Hacker News Reader

Comment by leephillips | Hacker News Reader

I thought it was more; thanks for the information. Although 15%, or say half that after subtracting the people who actually need to be physically at work, is still significant. Also, note that 15% of miles will be more, probably much more, than 15% of the pollution, because those miles are the slowest ones that people travel.

View on HN

But < 5 mile local errands are much more polluting per mile than longer trips though as the engine doesn’t heat up to an efficient temperature so it uses something like 4 times as much fuel per mile.

I think your numbers are off somewhere. Maybe you are thinking of some particular form of pollution rather than fuel efficiency? Short trips before the engine warms up are less fuel efficient, but nowhere near only 1/4 as efficient. Here's the US government suggesting a worst case combination of cold weather and a cold engine can cause a 24% drop in miles per gallon (ie, still more than 3/4 as efficient):

Fuel economy tests show that, in city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml

I also thought it was more (I remember reading about 30% in the early 2000's), so I was kinda surprised. I think you are right that miles traveled will be higher, so from an emissions perspective the decrease in commuting is good news. From the perspective of cars being everywhere and making environments unpleasant, as long as people don't think twice about hoping in the car to go Starbucks twice a day, we've got a huge problem.

I grew up in NYC and don’t regard cities, like Atlanta, covered in highways, to be cities. I never understood why places like this were built or how people enjoy living there, but clearly some do.

The major premise of such a city is generally that you own more space than you could ever get in New York.

Different strokes.

Other people don't understand why someone would pay $4,000/month to live in an NYC apartment that would maybe qualify as a large closet elsewhere.

That they’re willing to pay that should tell you something!

As I said, different strokes. I'd soon go batshit crazy (to the extent I'm not already) living in that kind of cramped space surrounded by that kind of population density.

Oh, I understand. Most of the people I know who grew up in less dense places feel the same way.

I grew up in Brooklyn, and I'm currently on team rural. I couldn't think straight with all those noises and distractions, and I was going broke trying to keep up with rent hikes.

Suburbs don't have to be structured around cars! You can have lots of trees, lots of grass, be removed from bustle, and still be able to get around by car. The problem is that zoning rules have essentially regulated these sorts of suburbs out of existence. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com