 |
 |
Gigafactory
| February 13th, 2017 at 3:40:21 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18762 | To me, the bigger issue would be that the packs would be changing hands. Now suppose someone got in hard crash but didn't externally damage their pack and turned it in. Could that possibly become dangerous? I don't know. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| February 13th, 2017 at 3:59:27 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 | The two bridges into San Francisco carry about 1/3 million vehicles per day at present. With the possible exception of traffic coming over the bridge to get to SFO airport, can you envision a day when the City is off limits to pure gasoline vehicles (hybrids and EVs only). |
| February 13th, 2017 at 8:24:05 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4521 | Another cost for the electric vehicle that everyone is ignoring is the couple of thousand dollars that it costs to put a charging station into your home. Of course all new home buyers subsidize that now as many jurisdictions mandate that the rough-out wiring is installed when the home is built. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
| February 13th, 2017 at 9:30:20 AM permalink | |
| stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
I provide a valuable service to society by keeping you occupied. |
| February 13th, 2017 at 9:37:20 AM permalink | |
| stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
Definitely. Paris and London have pretty severe vehicular restrictions already, for similar reasons. It would work especially well in the City because the place is so compact and has great public transportation. A lot of people there don't even own cars. There isn't a pollution problem there, though. The air gets refreshed twice a day. I think you'd see a fair amount of support for not just a gasoline vehicle ban but an overall personal vehicle ban, or possibly "congestion tax," in the inner city core. It's a nightmare getting into or out of downtown most hours anyway. |
| February 13th, 2017 at 9:42:42 AM permalink | |
| buzzardknot Member since: Mar 16, 2015 Threads: 7 Posts: 497 |
For which I am eternally thankful, Stinky ! |
| February 13th, 2017 at 10:19:10 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
I think there is only 136K people that live within the congestion zone in London. They are completely exempt from the congestion fees. The London congestion charge began 17 February 2003. The fee is £11.50 for each day,£14 if paid the next day, penalty of between £65 and £195 levied for non-payment. And only covers 07:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays. It is not charged on weekends, public holidays or between Christmas Day and New Year's Day (inclusive). The Western Extension operated between February 2007 and January 2011. Frankly, I cannot imagine an American city adopting more severe restrictions than those in London. I think an overall personal vehicle ban will never happen. San Francisco has a population of 865K, considerably higher the congestion zone in London. However, the widespread availability of automated electric taxis without drivers may change that attitude. Pedestrian zones are becoming quite commonplace in European cities  Even Mexico has a number of pedestrian streets  |
| February 13th, 2017 at 3:00:01 PM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18212 |
That city would not surprise me with any crazy idea. Though I am waiting for the crash to come. At some point the bubble has to burst. The President is a fink. |
| February 13th, 2017 at 5:33:54 PM permalink | |
| stinkingliberal Member since: Nov 9, 2016 Threads: 17 Posts: 731 |
Yeah, it's full of crazy LIBURRULS. But it's one of the few places where a vehicle ban would make sense and would work well (for the city core only). For one thing, once you fight the traffic across the bridges to get into the City, you then have to find a parking space, and good luck with that. I have gone to the occasional Giants game and by far the best and quickest option is to park at a free BART lot in Oakland, take BART to downtown SF, then take the Ballpark Express bus to the park. The latter is driven by insane people and will get you to the park pronto in Sandra Bullock style. Or, you can pay $30 to park a twenty-minute walk away from the park. I wonder, in general, if cars work in densely crowded cities. We're conditioned to having and using cars. But in SF at least, having a car is often worse than useless. |
| February 14th, 2017 at 6:30:28 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 | Dubai World Central (DWC) will be built around Al Maktoum International Airport with the planned annual capacity of 160 million passengers. The construction area is 140 square kilometers, larger than the 124 square kilometers of San Francisco. The location is estimated to be the future home of 900,000 people, roughly the current population of San Francisco. DWC will de-emphasize private vehicles within the zone. The following is a list of US cities with the most car-free households in 2012: Rank City % car-free 1 New York City 56% 2 Washington, DC 38% 3 Boston 37% 4 Philadelphia 33% 5 San Francisco 31% 6 Baltimore 31% 7 Chicago 28% 8 Detroit 26% I suppose that Downtown Vancouver (population 54,690) + West End (44,560) is also a possible candidate for a car-less future  |