How can we make cars on the road more efficient?

[BCBiker]

My latest blog post is an introduction the unholy transportation system we endure, nothing new in this post for most Mustachians:
[MOD EDIT: Spam link removed. PM poster for link to his/her blog.] 

I have several ideas for how we (society) can make transportation more efficient in US.

Please help me brainstorm for my follow up post(s).

I look forward to the discussion and any ideas you have.

[gooki]

Simple answer. Automation. Remove manual drivers from the road.

Self driving cars will be able to move in formation (closer together greatly reducing drag.

Self driving cars will be aware of congestion throughout the city and can plan routes as a whole (rather than an individual car) to maximize efficiency.

Self driving cars will promote non ownership of vehicles. Think three tiers.
- Exclusive ownership
- On demand (subscription model)
- Shared on demand (other people will be on the journey with you).

[bobechs]

Mount wind-chargers on electric vehicles so that forward motion through the air charges the batteries.

[BudgetSlasher]

Change our priorities.

A 1974 Honda Civic did 0-60 mph in 15.5 (and appears to have done ~40 on the highway according to wiki) while a 2016 Honda Civic LX Coupe does 0-60 mph in 7.6 (28/36 MPG). They weight also went from around 1,500 pounds to 2,739 pounds. Now imagine in instead of reducing the 0-60 time by 50 percent and increasing the weight by 46 percent those engine refinements were directed toward fuel efficiency.

I know a fair amount of the weight is probably due to safety features and safer designs, but some is due to wanting larger vehicles and more gadgets.

As an aside 2016 civic is quicker to 60 than a mid-70s corvette.

 

[BCBiker]

I was thinking along the lines of we "invest" trillions of dollars in getting around. 

How could we spend this money better?...

We use all of this land for transportation. 

How could we use this land more effectively?..

We use all of this energy to get around

How could we use this energy more efficiently?

What kinds of investments (with realized or imagined technology) could turn transportation from a massive sink into a massive productivity font?

Feel free to be outrageous. :)

[bobechs]

Let the monkeys have a go at running the show:

[nobodyspecial]

100% duty on Gasoline so it costs $8/gal - then all those economical models from Europe and Japan would magically appear

[human]

Can't people bring up topics without referring us to their blog? So cheesy and lame.

[BCBiker]

Can't people bring up topics without referring us to their blog? So cheesy and lame.

My apologies.

[Metric Mouse]

Can't people bring up topics without referring us to their blog? So cheesy and lame.

Can't people just be respectful to others on the forum?

[human]

I agree metric mouse posting spam is not respectful and people should refrain from doing it.

[BCBiker]

To be fair, I never said you need to read my post. The purpose of this thread is for brainstorming with highly intelligent, forward-thinking folks. Human, I hope I did not ruin your day.  You seem to be grumpy. 

I hope this thread takes off but if it doesn't I will avoid starting similar ones in the future.  If you don't like what I do, you can always ignore the threads I start.  I have had some very engaging threads on this forum in the past.  Some of them have been related to my blog; some have not. I often link to NYTimes posts as well because I find that there is synergy with the concepts of Mustachianism or things that people might disagree with.

As far as I can tell, there are no rules against linking to one's own work.  I am not gaining anything by people going to my site other than people who happen to sign up to get future posts. My site is completely a non-monetized hobby. 

[Chris22]

You have to make people want to be more efficient.  There are/were lots of very efficient models on the market that basically no one buys because no one wants them.  I disagree with making people want them through legislation or "other" but if you wanted to the easiest way would be to jack up the gas price.  Consumer demand would then drive efficiency.  But just suggesting that a Honda Civic should go 0-60 in 15 seconds will make it sales-proof, no one is going to buy that kind of piece of shit, and rightly so.

[human]

To be fair, I never said you need to read my post. The purpose of this thread is for brainstorming with highly intelligent, forward-thinking folks. Human, I hope I did not ruin your day.  You seem to be grumpy. 

I hope this thread takes off but if it doesn't I will avoid starting similar ones in the future.  If you don't like what I do, you can always ignore the threads I start.  I have had some very engaging threads on this forum in the past.  Some of them have been related to my blog; some have not. I often link to NYTimes posts as well because I find that there is synergy with the concepts of Mustachianism or things that people might disagree with.

As far as I can tell, there are no rules against linking to one's own work.  I am not gaining anything by people going to my site other than people who happen to sign up to get future posts. My site is completely a non-monetized hobby.

Your post title seemed interesting but when I clicked on it I saw you were trolling for content to post on your blog which you put a link to which from what I understand is against forum rule 5 http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

5/21/14 Edit:
"Spam" in rule number 5 ("No spam.") includes linking to your own blog.  You may add a link to your blog in your signature, and it will show up under every post you make.  Please do not start a new thread just to link to a post you wrote.  If the content is good enough, others will do that for you.  If your blog post is relevant to another thread that is ongoing, feel free to add the link, but do not abuse this - if too many of your posts are direct links to your own content, that is spammy.  Enforcement will be at the moderators' sole discretion.  If you are not sure, please contact a moderator before posting.

The topic is interesting but the method is not, put your ideas in your post, don't make people visit your blog to get clicks or views or what have you in order to get your ideas, that's spam. I'm not going to visit your blog . . . so if you don't even have anything there (EDIT - on this particular subject) just keep your link in the signature.

A lot of topics lately are thinly veiled attempts to get others to visit one's blog or check out their ebook. That's not why I come here, I barely read the blog on this site because 9 times of 10 the post is really boring or put there just so Pete can stay relevant. Fine it's his site, he can post what he wants. The forum is what is interesting, I like reading about people's success stories and yes I'm a little lefty and harsh in the off topic posts, but I don't come here to get inundated with requests to visit other people's blogs.The forum is a little more in the middle for my type of savings (compared to ERE or Bogleheads) so I like to visit. I am not interested in the other hundreds of people trying to emulate Pete and make big bank from their blogs.

There is a thread somewhere that is useful and  lists other interesting blogs,  I've saved it to my bookmarks, why not post there? The title is clearly about other blogs so no bait and switch going on.

I'm more annoyed than grumpy really . . .

[dougules]

Shrink distance traveled by building more infill. 

[Papa Mustache]

Drive the right tool for your needs rather than your wants or egos. Of course that sounds alot like communism. You don't need AWD so you can't HAVE AWD.

Nothing is going to happen until gasoline is legitimately expensive. I don't think false tariffs or carbon costs will be accepted. You just get angry white voters that way. Everything in this country relates to cost. Only $6-$7 gasoline will change people's minds about what they choose to drive.

I'd liek to see less sprawl for the apt/condo dwellers. Let them live over businesses. Of course I'll put up with the cost to drive 10 miles in from the country b/c that is the lifestyle I like to live.

We would adjust our expenses to accommodate that.

Scooters, carpooling, spending less on other things so we can afford the commute.

We already do several of those things despite our commute being shorter and gasoline being ridiculously cheap b/c we want to use our money in other ways. 

For me the question remains - will we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels before or after the environment is poisoned?

[alsoknownasDean]

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

[badger1988]

Mount wind-chargers on electric vehicles so that forward motion through the air charges the batteries.

Or maybe we can make a special trailer for the car that runs a big alternator off its axle to keep the electric car's battery charged ;)

[Metric Mouse]

Mount wind-chargers on electric vehicles so that forward motion through the air charges the batteries.

Or maybe we can make a special trailer for the car that runs a big alternator off its axle to keep the electric car's battery charged ;)

Or put giant solar panel wings on it to charge while driving!

[marty998]

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

This is the correct answer. Fewer cars.

And smaller cities so the remaining cars don't have to go very far.

And give them dimples. No more smooth surfaces. Because Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters proved that if you give a car dimples it makes them more aerodynamic (the same principle as why golf balls have dimples).

[BCBiker]

My greatest apologies for the digression above.

Issue at hand:

I agree fewer cars is important. Also more efficiency is key.  Smaller cities would help.

What are some ways that we could make smaller cities, reduce the number of cars and make cars less of an energy burden?

 

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

This is the correct answer. Fewer cars.

And smaller cities so the remaining cars don't have to go very far.

And give them dimples. No more smooth surfaces. Because Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters proved that if you give a car dimples it makes them more aerodynamic (the same principle as why golf balls have dimples).

I have never heard of the dimple theory.  I wonder what % improvement dimpled cars would have if the full fleet had them? It sounds very incremental though.

Or put giant solar panel wings on it to charge while driving!

I don't know that the car is the best place to put the solar panels. It is a relatively small surface area.

[Travis]

Nothing is going to happen until gasoline is legitimately expensive. I don't think false tariffs or carbon costs will be accepted. You just get angry white voters that way. Everything in this country relates to cost. Only $6-$7 gasoline will change people's minds about what they choose to drive.

No need to invent a tariff. The federal fuel tax doesn't cover all federal highway expenses and has to be bridged by Congress every year or two.  The tax is only increased by once a decade votes in Congress rather than being pegged to expenses or inflation.  The law also allows some of the funds to be diverted for general fund purposes.  If the tax were written to actually cover all outlays plus inflation or growth you'd see the tax go up 20 cents/gal right away and a couple cents per year.  It's not the drastic change some folks want, but it would be the easiest to implement.

[BCBiker]

Nothing is going to happen until gasoline is legitimately expensive. I don't think false tariffs or carbon costs will be accepted. You just get angry white voters that way. Everything in this country relates to cost. Only $6-$7 gasoline will change people's minds about what they choose to drive.

No need to invent a tariff. The federal fuel tax doesn't cover all federal highway expenses and has to be bridged by Congress every year or two.  The tax is only increased by once a decade votes in Congress rather than being pegged to expenses or inflation.  The law also allows some of the funds to be diverted for general fund purposes.  If the tax were written to actually cover all outlays plus inflation or growth you'd see the tax go up 20 cents/gal right away and a couple cents per year.  It's not the drastic change some folks want, but it would be the easiest to implement.

It is incredibly silly that our transportation habits, mostly personal vehicles, which many/most individuals cannot truly afford, is still being subsidized by the government.  If we could just break even financially on the whole thing, that would be good start...

[Yaeger]

Stop taxing gasoline and tax mileage. When a driver does their yearly registration renewal, include an odometer report which a tax is proportionally levied based on that. Non-transportation uses of gasoline shouldn't be subject to a tax to subsidize roads.

Tying taxes directly to mileage, and levying that directly onto the taxpayer, would go a long way towards pushing home the real cost of private transportation.

[bobechs]

Stop taxing gasoline and tax mileage. .... Non-transportation uses of gasoline shouldn't be subject to a tax to subsidize roads.

Making it much more cost-effective to heat and cool the house, wash and dry clothes and illuminate the dark... with gasoline.

Yes, this is exactly what has been missing from our energy policy.  I see it now...

[former player]

1.  High density living, so that people can easily walk/bike to all their "local" journeys.

2.  Congestion charging.  So that people are charged more for using roads in high use times and places.

Neither are about the cars themselves, they are about the people who use them.  Technology is not the problem, humans are the problem.

[Yaeger]

Stop taxing gasoline and tax mileage. .... Non-transportation uses of gasoline shouldn't be subject to a tax to subsidize roads.

Making it much more cost-effective to heat and cool the house, wash and dry clothes and illuminate the dark... with gasoline.

Yes, this is exactly what has been missing from our energy policy.  I see it now...

What's missing.. cost effectiveness and energy efficiency? Is that what you're complaining about? I was thinking more like lawnmowers, boats, etc.

I don't have an inherent fear of fossil fuels, they're a net positive for society now - hence why they're still holistically the best option for energy production worldwide. If people would stop implementing tariffs, taxes, and subsidies to manipulate the price of energy, we as a country might be able to have an intelligent discussion about an effective energy policy.

[Papa Mustache]

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

This is the correct answer. Fewer cars.

And smaller cities so the remaining cars don't have to go very far.

And give them dimples. No more smooth surfaces. Because Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters proved that if you give a car dimples it makes them more aerodynamic (the same principle as why golf balls have dimples).

In case you are being serious - you can save more gas just driving slower or not at all (carpooling, driving less)  without the dimples. Just get more efficient vehicles into the fleet and I think that won't happen until fuel gets expensive again and people are having trouble making ends meet (unemployment, flat wages, excessive debt).

[acroy]

Question needs clarity: make the same car more efficient (gas burned/activity)? make the roads/traffic more efficient (time/distance)? Reduce total transport time? Reduce total energy use?
what is the question?

[GuitarStv]

Cars are already pretty efficient.  What we need to do is stop using them when they're not necessary.  Efficiency levels will never trump original waste.

