Street lights. Those massive 200 watt high pressure sodium street lights. Who pays to maintain them and power them? Street lights are not meant for pedestrian safety, or they’d be shining over the sidewalk, not the road.
Traffic lights, who pays to maintain them and who pays for the electricity used by them?
Roads. You don’t honestly think that gas taxes even pay for a tiny portion of road maintenance, do you?
And this doesn’t even touch on the subject of road building.
Storm drain run off. All the grease, oil, anti freeze and fuel goes somewhere when it rains, doesn’t it? It usually ends up going down the storm sewer.
Pollution. What happens with all of the particulate that is discharged from the tailpipe of a car. All internal combustion engines, not just Diesel, produce varying amounts of particulate.
Rubber, those tires that go on your car wear down with time. Where does all of that rubber go?
Brake pads, where does all of the friction material go?

I could go on and on, but car fanatics just can grasp the concept of externalities.

Trucks are not very efficient for cargo. Ships and rail being more efficient could actually lower costs.

But the real question is what price do we put on human health and the rights of future generations to have quality of life. If we are living a life of love for others shouldn’t we be willing to pay a bit more so that other humans and future generations might have a healthier life?

” Would fresh seafood become unavailable in say Regina?”

People lived in Regina for decades without fresh seafood. Are our privileged tastes worth sacrificing the health of future generations.

And if we really need fresh seafood there is always rail…

“… changes seem profound, would it not be more economical to rethink the car,…”

Why would it be more economical to focus on unrealistic solutions (see the articles I linked to above) that don’t yet exist rather than on solutions which already exist (high speed rail for long distances, electrified rapid transit for medium distances and cycling/walking for short distances).

“… focus on solar, or electric for example, and build out of recycled, bio materials?”

Ironically my day job focuses on solar. Although it has some limited use to make our society more sustainable trying to convert all cars to run on solar is ridiculously unrealistic.

“Not to mention we are considering here deconstructing a part of our culture …”

We have made such large changes in our past. At one time slavery was a large part of our culture.

“Why cant we put as much effort into figuring how to live together in a world that has cars!…”

Because there is no evidence that this is realistically sustainable. Don’t take may work for it. Look at the work of some like Bill Rees who has spent decades looking at the concept of Ecological footprints.

” i love cars! ”

I used to as well. But I came to realize how destructive and unsustainable they are.

And some of your justifications for the automobile are tenuous at their best.
First aid? Are you serious? Most of what ambulances respond to are motor vehicle related incidents. Get rid of the automobile and you’ve gotten rid of a majority of the need for cars. And since when were public ambulances considered private vehicles. I didn’t say anything about getting rid of public vehicles, nor did I say anything about getting rid of the infrastructure required to move goods. It’s the private automobile that is the problem.

You see the potential for the automobile industry to become green? I’ve got some swamp land in Florida that I’d like to sell to you. The automobile industry can not by it’s very nature become green. It’s against their best interests. For a vehicle to be as green as possible it would have to last much longer than the seven years that a car is supposed to last for. The automobile industry will not support that. The automobile industry is based upon fresh new sales. They can’t sell if no one is buying.
Rika, you can ride your bike to Edmonton if you want to be silly. Me, I’ll go visit my father this year again in Morinville riding on Greyhound.

The fact that you have to resort to these hysterical gross exaggeration’s of an existence without cars is the real reason why critical mass will still be relevant. You are like a cigarette smoker. You know what you are doing is bad for your health and bad for the health of those around you, yet you smoke. And just like the other smokers, you can’t see that you’re addicted to your habit. You come up with all sorts of straw man arguments for the continued existence of the single passenger vehicle, just like a cigarette smoker keeps citing all sorts of disproved ‘scientific’ theories provided by the tobacco companies as to why smoking is good for you and essential for tobacco growing states.

I find this comment particularly interesting and strange. Since I have become more involved in advocating real solutions for the ecological problems we face I found a greater sense of peace, joy and community.

Why do you think that advocating real solutions to our problems would lead to anger and loneliness?

“..how do you propose we go about living our lives without the use of cars and trucks for transport?”

