“Kicking fossil fuels,” isn’t the goal. The purpose of alternative fuels is to reduce harmful emissions and increase fuel efficiency. Vehicles powered by Natural Gas manage to do that while we waiting for 2015 to roll around.

You make a coherent argument, but M-B, GM, and Tesla are not offering alternative fuel cars for supplemental driving from and around intelligently designed cities. They are offering a technological alternative to the need for intelligently designed cities.

Our density in the US creates sales volume for auto makers. Increased density threatens their business model. All the early PR for cars such as M-B is promoting is designed to blunt the call for alternative transportation and better land use. In my humble, but somewhat informed, opinion, Inhabit and other outlets for sustainable living do the cause an injustice by highlighting automakers promised technological solutions to our problems.

Intelligent urban design that eliminates the need of cars is a great goal, however I don’t think that even the most intelligently designed city will make people forget their desire for personal mobility. Even the sexiest bus is still a bus. People want cars for personal and private transportation, and if Mercedes or GM or Tesla or any other company says that they can make a personal vehicle that is fuel-free and emissions-free, then more power to them!

The solution is not to develop cars that require less fuel, the trick is to develop sustainable environments that require less driving. The most fuel-efficient car is the one that\\\’s parked in the garage or, even better, the one that\\\’s not purchased because it\\\’s not necessary.