vehicles. All of the vehicles currently on the 405 could probably fit into 2 lanes if they were driven by computers, and then the cars would simply merge out of the automatic lanes when they neared their exit.

In this manner you would have an almost seamless transition between computer controlled and manually controlled traffic. Start the turnover around say 2025? We'll have ~95% saturation by 2045, and enthusiasts could still keep their manually driven vehicles.

Just need to standardize car-to-car communications and get the laws passed to make it happen.




Take this with a grain of salt
By Schrag4 on 2/27/2012 1:35:20 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone else think it's funny that they guy selling the solution would tell us there's a problem just over the horizon?




By Dan Banana on 2/27/2012 5:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's obviously part of a huge liberal conspiracy to take away our pickup trucks. They can take my pickup when they pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel.


What he's really saying is
By shin0bi272 on 2/27/2012 12:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
What hes really saying is code words for "we need those insanely tiny smart cars" everywhere. So look for ford to start pushing smaller and smaller cars over the next decade...especially if gas remains high.




Here's a novel idea...
By Beenthere on 2/27/2012 1:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
Only issue driver's licenses to people who actually know how to drive properly and are responsible enough to actual do so. That would remove 95% of current vehicles from the highways.




Urban mobility...
By Motoman on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Urban mobility...
By Cr0nJ0b on 2/27/2012 10:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's just crazy talk.


RE: Urban mobility...
By quiksilvr on 2/27/2012 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, just Chuck Testa.

But in all seriousness. How do you solve massive traffic:

TELECOMMUTING!

Make it law for people to work at least twice a week from home. Make it rotate with respect to location so that it eases traffic flow in high traffic areas. Problem solved.


RE: Urban mobility...
By shin0bi272 on 2/27/2012 12:42:12 PM , Rating: 4
keep your laws off my drive to work commie


RE: Urban mobility...
By quiksilvr on 2/27/2012 1:46:59 PM , Rating: 1
You mean the same laws that require you to go to work for 40 hours a week?


RE: Urban mobility...
By tayb on 2/27/2012 12:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'll thank the all knowing overlords for the reduction in traffic on my commute days.


RE: Urban mobility...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Difficult to be a waitress, factory worker, carpenter, ect when working from home.


RE: Urban mobility...
By quiksilvr on 2/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Urban mobility...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
The factories around Louisville Ky had been staggering their work schedules for years to keep congestion down, which was really bad in the past, so those jobs do contribute.

Why can't offices do the same staggering their shifts in 30 minute increments over the time from 6:30-9:00?


RE: Urban mobility...
By retrospooty on 2/27/2012 5:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
Or do like intel does (at least here in AZ).

The shifts are 6-6 you work 3 days one week and 4 days the next week. Some shifts are Sun-Wed(Thu on off week) some are Wed-Sat(Sun on off week). I would kill to have that schedule. You drive in, miss traffic, get all your work done in less trips. Every weekend is a 3 day weekend, except every other one is a 4 day weekend.


RE: Urban mobility...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 9:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
I worked that schedule on my first job out of college 20 years ago. Except for the 105 mile drive one way I really liked it. If I had stayed longer before getting offered a better one I would have moved closer, but honestly even at that distance, with the schedule it was pretty good since it was 3 days or 4 days only.


RE: Urban mobility...
By bigdawg1988 on 2/28/2012 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't offices do the same staggering their shifts in 30 minute increments over the time from 6:30-9:00?

'cause they are run by old farts who don't give a damn about commuting times since they get in the office at 6am and work until 6pm, or they can afford double the price for a house close to the office. Or they have drivers... at least the CEOs and Presidents do. Darn you and your lazy behind! Get in the office earlier, or work harder so you can move up and be able to afford a house closer to the job!! heh


RE: Urban mobility...
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2012 10:42:04 AM , Rating: 5
Or just don't live in massive cities.


RE: Urban mobility...
By TSS on 2/27/2012 11:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually massive cities would make mass transport more feasable.

The problem is the layout of the cities. I'll bet there are very few living areas situated close to work areas. And i don't mean living next door to a chemical plant, but just office workers who live within walking or even cycling distance of their work.

If businesses were more spread out and were located closer to where people actually live, there wouldn't be a problem. With either cars or public transport. All you need then is efficient city-to-city mass transport systems and you're set to go for the majority of people.

