8 ms·

Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US should move to high speed rail. One thing climate change debates have taught me is

Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US should move to high speed rail. One thing climate change debates have taught me is that people generally can't think past implementations and have incredible difficulty updating their implementation-specific mindsets. Cars and planes have been 'bad' for climate change as they were inevitably burning fossil fuels, so the natural answer was public transit and high speed rail. Today, we have EVs and within about a decade short-haul electric planes (ie, exactly the routes high speed rail aims to serve). The answer to climate change (at least as far as transportation goes) should very clearly be "EVs", with these "electric vehicles" being cars, trucks, semis, and short-haul planes. Unfortunately, you won't see this reflected in GND thinking.

rndmize 8y ago
> "Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"; This is from an article outlining the GND - https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocas... - with the very first thing listed being expanding electric car manufacturing.
mars4rp 8y ago
I see your point, but still EVs are not that great for environments compare to trains, forget the energy for moving. Energy to build, the tire residues that goes to our public water and ... It is way better than what we have now, but still we could do better.
- so33 8y ago
  >I see your point, but still EVs are not that great for environments compare to trains, forget the energy for moving. Energy to build, the tire residues that goes to our public water and ... Unfortunately, many seem to think that just because something is emission free, they no longer have to worry about such things as grid capacity or electricity costs.
  - corodra 8y ago
    Please don't forget cobalt and lithium mining. Plus processing into batteries. They have pretty bad environmental impacts as well.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
> Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US should move to high speed rail. It also said we should get rid of cars, planes, "farting cows", and provide for people "unwilling to work"... while also being anti-nuclear, and pro-government involvement in Tesla. [0] I'm surprised the DNC allowed that to stay up as long as they did! [0] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Gree... edit: Um... you can think it was bad PR because it was, but those are true things that were in there. I didn't write it :)
- geofft 8y ago
  Yes, the original document that was posted was too politically incorrect for the right-wing faction of the DNC to be comfortable with it. Providing for people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible strategy, and is rather popular on HN under the name of "universal basic income" and among rich people under the name of "inheritance".
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    >right-wing faction of the DNC Wha? >Providing for people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible strategy .... Ok... Go on then. Please expand on how providing for people unwilling to work is defensible. I'm open minded, convince me.
    - nemothekid 8y ago
      How is UBI anything other than "providing for people unwilling to work"?
    - pjc50 8y ago
      >right-wing faction of the DNC Parties have an internal spectrum and much of the Democratic party occupies the same space as what Europe calls "center right", like Merkel's Christian Democrats. > providing for people unwilling to work is defensible Whereas: 1) There is no perfect test between "unwilling" and "unable" 2) People who are unable to work and are not provided for experience a range of adverse outcomes 2a) this includes the negative extenralities of homelessness that everyone always complains about in SF 2b) this may include death 3) Coercion into work with the threat of starvation is corrosive to human dignity => we should stop trying to draw a harsh demarcation between the deserving and undeserving, and ensure everyone is provided for.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Ultimately, I'm not sure any large infrastructure projects are possible in the current US political climate. The US interstate system is a marvel that I suspect would be entirely blocked by NIMBYism if implemented today. Airport expansions, wind farms, new housing, etc. are all opposed by scaremongering social media campaigns.
geofft 8y ago
I don't understand how Newsom's decision argues against nationwide high speed rail or is in any way ironic - the decision is not that it was tried and found wanting, but that it "would cost too much and take too long." The Green New Deal is specifically about applying massive funding and political will towards projects that are generally considered politically unrealistic today but are quite technically feasible, not about trying ideas that are inherently novel.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  "Cost too much" for what? For what it would provide. That argues against at least this specific high speed rail. And behind "politically unrealistic" - there is another problem waiting - "economically unrealistic". If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it, calling it "green" doesn't make it a good idea.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    All of which is true. Issue is, it's also true for EVs. Infrastructure for EVs costs money too. As do electric airplanes. (Which I didn't know were going to be passenger planes in 10 years?) That's the thing, ANYTHING the Green New Deal spends money on, will cost money. You may say that's obvious, but my point is that I doubt whatever the GND ends up pushing will make actual economic sense. And imagine spending money on electric planes, and they don't become passenger worthy in ten years. Is that a bust? Do we just spend more GND money on electric planes and wait longer? What if we can not quite get there even in 20 or 30 years? What if the right choice was not electrically powered traditional planes, but big, slow, air ships? Do they make sense for "short haul" commutes given their lack of speed? Or what if air ships are a boondoggle as well, and that technology can't be perfected in ten years? We have to either be willing to potentially waste federal money on Green New Deal projects that may never pan out, or, if we are disinclined to do so, we need to accept that the politician will be extremely risk averse with Green New Deal money. And guess what that means? Yep, you guessed it, trains and lots of them. Why? Because as that old saying goes, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
  - wukerplank 8y ago
sandworm101 8y ago
Dont tell the bikers, the anti-car crowd who want to rip up all the roads and parking lots. One day soon cars will not be the great pollution evil they once were. If you believe the ai hype, soon bicycles will be killing far more people than cars. Then we shall confine them too to closed tracks. The last person to ride a bike on a public sidewalk is probably alive today. I am snowed in today. I want an EV but havent seen one that can handle a mountain highway in winter, something with the range and predictability to survive a canadian winter. Has anyone ever put chains on a tesla?
- favorited 8y ago
  > If you believe the ai hype, soon bicycles will be killing far more people than cars Citation, please.
- trophycase 8y ago
  Bikes kill people because cars kill people.
babypuncher 8y ago
Cars, regardless of their energy source, are still a problem. Even if we solve the climate impact of cars, we still need to solve the traffic problem. If our large urban centers want to continue their growth then desirable alternative transportation options need to be implemented, otherwise 2 hour commutes through traffic will just become the norm.
intopieces 8y ago
>The answer to climate change (at least as far as transportation goes) should very clearly be "EVs", with these "electric vehicles" being cars, trucks, semis, and short-haul planes. Unfortunately, you won't see this reflected in GND thinking. From the resolution [0]: overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail; So it seems like EVs are definitely part of the thinking. Perhaps you're referring to a line in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' website's FAQ, which has since been edited? She's definitely a prominent advocate and policy force of the Green New Deal but she is not "the Green New Dealers," who consist of many people [1], with many different opinions about implementation. [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
freefal 8y ago
While it's likely a non-starter legislatively, I believe the answer would be to pass a carbon cap & trade or tax system that simply prices greenhouse gases. That way we get what we want (less greenhouse gases) without proscribing a specific solution, whether it's high-speed rail, electric vehicles, or people keeping their gas vehicle and carpooling to work. If we get the incentives right, people will figure out how to minimize the increased cost in the way that is least painful for them.
empath75 8y ago
I think if we properly taxed carbon to account for all its externalities, all these alternative solutions would become much more viable.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Ironically? Here is what it actually says: H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail; Note the emphasis on technological feasibility and the use of “including” which typically means not limited to. Conservatives have been working overtime to twist this into an absolutist message.
separatrix 8y ago
One thing climate change debates have taught me is that people generally can't think past implementations and have incredible difficulty updating their implementation-specific mindsets. Hmm, interesting. I don’t mean to argue the facts, but just a quick google for the GND resolution [0] seems to contradict this claim. If anything the submitted resolution is overly idealistic, promoting an “everything-plus” strategy against climate change that won’t happen at all without a dramatic and underspecified political upheaval. In fact high speed rail is listed as “(iii)” in a list where “(i)” is “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing“. Here’s my question: do you think it’s possible that what you’ve actually been taught is a cognitive bias, that might be leading you to ignore disconfirmatory evidence about how other people think in favor of simpler but less predictive models? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio...