[marty998]

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

This is the correct answer. Fewer cars.

And smaller cities so the remaining cars don't have to go very far.

And give them dimples. No more smooth surfaces. Because Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters proved that if you give a car dimples it makes them more aerodynamic (the same principle as why golf balls have dimples).

In case you are being serious - you can save more gas just driving slower or not at all (carpooling, driving less)  without the dimples. Just get more efficient vehicles into the fleet and I think that won't happen until fuel gets expensive again and people are having trouble making ends meet (unemployment, flat wages, excessive debt).

Totally serious. The dimpled car got 11% extra fuel efficiency. It also proved that dirty cars (cars covered in dirt and mud etc) are more efficient than clean cars.

There is something about the aerodynamics of air passing over a rough surface that created a swirling vortex of some sort which "pushed" the car along.

I don't have the link... but maybe google it to see.

[nereo]

...
What are some ways that we could make smaller cities, reduce the number of cars and make cars less of an energy burden?

GIven the thread topic, I don't udnerstand why you want to make smaller cities.  larger, well designed cities result in lower total number of miles driven for a given population size.

Following along the lines of self-driving cars, I think the biggest advancements will come when we combine self-driving cars with an Uber/Lyft style ride-share and algorithms that allow cars to pick up and drop off multiple people along flexible routes (think about what a bus does, only 'on demand' and not tied to specific routes).  Improvements will be twofold. One: by increasing the number of people in a car from the current average of ~1.2 to something closer to 4 the total number of cars on the road could be cut by about 70%. Two - Auto-driving cars can drive closer together, avoid traffic, eliminate the need for stop-lights entirely, and can self-park in large staging lots, completely eliminating the need for parking lots and parking spaces throughout the city.

Those advantages means a city with a large fleet of self-driving cars would need only a fraction of the total number of cars, could eliminate curb-side parking spaces (perhaps converting them into bike lanes and/or green spaces), eliminate ~80% of all parking lots and have traffic flow faster and more efficiently.

Tthe majority of self-driving cars would look like 6-seater, EV minivans. When necessary, trucks could also be hailed (for runs to the airport, or Home Depot, etc). Large events (concerts, sports games) would automatically have a fleet of dozens arriving and leaving every minute, each one capable of taken a half dozen people with similar destinations.  Cars would return to their 'staging areas'  (high density parking lots in strategic locations) and recharge whenever demand was low, and thousands could be mobilized in minutes as demand increased. Since they are autodriving they never hunt for parking spaces in the staging area, and they don't "park like an asshole".  They also don't need more than a few inches between vehicles.

Just some ideas I've been kicking around about how to eliminate 80%+ of the cars in our city and >>50% of all that paved real-estate. The biggest stumbling block is we'd have to basically outlaw human drivers in these areas (though self-owned but computer driven cars could be integrated).

[Curbside Prophet]

Drafting.  Especially behind big rigs.  Also proven on Mythbusters.

Course, you might die but you will be 40% more efficient!

[gooki]

Nereo is on the money.

[gaja]

Mount wind-chargers on electric vehicles so that forward motion through the air charges the batteries.

Or maybe we can make a special trailer for the car that runs a big alternator off its axle to keep the electric car's battery charged ;)

Or put giant solar panel wings on it to charge while driving!

We have a 250w panel on our van, it is the largest we could fit on it. It is enough to run the heat, Ac, and a small fridge, but nowhere near enough to run the van.

Stop taxing gasoline and tax mileage. .... Non-transportation uses of gasoline shouldn't be subject to a tax to subsidize roads.

Making it much more cost-effective to heat and cool the house, wash and dry clothes and illuminate the dark... with gasoline.

Yes, this is exactly what has been missing from our energy policy.  I see it now...

What's missing.. cost effectiveness and energy efficiency? Is that what you're complaining about? I was thinking more like lawnmowers, boats, etc.

I don't have an inherent fear of fossil fuels, they're a net positive for society now - hence why they're still holistically the best option for energy production worldwide. If people would stop implementing tariffs, taxes, and subsidies to manipulate the price of energy, we as a country might be able to have an intelligent discussion about an effective energy policy.

Electric engines are more energy efficient, also for stuff like lawnmowers and boats. When producing the electricity, nothing beats hydropower for efficiency and low cost.

[nereo]

Electric engines are more energy efficient, also for stuff like lawnmowers and boats. When producing the electricity, nothing beats hydropower for efficiency and low cost.

I've gotta interject here.  Hydropower can be efficient, but it is only low cost if you ignore the construction.  Here in Quebec we're building the largest hydro-power project in North America on the Riviere Romaine - originally a $6B project now creeping past $13B.  The "Site-C" dam in British Columbia is slated to cost $9B.  Canada has enjoyed some of the lowest energy costs in the world because the largest fraction of our power comes from hydrodams that were built and paid for decades ago.  But electricity costs here are increasing dramatically because of the debt needed for these new projects. Now we have a very real and expensive problem that many of these 50+ year old dams may breach, destroying everything down-river. Ironically the cost of decommissioning of hydrodams that have outlived their functional life is never pre-paid.  The US is currently removing lots of old dams, like these three on the Penobscot in Maine.  Droughts and sedimentation cut the effectiveness of some dams.

Oh, and of course building a dam drastically alters the ecosystem, so there's that to consider.

Hydropower can be a good option on certain rivers when they are managed well.  Over the course of their lifespans (some of which can exceed a century) they can produce very cheap power, but it takes decades to recoup the cost.  They are great in northern climates where solar isn't as effective, but it can't hold a candle to solar farms in the south-western US, or the wind power being generated in the San Gorgonio Pass (among other places).  A municipality can build a natural gas power plant for about 1/10th the cost and in a fraction of the time required to build a large hydro-dam.
Personally, I question any decision to build massive new powerplants when it's becoming apparent that in most locations individual homes and office parks can generate a net surplus of energy with PVs for 25+ years, all for less than what it costs to buy a new car, and a 'break-even point often in the 7-10 year range. Does it still make sense to spending $B to build large hydrodams that will take 20-40 years for the power generated to justify the upfront cost?  Storage the big hurdle now, but there are potential solutions on the horizon there, too. 
[stepping off soapbox now]

[Papa Mustache]

Maybe fewer of them (cars)? :)

This is the correct answer. Fewer cars.

And smaller cities so the remaining cars don't have to go very far.

And give them dimples. No more smooth surfaces. Because Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters proved that if you give a car dimples it makes them more aerodynamic (the same principle as why golf balls have dimples).

In case you are being serious - you can save more gas just driving slower or not at all (carpooling, driving less)  without the dimples. Just get more efficient vehicles into the fleet and I think that won't happen until fuel gets expensive again and people are having trouble making ends meet (unemployment, flat wages, excessive debt).

Totally serious. The dimpled car got 11% extra fuel efficiency. It also proved that dirty cars (cars covered in dirt and mud etc) are more efficient than clean cars.

There is something about the aerodynamics of air passing over a rough surface that created a swirling vortex of some sort which "pushed" the car along.

I don't have the link... but maybe google it to see.

How about choosing the slower more efficient vehicle instead of the 4.0L V-6 seven passenger option. FWIW the dimples make it look like there was a really weird hailstorm. ;)=

[Metric Mouse]

We have a 250w panel on our van, it is the largest we could fit on it. It is enough to run the heat, Ac, and a small fridge, but nowhere near enough to run the van.

I'm impressed by the number of posters who comment on how rediculous solar panels on vehicles are (which they are, but some people have actually tried to use them) but not an alternator trailer or fan charger. :P

Electric engines are more energy efficient, also for stuff like lawnmowers and boats. When producing the electricity, nothing beats hydropower for efficiency and low cost.

Hydro power is fantastic. Sadly, smart people have known this for a long time, and the U.S. is largely tapped in respect to traditional Hydro.  There's some interesting work being done with ocean currents and tidal energy, but that by itself won't power a nation with the footprint the size of America.

[Kriegsspiel]

I read your blog post; it looks like you are focusing on urban transportation systems. Here are some more ideas you could look into:

Triple the gasoline tax. Raise property taxes in order to fund infrastructure.

Adopt Traditional City Design/New Urbanist/Really Narrow Streets style urban planning. Build stuff closer together, mixed use neighborhoods, get rid of parking lots, design streets to encourage lower speeds, increase connectivity with neighborhoods instead of funneling traffic to connectors, etc.