Great thing is, people can still own and use cars. Everybody will still want to own a car (and parking isn't a problem, large buildings need foundations = parking space. You can build down as well as up)for long distance travel so there's plenty of market for car makers. And Gas will become cheaper, less demand.

It's the suburban lifestyle that's really the issue. It's not a problem when only the rich can afford to but when the entire population has to be moved from sub urban areas to the city to work and back again.... that's just inefficient.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Mitch101 on 2/27/2012 12:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem then is the talent level found in those urban areas. I don't disagree with you but being in a city you generally get the talent within the city and from all surrounding directions. Those people who live without cars or single car married in the city have no easy method to get to you on a daily basis.

Im more for the work from home program or even on a flexible work 3 days in the office and 2 from home and find a metric with which you can measure that I'm delivering as much. I genuinely get more done when working from home the problem is the people who abuse this privileged ruining the option for those of us who want this. Also really old managers who feel they lose their power and control because you work remotely.


RE: Urban mobility...
By shin0bi272 on 2/27/2012 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
4 day work week working 10hr days cuts down on traffic while still keeping the same number of hours worked.


RE: Urban mobility...
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2012 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
You totally missed my point.


RE: Urban mobility...
By bigdawg1988 on 2/28/2012 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's the suburban lifestyle that's really the issue. It's not a problem when only the rich can afford to but when the entire population has to be moved from sub urban areas to the city to work and back again.... that's just inefficient.

Haha! There a few million people in Atlanta who would tell you go f*** off, and leave their cars alone! heh


RE: Urban mobility...
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 4:07:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's the suburban lifestyle that's really the issue.
A few things.
1. Lower the price of housing.
2. Get rid of the assholes.
3. Put homes are larger lots.
4. Stop silly city ordinances like you must have actual grass in your front yard.
5. Kill all violent crime offenders.

Change those things and that will move a lot of people from the suburbs.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Motoman on 2/27/2012 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
Point taken and sentiment shared.

However, the fact of the matter is that urbanites actually have a much lower "footprint" than rural dwellers do. Like it or not...large, densely populated cities is the only way we're going to have any chance at supporting our burgeoning global population.

Personally I have spent lots of time in every major city in the US, and a few in Canada, for work over the past ~15 years. No way in hell you'd ever get me to live like a sardine in a tiny apartment, with no room to actually own anything, and nothing to do except go out and get drunk at a bar every night.

But...obviously lots of people think that's what life is all about. So more power to 'em.


RE: Urban mobility...
By tayb on 2/27/2012 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
You know that they build apartments that are large right? You could buy an apartment in downtown NYC that is several thousand square feet. But you'll pay for it.


RE: Urban mobility...
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2012 1:16:57 PM , Rating: 1
Well when you want to give all of us several million dollars, we'll care about that option.


RE: Urban mobility...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 1:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
But can you get those for less than the $42K I paid for my 800sqft cabin on 3 acres?


RE: Urban mobility...
By Motoman on 2/27/2012 7:27:09 PM , Rating: 1
Define "large."

The wife and I share a 3,300sf house on 50 acres of land, close to half of which is our own private forest. Our place also features a WWII-era barn of about 2,000sf, a cute old "milk house" which is something silly like 150sf, another building that we've converted to a "clubhouse" that's about 2,000sf, and a modern horse barn with attached arena that's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000sf.

I can keep the dozen or so motorcycles I have at any given time there with no problem, along with our 6 horses and boarding many more. We can park my truck, the wife's SUV, our horse trailer and my race trailer anywhere we want.

Our monthly payments are $3,100. So what could I get in NYC that would be comparable to that for $3,100 a month? A 1,200sf apartment and no parking space?

Yeah.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 4:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even think you could get 1200sf for that price in NYC. BTW, nice setup. We have 2.5 acres, a couple of horses, 2100sf house, probably 800sf 3 stall shedrow barn, an arena and round pen. Our monthly payments are $2400. We sold a horse a couple of years ago to a couple from Calabasas. They were amazed at the cost of housing in our area. They said our home would easily be worth $8 million in their area (and Calabasas is still relatively rural but only 20 mins or so from LA) as opposed to 1.5 hours (or more..traffic) for us. Even if we got the same setup just 30 mins down the road almost doubles the price.

