Designs of future Cites / suburbs

with people looking to save costs on new homes

Smaller blocks of land
Smaller homes
Reduced heating costs
Reduced maintenance costs
Apartments could be built smaller with more efficient storage

Identifying and reclaiming wasted space
government or private puchasing of land for hubs and then spreading out from those
Re designed car parks with reduced footprints
Synchronised movements of traffic
What what the ideal city look like ?

Has it been physically tested ?

How can roads be designed to more efficient per meter of city ? Roads that only go one direction?

Are concentric rings (main roads) around cities more efficient than the square approach ?

Underground tunnels towards the inner hubs ?

Less central hubs (inner city areas) more spread out hubs

etc

What other cost savings in design / use could be looked at ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

What other cost savings in design / use could be looked at ?

Green spaces for recreation. (A must if you are making people live in smaller houses).

Cycle paths. For getting around town on short trips. Need to be separated from ordinary roads. They could possibly share the green spaces if you make the green spaces corridors rather than just isolated parks.

Not quite on topic but you’ve reminded me of something I found out the other day.

For a while I’ve known Tokyo-Yokohama Metro area is the world’s biggest urban agglomeration, with a population of 38 million. However, I always assumed that as a whole it has high population density.

Actually it is just a very big area, about 14000 sq km: approximately a quarter of Tasmania’s area. Mean population density is about 2700 person per sq km, with a highly populated core and lightly populated suburbs.

dv said:

Not quite on topic but you’ve reminded me of something I found out the other day.

For a while I’ve known Tokyo-Yokohama Metro area is the world’s biggest urban agglomeration, with a population of 38 million. However, I always assumed that as a whole it has high population density.

Actually it is just a very big area, about 14000 sq km: approximately a quarter of Tasmania’s area. Mean population density is about 2700 person per sq km, with a highly populated core and lightly populated suburbs.

Oh, 2700, sheer luxury :)

sibeen said:

dv said:

Not quite on topic but you’ve reminded me of something I found out the other day.

For a while I’ve known Tokyo-Yokohama Metro area is the world’s biggest urban agglomeration, with a population of 38 million. However, I always assumed that as a whole it has high population density.

Actually it is just a very big area, about 14000 sq km: approximately a quarter of Tasmania’s area. Mean population density is about 2700 person per sq km, with a highly populated core and lightly populated suburbs.

Oh, 2700, sheer luxury :)

(shrugs) It’s about the same as that in my area. 2700 = Pleasant medium density suburbs.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Not quite on topic but you’ve reminded me of something I found out the other day.

For a while I’ve known Tokyo-Yokohama Metro area is the world’s biggest urban agglomeration, with a population of 38 million. However, I always assumed that as a whole it has high population density.

Actually it is just a very big area, about 14000 sq km: approximately a quarter of Tasmania’s area. Mean population density is about 2700 person per sq km, with a highly populated core and lightly populated suburbs.

Oh, 2700, sheer luxury :)

(shrugs) It’s about the same as that in my area. 2700 = Pleasant medium density suburbs.

Bit less, actually. My local government area (Vincent) has a population density of 3055 per sq km.

dv said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Oh, 2700, sheer luxury :)

(shrugs) It’s about the same as that in my area. 2700 = Pleasant medium density suburbs.

Bit less, actually. My local government area (Vincent) has a population density of 3055 per sq km.

It’s 2900 where I live. The burbs must be completely barren as I’ve worked in Tokyo a few times and it’s fucking crowded.

Melb Syd designs look all higgledy-piggledy, (a mess) visually and getting around.

Melbourne started as a grid pattern.

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

sibeen said:

dv said:

dv said:

(shrugs) It’s about the same as that in my area. 2700 = Pleasant medium density suburbs.

Bit less, actually. My local government area (Vincent) has a population density of 3055 per sq km.

It’s 2900 where I live. The burbs must be completely barren as I’ve worked in Tokyo a few times and it’s fucking crowded.

Oh yeah. The centre is over 20000 per sq km and then like Tsukubamirai area has a density of 600 per sq km.

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Sheep trails it is then.

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Oh I dunno. Vancouver seems to work okay.

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Circular patterns ?

dv said:

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Oh I dunno. Vancouver seems to work okay.

But what of Melbourne?

I started working in real estate about 6 months ago.
I visit between 5 and 10 houses per week.
What I’ve noticed in old and new homes is poor use of space, either through poor design, or by the end users having different ideas.
So many places have rooms that aren’t used for anything other than crap storage.

Many places have exterior spaces that are too small to be used for much.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Oh I dunno. Vancouver seems to work okay.

But what of Melbourne?

Some streets gives me anxiety, Hoodle street, narrow streets built for horses and silly hook turns anywhere in the CBD.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Oh I dunno. Vancouver seems to work okay.

But what of Melbourne?

Some streets gives me anxiety, Hoodle street, narrow streets built for horses and silly hook turns anywhere in the CBD.

Pfft… navigating the Place de Charles de Gaulle on your second day in your rental car, now that gives you anxiety.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

Grid patterns suck. Don’t do a grid pattern :)

Circular patterns ?

Something that keeps the traffic flowing in two directions – rather than four and having lots of intersections where they cross.

hook turns are necessary when you have trams.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Melb Syd designs look all higgledy-piggledy, (a mess) visually and getting around.

Dunno about Melbourne but definitely Sydney. The settlement landed and they just started building outwards without any town planning.

Contrast that to say, Canberra, which was a planned city.

Lary said:

I started working in real estate about 6 months ago.
I visit between 5 and 10 houses per week.
What I’ve noticed in old and new homes is poor use of space, either through poor design, or by the end users having different ideas.
So many places have rooms that aren’t used for anything other than crap storage.

Many places have exterior spaces that are too small to be used for much.

Agree with poor use of space, I see it a lot of it as well. There are good designs out there, but its not the norm with housing designs that have not changed much in the suburbs, new homes all seems to have the sameness, wood frames maybe one brick layer, plaster walls plaster ceiling bit of insulation ceramic roof with one layer .

I see a lot of poor storage options for useful items but so many people have different needs with this, there are good designs out there but same as above.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

But what of Melbourne?

Some streets gives me anxiety, Hoodle street, narrow streets built for horses and silly hook turns anywhere in the CBD.

Pfft… navigating the Place de Charles de Gaulle on your second day in your rental car, now that gives you anxiety.

Especially if you’ve never driven a car before.

Got to say, Singapore is well-designed. High rise apartments. Plenty of green space. I’ve been involved with their MRT project: their final plan involves no place in the populated area of S’pore being more than five minutes walk from a train station. The number of cars is strictly limited so they won’t be forever chasing their tails trying to build enough roads.

ChrispenEvan said:

hook turns are necessary when you have trams.

This. And they aren’t very difficult to do. There are even lines on the bitumen these days to guide you. I remember (I’m getting old, I can say this) that for my learner’s permit in 1976 the written test required you to memorize which intersections required hook turns. I can’t remember if there was signage. I think you just had to know that if there were trams in both streets, it was a hook turn.

buffy said:

I think you just had to know that if there were trams in both streets, it was a hook turn.

No need for both directions. Trams on the street you are on alone usually entails a hook turn.

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

I think you just had to know that if there were trams in both streets, it was a hook turn.

No need for both directions. Trams on the street you are on alone usually entails a hook turn.

I’m not sure that’s how it was in the 70s. Because there were places where the right turners held up the trams and the trammies did a lot of ding ding dinging.

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

I think you just had to know that if there were trams in both streets, it was a hook turn.

No need for both directions. Trams on the street you are on alone usually entails a hook turn.

I’m not sure that’s how it was in the 70s. Because there were places where the right turners held up the trams and the trammies did a lot of ding ding dinging.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/27232360

Wikipedia says: Hook turns were originally the standard right turn in Australia. Various jurisdictions phased them out at different times. For example Melbourne changed to centre turns in 1954 for all right turns except for certain CBD intersections, in order to maintain a clearway in the center of major roads for the city’s extensive tram network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn

The trove article is ref from that wikipedia article. I’m not sure when they reinstated hook turns for intersections with trams in only one street.

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

Bit late. The trams have been there longer than the cars in Melbourne. Or almost, anyway.

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

One tram is the equivilent of 100+ cars at the very least. Trams should get the priority.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

Bit late. The trams have been there longer than the cars in Melbourne. Or almost, anyway.

The thread is about building new future cities. You lot will just have to muddle on as best you can.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

Bit late. The trams have been there longer than the cars in Melbourne. Or almost, anyway.

The thread is about building new future cities. You lot will just have to muddle on as best you can.

So why are trams even mentioned. Surely everyone will have their own personal flying machine?

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

One tram is the equivilent of 100+ cars at the very least. Trams should get the priority.

they would work even better if kept separated from cars. Either tram-only “roads” or tunnels or elevated trackways.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

Bit late. The trams have been there longer than the cars in Melbourne. Or almost, anyway.

The thread is about building new future cities. You lot will just have to muddle on as best you can.

So why are trams even mentioned. Surely everyone will have their own personal flying machine?

We should be heading underground and use the surface for more productive purposes.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

Bit late. The trams have been there longer than the cars in Melbourne. Or almost, anyway.

The thread is about building new future cities. You lot will just have to muddle on as best you can.

So why are trams even mentioned. Surely everyone will have their own personal flying machine?

I prefer the term “light railway”.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

new rule: trams should not run down city streets, but in their own separate right-of-way.

One tram is the equivilent of 100+ cars at the very least. Trams should get the priority.

they would work even better if kept separated from cars. Either tram-only “roads” or tunnels or elevated trackways.

Geting rid of cars would be much easier…it’d open up a ton of space for trams too.

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

One tram is the equivilent of 100+ cars at the very least. Trams should get the priority.

they would work even better if kept separated from cars. Either tram-only “roads” or tunnels or elevated trackways.

Geting rid of cars would be much easier…it’d open up a ton of space for trams too.

All I’m saying is that in an ideal city cars and light rail vehicles should not share the same space.

buffy said:

Melbourne started as a grid pattern.

Canberra started as a grid pattern. Then somone fucked it up, if I find out who, i’ll shoot them.

Grid pattern is best. No matter where there’s a blockage, there’s always a range of good alternative routes.

Sheesh…….. It’s simple.

Want more road space?

Just cut 1 metre off every vehicle. Smaller vehicles ya see.

1,000,000 vehicles at 1 metre cut off per vehicle. .

That 1000 kms of extra road space already. Without having to build a thing.

Simples.

Woodie said:

Sheesh…….. It’s simple.

Want more road space?

Just cut 1 metre off every vehicle. Smaller vehicles ya see.

1,000,000 vehicles at 1 metre cut off per vehicle. .

That 1000 kms of extra road space already. Without having to build a thing.

Simples.

Even simpler than that. Double road space by banning on-road parking everywhere.

Better still, increase the speed limit. An increase from 50 to 60 km/hr gets vehicles to their destination 20% faster, which allows you to put 20% more vehicles on the road.

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

Sheesh…….. It’s simple.

Want more road space?

Just cut 1 metre off every vehicle. Smaller vehicles ya see.

1,000,000 vehicles at 1 metre cut off per vehicle. .

That 1000 kms of extra road space already. Without having to build a thing.

Simples.

Even simpler than that. Double road space by banning on-road parking everywhere.

Better still, increase the speed limit. An increase from 50 to 60 km/hr gets vehicles to their destination 20% faster, which allows you to put 20% more vehicles on the road.

It’s more about keeping cars moving and traffic flowing and avoiding stop-start patterns. Increasing the speed limit by 10 in many cases just means getting to the next set of lights sooner and waiting longer for your green.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

Sheesh…….. It’s simple.

Want more road space?

Just cut 1 metre off every vehicle. Smaller vehicles ya see.

1,000,000 vehicles at 1 metre cut off per vehicle. .

That 1000 kms of extra road space already. Without having to build a thing.

Simples.

Even simpler than that. Double road space by banning on-road parking everywhere.

Better still, increase the speed limit. An increase from 50 to 60 km/hr gets vehicles to their destination 20% faster, which allows you to put 20% more vehicles on the road.

It’s more about keeping cars moving and traffic flowing and avoiding stop-start patterns. Increasing the speed limit by 10 in many cases just means getting to the next set of lights sooner and waiting longer for your green.

yep, Forrest Hwy around Berrigan rd etc. 100kph but lucky to do 20. people can’t merge.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Even simpler than that. Double road space by banning on-road parking everywhere.

Better still, increase the speed limit. An increase from 50 to 60 km/hr gets vehicles to their destination 20% faster, which allows you to put 20% more vehicles on the road.

It’s more about keeping cars moving and traffic flowing and avoiding stop-start patterns. Increasing the speed limit by 10 in many cases just means getting to the next set of lights sooner and waiting longer for your green.

yep, Forrest Hwy around Berrigan rd etc. 100kph but lucky to do 20. people can’t merge.

Once you get to a certain saturation level merging technique becomes irrelevant. It is the point at which a driver can only let in the car in front by slowing down to create a safe gap. Of course that backs up the driver behind, who also has a car a trying to merge in between him and you… so he has to slow down just a fraction more… and then the driver behind has the same problem, and so on. There is no amount of technique that can solve the saturation problem. True, someone with poor merging technique (either too aggressive or too timid) will make the situation worse, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

It’s more about keeping cars moving and traffic flowing and avoiding stop-start patterns. Increasing the speed limit by 10 in many cases just means getting to the next set of lights sooner and waiting longer for your green.

yep, Forrest Hwy around Berrigan rd etc. 100kph but lucky to do 20. people can’t merge.

Once you get to a certain saturation level merging technique becomes irrelevant. It is the point at which a driver can only let in the car in front by slowing down to create a safe gap. Of course that backs up the driver behind, who also has a car a trying to merge in between him and you… so he has to slow down just a fraction more… and then the driver behind has the same problem, and so on. There is no amount of technique that can solve the saturation problem. True, someone with poor merging technique (either too aggressive or too timid) will make the situation worse, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

dv said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yep, Forrest Hwy around Berrigan rd etc. 100kph but lucky to do 20. people can’t merge.

Once you get to a certain saturation level merging technique becomes irrelevant. It is the point at which a driver can only let in the car in front by slowing down to create a safe gap. Of course that backs up the driver behind, who also has a car a trying to merge in between him and you… so he has to slow down just a fraction more… and then the driver behind has the same problem, and so on. There is no amount of technique that can solve the saturation problem. True, someone with poor merging technique (either too aggressive or too timid) will make the situation worse, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

dv said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yep, Forrest Hwy around Berrigan rd etc. 100kph but lucky to do 20. people can’t merge.

Once you get to a certain saturation level merging technique becomes irrelevant. It is the point at which a driver can only let in the car in front by slowing down to create a safe gap. Of course that backs up the driver behind, who also has a car a trying to merge in between him and you… so he has to slow down just a fraction more… and then the driver behind has the same problem, and so on. There is no amount of technique that can solve the saturation problem. True, someone with poor merging technique (either too aggressive or too timid) will make the situation worse, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

First they came for the Tritons and I did nothing.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

Sheesh…….. It’s simple.

Want more road space?

Just cut 1 metre off every vehicle. Smaller vehicles ya see.

1,000,000 vehicles at 1 metre cut off per vehicle. .

That 1000 kms of extra road space already. Without having to build a thing.

Simples.

Even simpler than that. Double road space by banning on-road parking everywhere.

Better still, increase the speed limit. An increase from 50 to 60 km/hr gets vehicles to their destination 20% faster, which allows you to put 20% more vehicles on the road.

It’s more about keeping cars moving and traffic flowing and avoiding stop-start patterns. Increasing the speed limit by 10 in many cases just means getting to the next set of lights sooner and waiting longer for your green.

Even without merging problems, increasing the speed limit does not increase capacity.

Reducing speed reduces minimum spacing, which increases capacity.

This works down to about 30 km/hr, below which things become chaotic, and you get random lock-ups for no apparent reason.

party_pants said:

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Bit harsh …

He does have some stunning and unique achievements to his name

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Once you get to a certain saturation level merging technique becomes irrelevant. It is the point at which a driver can only let in the car in front by slowing down to create a safe gap. Of course that backs up the driver behind, who also has a car a trying to merge in between him and you… so he has to slow down just a fraction more… and then the driver behind has the same problem, and so on. There is no amount of technique that can solve the saturation problem. True, someone with poor merging technique (either too aggressive or too timid) will make the situation worse, but they are not the root cause of the problem.

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

I wonder how many people these days have just said “fuck it, I’ll use Uber for everything”. For a lot of people it might be cheaper than paying off, fueling, maintaining a vehicle.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Hardly worth worrying about given the advent of driverless cars

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

Taxis fulfil this role.

Michael V said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Many of you must be old enough to remember car pooling.

buffy said:

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Many of you must be old enough to remember car pooling.

car pooling is still a thing…

buffy said:

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Many of you must be old enough to remember car pooling.

Yes its strange it’s not actively encouraged driving into the city, less money for parking structures owners I imagine

dv said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

If they are anything to do with Elon Musk they’ll likely make it worse :)

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

I wonder how many people these days have just said “fuck it, I’ll use Uber for everything”. For a lot of people it might be cheaper than paying off, fueling, maintaining a vehicle.

Good question. Uber is not as fast as home-grown, not as cheap as buses. Multi-owned would result in fewer rather than more vehicles on the road – car pooling style.

Also, Uber driving between addresses uses up more road.

There was an interesting but ridiculous suggestion by Ariadne Deadalus 50 or so years ago about community buses that have no fixed route, but follow a route that wins the majority vote of passengers. At each intersection, passengers vote on where they want to go next.

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Nah. If this was practical it would already be being done.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

I wonder how many people these days have just said “fuck it, I’ll use Uber for everything”. For a lot of people it might be cheaper than paying off, fueling, maintaining a vehicle.

Good question. Uber is not as fast as home-grown, not as cheap as buses. Multi-owned would result in fewer rather than more vehicles on the road – car pooling style.

Also, Uber driving between addresses uses up more road.

There was an interesting but ridiculous suggestion by Ariadne Deadalus 50 or so years ago about community buses that have no fixed route, but follow a route that wins the majority vote of passengers. At each intersection, passengers vote on where they want to go next.

I think Uber has car pooling options that let you share the fare with someone going in same direction as you.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Taxis fulfil this role.

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Nah. If this was practical it would already be being done.

Yeah but probably everyone was saying this about commercial rideshare operations before Uber came along.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps car ownership should shift from single person or household to multi-owned or even multi-leased and be driverless.
You book it when you need it as do others and it’s always being used instead of sitting idle. It would create more wear and tear on the vehicle but no one person would be paying for it anyway. When not in use its sitting in a recharge station waiting to be called. I actually did a survey about this and it included how long would you wait for the car if you had finished work and it was elsewhere.

I wonder how many people these days have just said “fuck it, I’ll use Uber for everything”. For a lot of people it might be cheaper than paying off, fueling, maintaining a vehicle.

Good question. Uber is not as fast as home-grown, not as cheap as buses. Multi-owned would result in fewer rather than more vehicles on the road – car pooling style.

Also, Uber driving between addresses uses up more road.

There was an interesting but ridiculous suggestion by Ariadne Deadalus 50 or so years ago about community buses that have no fixed route, but follow a route that wins the majority vote of passengers. At each intersection, passengers vote on where they want to go next.

LOL

Or just have a good comprehensive public transport system that’s so great that hardly anyone bothers with cars … it’s an option … just sayin’

dv said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

They do but I wonder if it would be cheaper for a partial ownership in a car

Nah. If this was practical it would already be being done.

Yeah but probably everyone was saying this about commercial rideshare operations before Uber came along.

Nah. I think Uber is just a more sophisticated form of taxi service, based upon utilising smartphone and GPS technology just as soon as they started becoming ubiquitous.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Nah. If this was practical it would already be being done.

Yeah but probably everyone was saying this about commercial rideshare operations before Uber came along.

Nah. I think Uber is just a more sophisticated form of taxi service, based upon utilising smartphone and GPS technology just as soon as they started becoming ubiquitous.

More sophisticated in terms of technology, less so in terms of regulation and possibly safety.

dv said:

Or just have a good comprehensive public transport system that’s so great that hardly anyone bothers with cars … it’s an option … just sayin’

I have no complaints about getting to work using public transport.
If I get all the connections it’s about 35 minutes from leaving work to getting home

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I wonder how many people these days have just said “fuck it, I’ll use Uber for everything”. For a lot of people it might be cheaper than paying off, fueling, maintaining a vehicle.

Good question. Uber is not as fast as home-grown, not as cheap as buses. Multi-owned would result in fewer rather than more vehicles on the road – car pooling style.

Also, Uber driving between addresses uses up more road.

There was an interesting but ridiculous suggestion by Ariadne Deadalus 50 or so years ago about community buses that have no fixed route, but follow a route that wins the majority vote of passengers. At each intersection, passengers vote on where they want to go next.

LOL

You’d need a platoon of cops at each intersection to deal with the punch-ups.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good question. Uber is not as fast as home-grown, not as cheap as buses. Multi-owned would result in fewer rather than more vehicles on the road – car pooling style.

Also, Uber driving between addresses uses up more road.

There was an interesting but ridiculous suggestion by Ariadne Deadalus 50 or so years ago about community buses that have no fixed route, but follow a route that wins the majority vote of passengers. At each intersection, passengers vote on where they want to go next.

LOL

You’d need a platoon of cops at each intersection to deal with the punch-ups.

I remember when my grandad starting going senile and missed the turn from the highway to the street on the way home and kept driving and ended up in Albany as he ran out of petrol

Today is car swap day. Three adults, two addresses, two cars. Swapping over the manual car that can carry 2 full size doors, a chair and a passenger for the automatic car more suitable for long trips. A bit of a pest to drive for an extra hour to swap them over.

dv said:

Or just have a good comprehensive public transport system that’s so great that hardly anyone bothers with cars … it’s an option … just sayin’

Yes, that could work.

Problem is that cost is inversely proportional to density.

Maybe some bus routes could run vans or mini-buses on an Uber type system between certain bus stops along certain routes. Go to bus stop, activate smart phone app with your bus stop number and where you want to go, a bus will be dispatched to pick you up. Along the way it might stop and pick up somebody else going to a destination beyond where you are going or a closer destination along the way. Being a public service they are welcome on board and you don’t get the bus to yourself.

mollwollfumble said:

Today is car swap day. Three adults, two addresses, two cars. Swapping over the manual car that can carry 2 full size doors, a chair and a passenger for the automatic car more suitable for long trips. A bit of a pest to drive for an extra hour to swap them over.

Oh Steve could you move the Camira I need to get the Torana out so I can get to the Commodore.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Or just have a good comprehensive public transport system that’s so great that hardly anyone bothers with cars … it’s an option … just sayin’

Yes, that could work.

Problem is that cost is inversely proportional to density.

Maybe some bus routes could run vans or mini-buses on an Uber type system between certain bus stops along certain routes. Go to bus stop, activate smart phone app with your bus stop number and where you want to go, a bus will be dispatched to pick you up. Along the way it might stop and pick up somebody else going to a destination beyond where you are going or a closer destination along the way. Being a public service they are welcome on board and you don’t get the bus to yourself.

There’s a small driver less bus, Intellibus, that is being trialled on a small route in South Perth. My son and I went on a ride on it, for fun. It’s not fast but yeah seems suitable for getting folks to a train station or something.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Or just have a good comprehensive public transport system that’s so great that hardly anyone bothers with cars … it’s an option … just sayin’

Yes, that could work.

Problem is that cost is inversely proportional to density.

Maybe some bus routes could run vans or mini-buses on an Uber type system between certain bus stops along certain routes. Go to bus stop, activate smart phone app with your bus stop number and where you want to go, a bus will be dispatched to pick you up. Along the way it might stop and pick up somebody else going to a destination beyond where you are going or a closer destination along the way. Being a public service they are welcome on board and you don’t get the bus to yourself.

There’s a small driver less bus, Intellibus, that is being trialled on a small route in South Perth. My son and I went on a ride on it, for fun. It’s not fast but yeah seems suitable for getting folks to a train station or something.

What is in the drivers seat ?

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

Today is car swap day. Three adults, two addresses, two cars. Swapping over the manual car that can carry 2 full size doors, a chair and a passenger for the automatic car more suitable for long trips. A bit of a pest to drive for an extra hour to swap them over.

Oh Steve could you move the Camira I need to get the Torana out so I can get to the Commodore.

Dammit…

Cymek said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Yes, that could work.

Problem is that cost is inversely proportional to density.

Maybe some bus routes could run vans or mini-buses on an Uber type system between certain bus stops along certain routes. Go to bus stop, activate smart phone app with your bus stop number and where you want to go, a bus will be dispatched to pick you up. Along the way it might stop and pick up somebody else going to a destination beyond where you are going or a closer destination along the way. Being a public service they are welcome on board and you don’t get the bus to yourself.

There’s a small driver less bus, Intellibus, that is being trialled on a small route in South Perth. My son and I went on a ride on it, for fun. It’s not fast but yeah seems suitable for getting folks to a train station or something.

What is in the drivers seat ?

There’s no driver’s seat. It’s custom made, front-back symmetrical.

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

There’s a small driver less bus, Intellibus, that is being trialled on a small route in South Perth. My son and I went on a ride on it, for fun. It’s not fast but yeah seems suitable for getting folks to a train station or something.

What is in the drivers seat ?

There’s no driver’s seat. It’s custom made, front-back symmetrical.

A Johnny bus.

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

There’s a small driver less bus, Intellibus, that is being trialled on a small route in South Perth. My son and I went on a ride on it, for fun. It’s not fast but yeah seems suitable for getting folks to a train station or something.

What is in the drivers seat ?

There’s no driver’s seat. It’s custom made, front-back symmetrical.

Does not necessarily have to be so high tech.

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

Johnny Cab from Total Recall, also driverless.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

Johnny Cab from Total Recall, also driverless.

ah

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

Did Rekall alter your memories from the eighties?

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

The cabs in Total Recall the Arnie one

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

Total Recall and the Johnny cabs

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

Johnny Cab from Total Recall, also driverless.

ah

It goes postal when he won’t pay the fare and tries to run him over

Cymek said:

dv said:

They are going to be running a trial in Busselton soon.

I don’t get the Johnny Bus ref.

The cabs in Total Recall the Arnie one

I read that the drivers were modelled after Robert Picardo, who also did the voice.

The only problem with driverless cabs or buses is the usual, without supervision, in our society at least, probably different in Japan, it will soon be a vandalised wreck with spew on the seats.

AwesomeO said:

The only problem with driverless cabs or buses is the usual, without supervision, in our society at least, probably different in Japan, it will soon be a vandalised wreck with spew on the seats.

Well maybe.

I mean I’m assuming that a) you would need to be registered to use one, so your CC details are already stored somewhere and b) there will be internal cameras so it will be possible to identify vandals or spewers and obtain sufficient money to clean and repair.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

The only problem with driverless cabs or buses is the usual, without supervision, in our society at least, probably different in Japan, it will soon be a vandalised wreck with spew on the seats.

Well maybe.

I mean I’m assuming that a) you would need to be registered to use one, so your CC details are already stored somewhere and b) there will be internal cameras so it will be possible to identify vandals or spewers and obtain sufficient money to clean and repair.

“They” would need to do something.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

What is in the drivers seat ?

There’s no driver’s seat. It’s custom made, front-back symmetrical.

A Johnny bus.

Where’s Johnny ?

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

The only problem with driverless cabs or buses is the usual, without supervision, in our society at least, probably different in Japan, it will soon be a vandalised wreck with spew on the seats.

Well maybe.

I mean I’m assuming that a) you would need to be registered to use one, so your CC details are already stored somewhere and b) there will be internal cameras so it will be possible to identify vandals or spewers and obtain sufficient money to clean and repair.

“They” would need to do something.

bloody they

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

There’s no driver’s seat. It’s custom made, front-back symmetrical.

A Johnny bus.

Where’s Johnny ?

Whereas the Johnny Cars had a driver’s seat and humanoid robotic interface, the Intellibus is basically all bus from front to back. The battery and computer etc are underneath.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Well maybe.

I mean I’m assuming that a) you would need to be registered to use one, so your CC details are already stored somewhere and b) there will be internal cameras so it will be possible to identify vandals or spewers and obtain sufficient money to clean and repair.

“They” would need to do something.

bloody they

Would the radio be set to a station featuring John Laws or Howard Satler or someone similar

you tube – Total Recall – Johnny Cab

Cymek said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

“They” would need to do something.

bloody they

Would the radio be set to a station featuring John Laws or Howard Satler or someone similar

no

Cymek said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

“They” would need to do something.

bloody they

Would the radio be set to a station featuring John Laws or Howard Satler or someone similar

death metal.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

bloody they

Would the radio be set to a station featuring John Laws or Howard Satler or someone similar

death metal.

That would be amusing

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

A Johnny bus.

Where’s Johnny ?

Whereas the Johnny Cars had a driver’s seat and humanoid robotic interface, the Intellibus is basically all bus from front to back. The battery and computer etc are underneath.

Looks a good design.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Where’s Johnny ?

Whereas the Johnny Cars had a driver’s seat and humanoid robotic interface, the Intellibus is basically all bus from front to back. The battery and computer etc are underneath.

Looks a good design.

Uniform and practical design would make sense, less work involved in maintenance and repair

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

dv said:

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

Belly lint collection and whatnot?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

Belly lint collection and whatnot?

severed heads and shit, that’s right

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

Belly lint collection and whatnot?

severed heads and shit, that’s right

Keepsakes from your incel days.

dv said:

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

That’s happened before to cars during the socialist workers party.
The peoples car was a noisy little bugger.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

One disadvantage in a switch to shared communist cars is that I would no longer be able to keep all my stuff in the car.

That’s happened before to cars during the socialist workers party.
The peoples car was a noisy little bugger.

Heh, one thing that was in the background in the recent Spiderverse movie was a billboard for Yugo.