Ban semis from entering city limits. Semis transport from city to city, not within cities.

Deregulate electric velomobiles. Make better ones.

Bicycle delivery companies.

[dougules]

Raise property taxes in order to fund infrastructure.

Would we even need to raise more funding for infrastructure if we quit building and maintaining ridiculousness?  Think about how many sidewalks, bike lanes, and buses we could pay for if we move everybody closer together, stop building 10 lane freeways, and pay less on healthcare when everybody builds a little light exercise into their daily routine. 

[nereo]

Raise property taxes in order to fund infrastructure.

Would we even need to raise more funding for infrastructure if we quit building and maintaining ridiculousness?  Think about how many sidewalks, bike lanes, and buses we could pay for if we move everybody closer together, stop building 10 lane freeways, and pay less on healthcare when everybody builds a little light exercise into their daily routine.

I think these are two seperate issues that are only tangentially linked. We certainly need funds to spend on infrastructure, but replacing, rebuilding and expanding many of our existing road systems is a fairly short-term thinking.  Perhaps Kriegsspeil was implying that a larger fuel tax and property taxes could fund the construction of a completely new transportation system?  I'm not sure...

[MrMoogle]

Change our priorities.

A 1974 Honda Civic did 0-60 mph in 15.5 (and appears to have done ~40 on the highway according to wiki) while a 2016 Honda Civic LX Coupe does 0-60 mph in 7.6 (28/36 MPG). They weight also went from around 1,500 pounds to 2,739 pounds. Now imagine in instead of reducing the 0-60 time by 50 percent and increasing the weight by 46 percent those engine refinements were directed toward fuel efficiency.

I know a fair amount of the weight is probably due to safety features and safer designs, but some is due to wanting larger vehicles and more gadgets.

As an aside 2016 civic is quicker to 60 than a mid-70s corvette.

There's two problems.  How to make cars more efficient?  How to make society more efficient by reducing the miles driven?

The reason for this weight increase is mostly due to safety, and the compounding nature of safety. 
1980, "in the 70's, cars weighted 1500 lbs, so you must be able to withstand a crash with it"  Solution: make 1600 lb cars with more safety features. 
1985, "in 1980, cars weight 1600 lbs, so you you must be able to withstand a crash with it"  Solution: make 1700 lb cars with more safety features. 

If everyone drove 1500lbs cars with our safety technology, we'd all be fine, even could do a race to lower weight.  But with SUV's out there and requirements on hitting those suckers, that'll never happen.

If the requirement was, do the least amount of damage to others, then we'd make less heavy vehicles.

Safety and efficiency are opposing forces.

[dougules]

Raise property taxes in order to fund infrastructure.

Would we even need to raise more funding for infrastructure if we quit building and maintaining ridiculousness?  Think about how many sidewalks, bike lanes, and buses we could pay for if we move everybody closer together, stop building 10 lane freeways, and pay less on healthcare when everybody builds a little light exercise into their daily routine.

I think these are two seperate issues that are only tangentially linked. We certainly need funds to spend on infrastructure, but replacing, rebuilding and expanding many of our existing road systems is a fairly short-term thinking.  Perhaps Kriegsspeil was implying that a larger fuel tax and property taxes could fund the construction of a completely new transportation system?  I'm not sure...

We spend a lot of money on moving as many cars as possible over increasingly large distances.  If we just start ramping that down, it would free up a whole lot of money for other projects.  Bike routes and sidewalks aren't expensive in comparison to adding more car lanes.  There is stupid money being thrown at more asphalt in outer suburbia around here.  Our city council recently hiked sales tax from 8% to 9% to widen outbound roads that don't even really help residents of the city proper.  And this is a place with a lot of supposed libertarians.

I'm not against taxes to pay for new infrastructure.  I just think we'd find the money is already there if we stop wasting it. 

[Chris22]

Change our priorities.

A 1974 Honda Civic did 0-60 mph in 15.5 (and appears to have done ~40 on the highway according to wiki) while a 2016 Honda Civic LX Coupe does 0-60 mph in 7.6 (28/36 MPG). They weight also went from around 1,500 pounds to 2,739 pounds. Now imagine in instead of reducing the 0-60 time by 50 percent and increasing the weight by 46 percent those engine refinements were directed toward fuel efficiency.