No thanks.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Solandri on 2/27/2012 1:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the fact of the matter is that urbanites actually have a much lower "footprint" than rural dwellers do. Like it or not...large, densely populated cities is the only way we're going to have any chance at supporting our burgeoning global population.

That isn't really a problem. The vast majority of the world's population growth is in undeveloped countries. Most developed nations are very close to zero population growth. Some are even in population decline (e.g. Japan). The U.S. is about the fastest growing developed nation (something like an average 2.3 kids per family), but even that is a very sedate rate of population growth.
http://www.wrsc.org/sites/default/files/images/201...

The population growth you're seeing in developed countries is mostly immigration, and a population shift from rural areas to urban areas (makes the population of prominent cities increase faster than the country overall).


RE: Urban mobility...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
burgeoning global population.


I did the calculations a while back to counter some crazy post about population growth and found that even if we grow our population to something like 112 Billion people on Earth we could still fit them all on a land mass the size of Greenland.

The total surface area of the Earth is 1.603e+15 sqft which is 1.6 quadrillion sqft. Even at a population of 100 billion people that still leaves everyone with 16,000 sqft of living space. Greenland has an area of 23,315,542,272,000 sgft(1.47% of the Earth's landmass) which would leave 100 billion people 233sqft each. To put it in another perspective if you covered the entire area of Greenland with 3,300 sqft houses the entire worlds population could have one of those houses each and still have room left over.

In other words, we are not going to run out of room for our population any time soon. And if worse comes to worst and we do hit over 100 billion(which would take a few thousand years at current population growth) we could put all of them comfortably on Australia while using the rest of the globe for producing food. Plenty of room and cropland to support them all. Power and such might be a little more of a problem, but in a few thousand years hopefully we will have that worked out too.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Paj on 2/28/2012 8:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
One small problem - the whole world's terrain isnt flat.

One more thing I just thought of: not all the world's land is arable.

Yet another thing: most of Australia is desert, and is close to supporting all the people it can currently.

Few more things: fresh water? resources? transport? infrastructure? geology? temperatures?


RE: Urban mobility...
By bigdawg1988 on 2/28/2012 2:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Plus Australia is full of deadly creatures that want to kill you to death!!
Would solve the population problem though....


RE: Urban mobility...
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 4:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet another thing: most of Australia is desert, and is close to supporting all the people it can currently.
There's already few million people living in the desert just in SoCal. With the theoretical 100 billion people in Australia, money for infrastructure, transport or anything else would be a non-issue.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Dr of crap on 2/27/2012 10:45:05 AM , Rating: 1
Well what Bill is talking about is the part that goes in between the car as we know it and some form of mass transit that is car like.

Yes we all want the ablility to drive WHEN and WHERE we want. What we need is a computerized system that takes control of our car and gets us to where we want to go. And this will be faster since the congestion problem will be worked out by the computer controlling the "cars" on the system. The upside is no stop and go traffic, no accidents, no slow pokes in the left lane, no speeders in the right lane, no problem with merging.

What this is working towards, and there will be those that don't like it or want it, is car like mass transit. Busing, but with individual cars. Maybe a electrical drive system. You get in it in your garage and then "hookup" to the system down the raod and let it take you to where you are going.


RE: Urban mobility...
By stimudent on 2/27/2012 12:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
The concept of the single-occupant-vehicle will have to come to an end eventually. It's going to take at least a couple of generations to change the mindset we currently have. Too many small to mid-sized cities are too poorly laid out(sprawled out) for subways and trollies to work effectively.


RE: Urban mobility...
By raabscuttle on 2/27/2012 1:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
for me, mass transit is neither cost effective nor time effective. 7 miles to work one way and takes me 15 to 20 minutes to commute. The nearest bus line to my home is about 1.5 miles away, and it'd drop me off about 1.5 miles from my workplace. So, basically I'd be walking 3 miles, riding the bus 4 miles and taking about 45 minutes to an hour each way for this pleasure. The fare for a month pass is $59.00. The gas I'd burn is around $86 (my car is not too effecient in city driving), so I'd come out $27 ahead dollar wise, but lose 14 hours more in commuting. I think I'll keep the car.


RE: Urban mobility...
By Paj on 2/28/2012 8:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
What about the exercise you could get? Walking 15 miles a week would be great for your heart. You could even get a bike, depicting on the terrain and traffic, 7 miles could be done very easily.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki