We need to start taxing vehicles based on the damage they are responsible for. The 4th Power Law is a principle in road engineering that states that the damage a vehicle causes to a road surface is proportional to the fourth power of its axle load. This means that even small increases in axle load can cause exponentially greater damage to the road.
A Prius causes about 50,000 times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 16 billion times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 31,000 times more damage than a Prius.
The solution is to tax trucks 31,000 times more than cars. Improve walking/biking/trains/public transportation. Private cars should be a luxury which is made a necessity with zoning laws.
That 4th power law works both ways. A 40 ft bus 2 axle bus with 80 passengers will weigh about 40 000 pounds. The axle weight is 20 000, so by the 4th power law the damage is proportional to 2 x 20 000^4 = 3.2 x 10^17.
If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV it would be about 4 000 pounds each, so an axle weight of 2000, so the damage would be proportional to 160 x 2000^4 = 2.56 x 10^15.
That's 125 times less road damage than the bus!
Another interesting 4th power calculation is EV vs ICE. My car is available as an ICE, a hybrid, or an EV. I've got the EV which weighs more than the ICE.
Based on the 4th power law I should be doing about 40% more damage than I would if I had bought the lighter ICE model.
But wait! With the ICE model I'd need to regularly by gasoline, and that gasoline is delivered by a tanker truck. Tanker trucks, especially when they are traveling between wherever they load and wherever they unload, are very heavy.
I calculated what would happen in a hypothetical city where everyone drove the ICE version and then all switched to the EV version, and how many tanker truck gas deliveries that would eliminate. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if mid sized tankers were used for gas delivery then if they had to drive more than a few miles from wherever they loaded up to wherever they unloaded the elimination of those trips by everyone switching to EV would reduce road damage by more than the damage caused by the EVs being heavier than the ICE cars.
> A 40 ft bus 2 axle bus with 80 passengers [...] If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV
Bzzzt. Wrong, unless you literally have a bus that goes from A to B without stopping. City buses do not carry "x passengers", they serve trips. An 80-passenger bus serves way more trips than 80 (though not on average of course), as people can freely get on and off at any time.
And of course, there are way more aspects of this problem than just road wear, parking space for one.
But sure, we absolutely should put buses on rail tracks!
Thank you for doing the calculations. This is interesting and useful. Yes, people should switch to EVs, but mostly because it helps build resilient independent grids (eventually), EVs add a layer of energy storage, we can dump excess energy when its negatively priced (or free) and supply power back to the grid when its costly, replacing peaker plants.
I wasn't talking about passenger buses, because thats unlikely going to happen in US. Almost all of damage is done by 18-wheelers. A fully loaded 18-wheeler: 80,000 lb. Everytime a discussion comes on ICE vs EV, the fossil fuel proponents immediately jump to but EVs weigh more (debatable) and cause more damage. The damage they cause is insignificant compared to 18-wheelers. I'm not entirely sure if EVs weigh more either, maybe the earlier models did, but energy density keeps increasing. Also, there is no compelling reason to have 300+ mile range batteries when most of the trips are under 3 - 5 miles.
> "Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes"
I must admit this viewpoint is one I have never seen before! Instead I've heard many arguments that bike lanes and pedestrianization are forms of gentrification, but resulting
"ghettoes?" +1 for creativity!
Yes? Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport. They are inherently limited in range, and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.
So you create an environment where all the housing within bike range from good jobs is unaffordable for most people.
And the most democratic mode of transport? Cars. They provide far greater accessibility.
You are spot on about segregation. Yes, walking and biking are for undesirables. The suburbs are built for cars and cars only. Poor people (African, etc) can't afford the large lots, the minimum size of residence, the HOA and lawn maintenance, car required to go anywhere. This is how you can do segregation without violating any laws. Usually, most people don't admit that these are the real goals. I'm surprised that you are openly admitting that segregation is what we want. I guess times are changing!