I know a fair amount of the weight is probably due to safety features and safer designs, but some is due to wanting larger vehicles and more gadgets.

As an aside 2016 civic is quicker to 60 than a mid-70s corvette.

There's two problems.  How to make cars more efficient?  How to make society more efficient by reducing the miles driven?

The reason for this weight increase is mostly due to safety, and the compounding nature of safety. 
1980, "in the 70's, cars weighted 1500 lbs, so you must be able to withstand a crash with it"  Solution: make 1600 lb cars with more safety features. 
1985, "in 1980, cars weight 1600 lbs, so you you must be able to withstand a crash with it"  Solution: make 1700 lb cars with more safety features. 

If everyone drove 1500lbs cars with our safety technology, we'd all be fine, even could do a race to lower weight.  But with SUV's out there and requirements on hitting those suckers, that'll never happen.

If the requirement was, do the least amount of damage to others, then we'd make less heavy vehicles.

Safety and efficiency are opposing forces.

I agree with everything you said except where you blame it on the SUV bogeyman.  It really has very little to do with SUVs, and much more to do with semi trucks, box trucks, etc.  The weight differential between even a tiny lightweight Lotus Elise and the biggest SUV pales in comparison to the differential from a normal passenger car to a medium size loaded truck.

[nereo]

I agree with everything you said except where you blame it on the SUV bogeyman.  It really has very little to do with SUVs, and much more to do with semi trucks, box trucks, etc.  The weight differential between even a tiny lightweight Lotus Elise and the biggest SUV pales in comparison to the differential from a normal passenger car to a medium size loaded truck.

True 'dat.  A smart-car with two adults inside weighs about 1 ton.  A full-sized Chevy Tahoe about 2.2 tonnes.  A 20' UHaul truck (which you need no special license or training to drive) comes in at around 8 tonnes. Commercial trucks frequently exceed 30 tonnes.

[Kriegsspiel]

Raise property taxes in order to fund infrastructure.

Would we even need to raise more funding for infrastructure if we quit building and maintaining ridiculousness?  Think about how many sidewalks, bike lanes, and buses we could pay for if we move everybody closer together, stop building 10 lane freeways, and pay less on healthcare when everybody builds a little light exercise into their daily routine.

I think these are two seperate issues that are only tangentially linked. We certainly need funds to spend on infrastructure, but replacing, rebuilding and expanding many of our existing road systems is a fairly short-term thinking.  Perhaps Kriegsspeil was implying that a larger fuel tax and property taxes could fund the construction of a completely new transportation system?  I'm not sure...

As I see it, it's unrealistic to think that everyone is going to suddenly stop moving to low density suburbs. Also, the low density suburbs already exist. So there are a few angles here. Unless you just want to rip out the entire suburb and start over, you'll need to maintain the roads so that you have something to densify as time goes on and zoning is loosened. Current property taxes might not even cover maintenance, let alone new infrastructure. So just to keep what you have, you would have to increase taxes. There are examples at strongtowns.org. It seems to me that the starting point is to make people pay the true costs of their lifestyles. 

So, the people that still want to live in suburbs will either stay in them as they densify, or they'll move even further out. Again, raising their taxes so that they pay for their location might cause fewer of them to do it in the first place. Alternatively, they could opt for continued low taxes with equivalently low infrastructure, like gravel roads, which is the current situation in Vermont. Participatory budgeting is also a theme in John Michael Greer's Retrotopia series on his Archdruid Report blog. 

Nereo, I just mentioned increasing the gasoline tax just in order to fund the interstates. Like Travis mentioned, the current system doesn't pay for the maintenance on interstate highways  (see attachment [EDIT: from this video]). Interestingly, this Congressional Budget Office report suggested a system much like the Retrotopia scheme:

Charging drivers specifically for using roads would increase economic output by
allowing highly valued transportation to move more quickly and more reliably. Such
pricing could take the form of per-mile charges (also known as vehicle-miles traveled,
or VMT, charges), congestion charges, or tolls on Interstate highways. When faster
travel and avoiding delays were a priority, drivers could opt to pay for the use of a less
congested road, and when travel speed was less important, they could use a road with
a lower fee or avoid paying a fee by using a road without one. Charges that varied by
time of day or that differed by road would also affect economic activity by limiting
congestion.
Besides affecting travel, such pricing would raise revenues, which could be used to make
repairs, expand capacity, or substantially renovate the Interstate System or could be put
to other purposes. It would also provide important information for spending decisions
by showing how much drivers value the use of a road, helping to set priorities for future
improvements. Over time, with more use of pricing, spending could shift from less
productive to more productive uses of highways. Such shifts could boost economic
growth—or they could allow spending to be reduced without affecting overall growth.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), widespread use of
congestion pricing, for example, could reduce the amount of capital investment
needed to meet a given set of goals for performance of the highway system by roughly
30 percent.