TACIXAT 8y ago
Cars suck though. Seriously. Roads take up a ton of space, traffic meets whatever capacity we provide it. They're pretty dangerous. I would much prefer to reimagine cities with fewer cars, and take care of long distance transportation with other (clean) means. Cars are getting greener, but they still have a ton of other negatives.
- ummonk 8y ago
  >traffic meets whatever capacity we provide it So the infrastructure investment actually gets utilized?
  - zanny 8y ago
    What train systems, priced for volume and built in areas that aren't restricted from growing in response to the available transit, have failed to cause economic growth where they were built? All the examples I've ever heard have basically come down to one of those two conditions - either, if the trains weren't well built to provide for existing demand, they were crippled from causing growth where they were built due to zoning and building restrictions preventing natural build up around them, or due to a lack of immediate success (and projects like these take time to cause economic and behavioral shifts) were priced out of competitiveness with less efficient modes of transit and thus doomed from a bizarre need to "profit" from infrastructure.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      I'm highly supportive of rail transit. I'm just saying it's backwards to argue that expanding freeways just because to traffic will just fill up capacity. The same will happen if you expand successful rail transit as well. Capacity being filled up is a good sign in terms of efficient infrastructure investment - it means the infrastructure investment is being put to good use, and you should probably build more. As to your question though, VTA seems to have failed to spur economic growth, despite being priced for volume and built in areas that aren't restricted from growing in response to available transit.
robterrell 8y ago
You are slamming the "Green New Deal Thinking" for not including EV semis and planes, vehicles no one yet builds or sells? Semis are maybe more likely, but I don't want government energy policy to be planning on EV airplanes any more than, say, fusion reactors.
mamon 8y ago
Wait, the trains are also electric, aren't they? Does US still use ICE trains?
- ghaff 8y ago
  There are vast stretches of the US rail system that are not electrified. But I imagine the bulk of this part of the network is disproportionately used by cargo.
- tropo 8y ago
  Nearly all trains in the US burn diesel. Subways are an exception.
megaremote 8y ago
EVs are not the solution, they still require having a large part of our cities and suburbs covered in roads, which is ridiculous.
wwweston 8y ago
EVs are central to every focused conversation I've seen on the topic. As an example, one of the highest profile recent media discussions (Tucker Carlson interviewing AOC advisor Robert Hockett) featured the merits of having government coordinated rollout of charging stations (alongside the apparently high-effort enterprise of getting Carlson to believe that having one form of transportation supercede another might be accomplished by means other than bans and forcible seizures). I don't know what the promise of short-haul electric planes looks like; maybe that's real, maybe it's like AI predictions in the 80s. It'll be interesting to see what its profile looks like in the space defined by energy requirements per passenger/freight mile, desired vs efficient maximum speeds, overhead & logistics of loading/unloading, and maintenance costs. Though I'd be willing to bet that it's premature at best to assume that electric planes or autos will categorically dominate in every consideration.
yongjik 8y ago
I think you're mismatching problems and solutions. EVs are a solution for climate change. Modern railroads are a solution for commutes taking hours in Silicon Valley (and other places in CA). Electrifying all the single occupancy sedans in 101/680/880 won't do anything to the commute time.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  This 77 billion boondoggle would have done very little to improve commute times either. It is a mismatch as well. It isn't local transit, and would be serving a few stations at most in the bay area. It doesn't provide any new routes or alternatives other than moving farther out from the city.
emanuensis 8y ago
The main transport issue the US faces is sprawl. NO one vehicle, certainty not EVs, can solve that -- it is a system level issue. However i do believe that the last mile problem can be solved ... making the solution of the overall problem soluble by (public) transit (on steroids). The last mile issue could be solved with AV's (autonomous vehicles). Eg Ubers Jump could be outfitted to be an AV and transport Americans to a (usably frequent!) transit point. AVs could be made to work much easier (ie a shorter timeline) in the low density scenarios sprawl has produced, and which now make Public Transport infeasible.

rndmize 8y ago

> "Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"; This is from an article outlining the GND - https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocas... - with the very first thing listed being expanding electric car manufacturing.

mars4rp 8y ago

I see your point, but still EVs are not that great for environments compare to trains, forget the energy for moving. Energy to build, the tire residues that goes to our public water and ... It is way better than what we have now, but still we could do better.

so33 8y ago
>I see your point, but still EVs are not that great for environments compare to trains, forget the energy for moving. Energy to build, the tire residues that goes to our public water and ... Unfortunately, many seem to think that just because something is emission free, they no longer have to worry about such things as grid capacity or electricity costs.
- corodra 8y ago
  Please don't forget cobalt and lithium mining. Plus processing into batteries. They have pretty bad environmental impacts as well.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

> Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US should move to high speed rail. It also said we should get rid of cars, planes, "farting cows", and provide for people "unwilling to work"... while also being anti-nuclear, and pro-government involvement in Tesla. [0] I'm surprised the DNC allowed that to stay up as long as they did! [0] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Gree... edit: Um... you can think it was bad PR because it was, but those are true things that were in there. I didn't write it :)

geofft 8y ago
Yes, the original document that was posted was too politically incorrect for the right-wing faction of the DNC to be comfortable with it. Providing for people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible strategy, and is rather popular on HN under the name of "universal basic income" and among rich people under the name of "inheritance".
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >right-wing faction of the DNC Wha? >Providing for people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible strategy .... Ok... Go on then. Please expand on how providing for people unwilling to work is defensible. I'm open minded, convince me.
  - nemothekid 8y ago
    How is UBI anything other than "providing for people unwilling to work"?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    >right-wing faction of the DNC Parties have an internal spectrum and much of the Democratic party occupies the same space as what Europe calls "center right", like Merkel's Christian Democrats. > providing for people unwilling to work is defensible Whereas: 1) There is no perfect test between "unwilling" and "unable" 2) People who are unable to work and are not provided for experience a range of adverse outcomes 2a) this includes the negative extenralities of homelessness that everyone always complains about in SF 2b) this may include death 3) Coercion into work with the threat of starvation is corrosive to human dignity => we should stop trying to draw a harsh demarcation between the deserving and undeserving, and ensure everyone is provided for.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Ultimately, I'm not sure any large infrastructure projects are possible in the current US political climate. The US interstate system is a marvel that I suspect would be entirely blocked by NIMBYism if implemented today. Airport expansions, wind farms, new housing, etc. are all opposed by scaremongering social media campaigns.

geofft 8y ago

I don't understand how Newsom's decision argues against nationwide high speed rail or is in any way ironic - the decision is not that it was tried and found wanting, but that it "would cost too much and take too long." The Green New Deal is specifically about applying massive funding and political will towards projects that are generally considered politically unrealistic today but are quite technically feasible, not about trying ideas that are inherently novel.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
"Cost too much" for what? For what it would provide. That argues against at least this specific high speed rail. And behind "politically unrealistic" - there is another problem waiting - "economically unrealistic". If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it, calling it "green" doesn't make it a good idea.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  All of which is true. Issue is, it's also true for EVs. Infrastructure for EVs costs money too. As do electric airplanes. (Which I didn't know were going to be passenger planes in 10 years?) That's the thing, ANYTHING the Green New Deal spends money on, will cost money. You may say that's obvious, but my point is that I doubt whatever the GND ends up pushing will make actual economic sense. And imagine spending money on electric planes, and they don't become passenger worthy in ten years. Is that a bust? Do we just spend more GND money on electric planes and wait longer? What if we can not quite get there even in 20 or 30 years? What if the right choice was not electrically powered traditional planes, but big, slow, air ships? Do they make sense for "short haul" commutes given their lack of speed? Or what if air ships are a boondoggle as well, and that technology can't be perfected in ten years? We have to either be willing to potentially waste federal money on Green New Deal projects that may never pan out, or, if we are disinclined to do so, we need to accept that the politician will be extremely risk averse with Green New Deal money. And guess what that means? Yep, you guessed it, trains and lots of them. Why? Because as that old saying goes, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
- wukerplank 8y ago

sandworm101 8y ago

Dont tell the bikers, the anti-car crowd who want to rip up all the roads and parking lots. One day soon cars will not be the great pollution evil they once were. If you believe the ai hype, soon bicycles will be killing far more people than cars. Then we shall confine them too to closed tracks. The last person to ride a bike on a public sidewalk is probably alive today. I am snowed in today. I want an EV but havent seen one that can handle a mountain highway in winter, something with the range and predictability to survive a canadian winter. Has anyone ever put chains on a tesla?

favorited 8y ago
> If you believe the ai hype, soon bicycles will be killing far more people than cars Citation, please.
trophycase 8y ago
Bikes kill people because cars kill people.