So you're saying that bicycles have caused our land use patterns to be inequitable? I would say I agree that transportation modes have made land use allocations in western society problematic, but again you are very novel in being the first person I've ever met who attributes those issues to people riding bicycles.
No, bicycles are more of a symptom. They are not the sole cause, of course.
The actual root cause is over-centralization, where the only jobs worth having are concentrated in downtowns of a dwindling number of cities. These downtowns are always congested, and bike lanes are one way to make it more tolerable. But if you can afford an apartment, of course.
Bike lanes near Wall Street are an iconic example. If you're using them, then it's highly likely that you're a multi-millionaire. Or maybe you inherited a rent-controlled apartment.
Cars historically were a great equalizer. Sure, your CEO was likely driving a better car, and living in a better house. But they were stuck in the same traffic along with you. And this _was_ a factor when deciding on the next office location: "Hm. I really hate the commute, perhaps our next office should be in a bit less congested location?"
And this is reflected in actual research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4938093/ - "For the USA, we observe an exponent βUSA ≈ 0 indicating that the density of jobs is independent from the skill level in the USA. For the UK and Denmark, we observe a non-zero exponent with βUK ≈ 1/2 for the UK and a larger value for Denmark βDK ≈ 0.8. These results indicate that the density of jobs decreases with the skill level, more in Denmark than in the UK."
Ok most of what you're saying makes sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people 24/7 with the normal new yorkers you'd see on the subway during commuting hours. From a humanistic perspective it seems like it's a good thing to ensure that delivery drivers aren't killed by motor vehicles and have the ability to not conflict with sidewalk pedestrians? As a driver I would prefer they're not in my lane.
> Cars historically were a great equalizer.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level? Wouldn't the historic development of these cities with thousands of years of human civilization in Europe vs. relatively recently developed US cities be a confounding factor in exploring land use patterns?
> Ok most of what you're saying make sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people
Yes, I should have mentioned that I specifically meant people using bike lanes for commutes. Bike lanes for work or for recreation are a totally different story, and I have nothing against them.
However, in this case it still reinforces my point: delivery by bike is a luxury good. It still is something that makes living in an utterly unaffordable area more bearable for people who have money.
> I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
I'm actually not saying anything that is not an accepted fact in urbanism.
> As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level?
No, it's not good. This means that good jobs force people to move closer to the centers of their concentration. This automatically reduces opportunities for other people.
> Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport.
A bike costs on the order of a few hundred dollars; there's essentially no barrier to entry.
Comparing them with cars on this metric is laughable. Must be 18 or so and able bodied, obtain an expensive license, purchase the actual very expensive vehicle, pay for constant upkeep in insurance, fuel, repairs, and risk serious accidents. All of this is an insane barrier to entry.
> They are inherently limited in range
Yeah, to like a radius of 5km or so, on the low end. That's quite a bit in a city.
> and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.
Kind of, but not really? Between e-scooters, rental bikes, and bike garages at train stations, this really is just a matter of proper infrastructure in the end. I don't get the relevance of this anyway.
> So you create an environment where all the housing within bike range from good jobs is unaffordable for most people.
And where exactly is this place you describe where everyone commutes exclusively by bike? Ooops, right, it doesn't exist, never has, probably never will. So you're just making stuff up.
I mean, it is a cute little theory, but it has zero relevance to the world we've built or ever plan to build.
Or maybe it's a strawman, implying that someone somewhere has claimed that we should only commute by bike? Again, cute, but nobody says that. Adding public transportation to the equation neatly eradicates your entire made up theory.
> And the most democratic mode of transport? Cars. They provide far greater accessibility.
I adore your conversational technique of adding positively charged words like "democratic" and "accessibility" without any justification or explanation, just to make it seem like you have an argument. "The democratic, accessible and green coal power plants." I'll add this technique to my list of common fallacies, thanks.
> Comparing them with cars on this metric is laughable. Must be 18 or so and able bodied, obtain an expensive license, purchase the actual very expensive vehicle, pay for constant upkeep in insurance, fuel, repairs, and risk serious accidents. All of this is an insane barrier to entry.
Just wait until you hear how much transit costs!
> And where exactly is this place you describe where everyone commutes exclusively by bike? Ooops, right, it doesn't exist, never has, probably never will. So you're just making stuff up.
Who said anything about exclusivity? Please point out with a hyperlink.
> I adore your conversational technique of adding positively charged words like "democratic" and "accessibility" without any justification or explanation, just to make it seem like you have an argument.
I provided a link in this thread. Go on, dispute it.
What a ridiculous take. There are many, many cities and towns worldwide that are primarily walk/bike friendly and they seem to do very well in terms of quality of life.
Well, do they have easily affordable housing for poor people? Or do they self-segregate into high-income areas surrounded by a halo of low-income areas?
A better way to do this to remove the transportation subsidy for big businesses. Trucks do most of the damage to roads (4th power of weight) but consumers bear the brunt of road maintenance. If big vehicles paid their fair share of oil taxes for roads, it will even the playing field for local farmers and businesses.
It’s “these days”, because we’ve exited the period where the last world war was in living memory. Nobody who lived through a world war would be so crass.
Unfortunately, that also means we’re likely due another one any time now.
In US, gas stations barely make any profit on gas, its all from the convenience store, beer, water, lottery tickets, trinkets, souvenirs, etc. Costco, HEB, Walmart, etc also have gas and can run it as a loss leader for customers to compete with Amazon. As the number of gas consumers go down, gas stations everywhere will start shutting down, except the Costco/HEB/Walmart, because gas stations can't compete with those prices.
The U.S. saw over 210,000 stations in the early 1990s, dropping to around 145,000 by 2022, and potentially as low as 115,000 by 2020, according to various data points. Some estimates suggest a potential 50% reduction in traditional stations by 2050 in some regions: https://boosterusa.com/from-the-experts/the-inevitable-death...
Last time I read the financial reports for a gas station it was about 1/3 each, gas, tobacco, and food. Tobacco has gone way down since then, but the other two are still important. Gas is low margin, but high volume and so they make a lot of profit on it.
Is that really saying much? Anyone have the shape of the distribution? I'm thinking many people have negative or close to zero net worth. If you have a dollar to your name, you might be richer than the bottom 48% of humanity combined.
> some are transmitted, typically by eating some part of an animal that contains prions, which then end up in your own body, inducing proteins in your body to take on prion configurations.
I wonder about this part. I thought consumed protein gets broken down into amino acids and new proteins are created later. Do prion proteins bypass this step?
From what I understand, which is very incomplete, the leading hypothesis at the moment is that ingested prions are a bit hard to digest (because they’re malformed proteins), so they end up making it out of the gastrointestinal tract somehow, interacting with the nervous system via the intestinal lining or lymphatic system. Then they travel to the brain via nervous pathways, by-passing the usual blood–brain barrier.
But transmission of prions by ingestion is thought to be quite rare, as that mechanism suggests. Transmission by any means seems to be quite rare, even heritable transmission (e.g., vCJD). So that’s why it seems unlikely that whatever is happening in New Brunswick is CVD.
But if it’s not some minor mass hysteria, then maybe prions.
This was discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43672779
(saving a click)
We need to start taxing vehicles based on the damage they are responsible for. The 4th Power Law is a principle in road engineering that states that the damage a vehicle causes to a road surface is proportional to the fourth power of its axle load. This means that even small increases in axle load can cause exponentially greater damage to the road.
A Prius causes about 50,000 times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 16 billion times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 31,000 times more damage than a Prius.
The solution is to tax trucks 31,000 times more than cars. Improve walking/biking/trains/public transportation. Private cars should be a luxury which is made a necessity with zoning laws.
reply