Orathaic,
One of the things I really don't appreciate is having somebody quote me, but cut off the last half of the sentence and completely change the meaning to something else that is more easily refutable.
Let's see what I actually said, and what you quoted me as saying. I said:
"You claim urban areas are more "efficient" the more compact / dense they become. In what way, exactly?"
You said:
----------------
'You claim urban areas are more "efficient" ' - yes. I'm basing this on some research ~ as a physicist i can't help but really appreciate this analysis: http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html
---------
Notice how you cut off the end of my sentence, where I said "the more compact they become"? Notice how that completely changes the meaning of what I said? Interestingly, your linked video said absolutely nothing about density or geographic size. It only talked about population, and it was descriptive, so presumably he's already counting very physically large cities like Houston and LA, and they're included in the positive results he discusses.
So in other words, it has no relevancy at all to my question / point about efficiency. As I said earlier, many people prefer to have a larger house and a yard, and would disagree that the increased "efficiency," however measured, that you were talking about (and which still hasn't been justified) was an actual improvement.
As to the rest of your response -- thank you for the response. I'll address some of your points.
You make a lot of claims that you don't think that what you're proposing actually conflicts with American freedom. That seems incredible, but I'll take you at your word. It's very simple: your proposal limits people's options -- thus, obviously, restricting their freedom (since they now have the freedom to drive in cities, and then would not); and it does so because you think you know better than they do what is better or more desireable for them. This is why it clashes with the American conception of liberty. This, for me, is enough not even to consider the proposal further.
That said, let's continue.
Turning to the delivery issue -- what you're forgetting is that in one case, you also have to pay the wages of somebody to drive the truck. That's likely to be a much more substantial cost than the fuel and wear costs.
"'Your points just assume that bikes are desireable' - i hope the health and environmental benefits, are there to support this assumption. However as I personally enjoy cycling i'm happy to admit this as a personal bias."
I understand. I could just as well say that the speed, space, and carrying capacity of cars should make the opposite obvious. And I also admit I'm biased. This is part of why I'm glad people can just choose.
Especially in a large, hot city like those in the south or west -- but really, everywhere -- cars bring the same feeling of freedom that you refer to with your bike. If I get hungry at 3 AM, I can run out to a 24 hour diner and eat. I don't have to wait for public transportation, which at the end of the day would probably add 30-60 minutes to the process (and I'm in a pretty public transportation-friendly city right now). It's great.
That, of course, is a feeling, like yours toward your bike.
That said, I _don't_ think you've given a good logical argument for banning cars being a good idea. You've given some reasons, but you've by far failed to support the idea that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, let alone outweigh them enough to justify the huge retreat in liberty. In fact you didn't address several of my initial points. Most of what we are left with is a hunch -- without evidence -- that it would be "more efficient" by some undefined metric.
Anyway, thank you for a post that was, apart from its one egregious misquote, quite reasonable.
@Thucydides,
I must say I'm surprised by the claim that our cities are getting smaller or less sprawlish. What were the fastest-growing major metro areas from 2000-2010? Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix. I can't speak for Austin, but the rest are virtually poster-boys for sprawl. I'm also not aware of any suburbs that are dying and turning to ghost towns.
Perhaps you were being ironic?
Anyway, I don't think Gunfighter's post is as unreasonable as you claim, though I'm quite happy in my small 4-cylinder getting good gas mileage, myself. It's cheaper so I can drive more.