I know this might come as a shock ….. but people have lived for thousands of years without cars and trucks. And they somehow lived long meaningful lives, created great works of art, music and literature and travelled.

But we don’t have to eliminate all motor vehicles – just dramatically reduce their use.

” (i suppose your bike was ridden to the bike store?)”

Last time I bought a bike I took the bus.

“… the vehicles and see how quickly your world crumbles into a chaotic mess…”

If we are forced to make this transition quickly it will be difficult. And we will have to make the transition. There is just simply not enough resources for us to continue to make our car addiction. So rather than wait until the emergency arises we should be beginning the transition now. It will make it easier.

“1000’s of people are injured and killed on bikes every year around the world without the help of cars.”

Could you supply a reference for this. I seriously doubt this is true. There are many bike fatalities each year but most involve motor vehicles.

“I see the auto industry as having the potential to becoming a leader in green efficient lifestyles. ”

I provide two links above the critique this argument in detail. Do have some analysis of why their points are wrong?

“My family live in edmonton,…! how often would i get to see them then?”

High-speed rail would be the safest cleanest and least destructive method. We should be demanding this infrastructure be built.

“Be realistic!”

I am. Our current use of motor vehicles is not sustainable. We can’t solve the climate crisis, species depletion and other environmental issues if we continue our current obsession with the motor vehicle. It is unrealistic to think that our current transportation infrastructure is sustainable.

“Lets work together, not as enemies!”

I would love to but we need to honest. I can not honestly support the current level of motor vehicle use. It is just too destructive. Will you work with me to change it?

“I love you : )”

And I love the thousands of people who are negatively affected by our current level of car use. And the millions of future generations who will pay for our bad habits. If we really love those people than we have a responsibility to change the society around us.

Hey I used to love cars too. But then I moved to the city and realized they are too dangerous and environmentally-damaging to be allowed here with us.

The infastructure changes seem profound, would it not be more economical to rethink the car, focus on solar, or electric for example, and build out of recycled, bio materials?
Not to mention we are considering here deconstructing a part of our culture that is enormous, from car clubs, to Daytona (the 2nd biggest sport in the US i beleive)
Why cant we put as much effort into figuring how to live together in a world that has cars! as much as some are considering getting rid of them. i love cars! 1968 Camaro… 66 VW Spilt Window Safari Van.. if those cars were made of hemp fiber and run on water… wow!!!!!

Answer: The same way that numerous other cities have managed to so so.

http://carfree.com

This isn’t rocket science, but it does mean standing up to the auto industry and considerable re-thinking about the way we currently do things.

You are advocating a respectful approach to this issue. I would think that a respectful approach would be to not misquote or misconstrue the positions of others.

I have never said that cars need to “cease to exist.” I have said that ghg emissions need to be reduced by 80-95%. And since cars are the largest contributor in our regions that means a dramatic reduction in car use. This is especially true in urban areas where there are other alternatives available (transit, cycling, etc). But there may be some uses where a limited number vehicles may still be needed (cargo, emergency vehicles, etc).

“…extremist position…”

I don’t understand how this is an “extremist” position. It is just being honest about the science. To try to claim that our current transportation system is sustainable is dishonest.

If I tell you that when an apples detaches from a tree it will fall to the ground would you see that is an extremist view? It is just an honest description of the science.

I find that applying labels like “extremsit” to someone’s views is rather judgemental and often an attempt to avoid an honest discussion of the issues.

“…calling out car-owners for ruining…”

Again I have never called out individual car-owners for anything. I am honest about the effects of car driving in general but I don’t direct judgement against individuals in particular.

“…also both Vegans, because industrial food production (specifically beef)…”

I try (and sometimes fail) to make ethical decisions based on the empirical evidence available (rather than just latching on to labels like “vegan”).

Based on this I have reduced my use of motor vehicles by 90%. I have also reduced my meat consumption by over 90% and the small amount I do eat is rarely industrial.

BTW, the argument that a Vegan diet is best to reduce ghg emissions is controversial and based on a limited understanding of the entropic pyramid. See the writings of Bill Hollman and the recent Cornell University study for more on this.