I'm not sure why they think economic output would increase by charging people to do what they are currently doing, though.

Anyways, getting back to dougules, I just think it's more practical to maintain what we've already built as much as possible, so that the option to improve it remains an option. Obviously if everyone says "Screw this, it turns out it IS too expensive to live 40 miles away from everything!" well... I guess that area would just be fucked...

Ceasing new construction I agree with, if anything because it's not even practical in the first place.

[MrMoogle]

I agree with everything you said except where you blame it on the SUV bogeyman.  It really has very little to do with SUVs, and much more to do with semi trucks, box trucks, etc.  The weight differential between even a tiny lightweight Lotus Elise and the biggest SUV pales in comparison to the differential from a normal passenger car to a medium size loaded truck.

True 'dat.  A smart-car with two adults inside weighs about 1 ton.  A full-sized Chevy Tahoe about 2.2 tonnes.  A 20' UHaul truck (which you need no special license or training to drive) comes in at around 8 tonnes. Commercial trucks frequently exceed 30 tonnes.

Are there required crash tests basted on medium size loaded trucks?  I've heard of some based on SUVs, although I haven't researched it. 

[nereo]

Nereo, I just mentioned increasing the gasoline tax just in order to fund the interstates. Like Travis mentioned, the current system doesn't pay for the maintenance on interstate highways  (see attachment [EDIT: from this video]). Interestingly, this Congressional Budget Office report suggested a system much like the Retrotopia scheme:

[snip]

The tax debate is a fine one to have, but all I'm saying is that I don't think it pertains very well to the topic on hand, namely "how can we make cars on the road more efficient".  Personally I would be in favor of raising the gasoline tax, but mostly because I think it's a necessary and better way of encouraging better fuel economy than putting lots of regulatory burdens on the manufacturers (i.e. CAFE).
Likewise, I'm not sure that raising property taxes is the most equitable strategy for rebuilding our infrastructure. It might be better than some, but it's unclear to me why property should be taxed more than, say, a luxury sales tax or a higher income tax or a tax on every virtual pokémon captured.

As I see it, it's unrealistic to think that everyone is going to suddenly stop moving to low density suburbs. Also, the low density suburbs already exist. So there are a few angles here. Unless you just want to rip out the entire suburb and start over, you'll need to maintain the roads so that you have something to densify as time goes on and zoning is loosened. Current property taxes might not even cover maintenance, let alone new infrastructure. So just to keep what you have, you would have to increase taxes. There are examples at strongtowns.org. It seems to me that the starting point is to make people pay the true costs of their lifestyles. 

Stepping away from the property tax issue for a moment, I agree that it's unrealistic for us to abandon our lower-density suburbs, but many of the proposals listed would also help less population dense areas. Driverless cars could allow for far fewer cars (sharing!  not just for communists!), better and more efficient traffic flow with far fewer accidents... all of which would mean that roads wouldn't need so many lanes, infrastructure could cost less and we could get rid of so many of these huge inefficient parking lots.  90% of the time people could hail small efficient cars but know the large truck option would be available 'just in case'.  "Summoning" your car from a nearby staging area means suburban homes could get rid of garages and (gasp!) driveways entirely. The fourth side of hte home could get its windows back.

[Chris22]

"Summoning" your car from a nearby staging area means suburban homes could get rid of garages and (gasp!) driveways entirely. The fourth side of hte home could get its windows back.

My car is far from the only thing in my garage.

[nereo]

"Summoning" your car from a nearby staging area means suburban homes could get rid of garages and (gasp!) driveways entirely. The fourth side of hte home could get its windows back.

My car is far from the only thing in my garage.

yes, but would you design your garage in the same manner if it didn't store a car?