babypuncher 8y ago

Cars, regardless of their energy source, are still a problem. Even if we solve the climate impact of cars, we still need to solve the traffic problem. If our large urban centers want to continue their growth then desirable alternative transportation options need to be implemented, otherwise 2 hour commutes through traffic will just become the norm.

intopieces 8y ago

>The answer to climate change (at least as far as transportation goes) should very clearly be "EVs", with these "electric vehicles" being cars, trucks, semis, and short-haul planes. Unfortunately, you won't see this reflected in GND thinking. From the resolution [0]: overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail; So it seems like EVs are definitely part of the thinking. Perhaps you're referring to a line in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' website's FAQ, which has since been edited? She's definitely a prominent advocate and policy force of the Green New Deal but she is not "the Green New Dealers," who consist of many people [1], with many different opinions about implementation. [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

freefal 8y ago

While it's likely a non-starter legislatively, I believe the answer would be to pass a carbon cap & trade or tax system that simply prices greenhouse gases. That way we get what we want (less greenhouse gases) without proscribing a specific solution, whether it's high-speed rail, electric vehicles, or people keeping their gas vehicle and carpooling to work. If we get the incentives right, people will figure out how to minimize the increased cost in the way that is least painful for them.

empath75 8y ago

I think if we properly taxed carbon to account for all its externalities, all these alternative solutions would become much more viable.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Ironically? Here is what it actually says: H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail; Note the emphasis on technological feasibility and the use of “including” which typically means not limited to. Conservatives have been working overtime to twist this into an absolutist message.

separatrix 8y ago

One thing climate change debates have taught me is that people generally can't think past implementations and have incredible difficulty updating their implementation-specific mindsets. Hmm, interesting. I don’t mean to argue the facts, but just a quick google for the GND resolution [0] seems to contradict this claim. If anything the submitted resolution is overly idealistic, promoting an “everything-plus” strategy against climate change that won’t happen at all without a dramatic and underspecified political upheaval. In fact high speed rail is listed as “(iii)” in a list where “(i)” is “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing“. Here’s my question: do you think it’s possible that what you’ve actually been taught is a cognitive bias, that might be leading you to ignore disconfirmatory evidence about how other people think in favor of simpler but less predictive models? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio...

TACIXAT 8y ago

Cars suck though. Seriously. Roads take up a ton of space, traffic meets whatever capacity we provide it. They're pretty dangerous. I would much prefer to reimagine cities with fewer cars, and take care of long distance transportation with other (clean) means. Cars are getting greener, but they still have a ton of other negatives.

ummonk 8y ago
>traffic meets whatever capacity we provide it So the infrastructure investment actually gets utilized?
- zanny 8y ago
  What train systems, priced for volume and built in areas that aren't restricted from growing in response to the available transit, have failed to cause economic growth where they were built? All the examples I've ever heard have basically come down to one of those two conditions - either, if the trains weren't well built to provide for existing demand, they were crippled from causing growth where they were built due to zoning and building restrictions preventing natural build up around them, or due to a lack of immediate success (and projects like these take time to cause economic and behavioral shifts) were priced out of competitiveness with less efficient modes of transit and thus doomed from a bizarre need to "profit" from infrastructure.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    I'm highly supportive of rail transit. I'm just saying it's backwards to argue that expanding freeways just because to traffic will just fill up capacity. The same will happen if you expand successful rail transit as well. Capacity being filled up is a good sign in terms of efficient infrastructure investment - it means the infrastructure investment is being put to good use, and you should probably build more. As to your question though, VTA seems to have failed to spur economic growth, despite being priced for volume and built in areas that aren't restricted from growing in response to available transit.

robterrell 8y ago

You are slamming the "Green New Deal Thinking" for not including EV semis and planes, vehicles no one yet builds or sells? Semis are maybe more likely, but I don't want government energy policy to be planning on EV airplanes any more than, say, fusion reactors.

mamon 8y ago

Wait, the trains are also electric, aren't they? Does US still use ICE trains?

ghaff 8y ago
There are vast stretches of the US rail system that are not electrified. But I imagine the bulk of this part of the network is disproportionately used by cargo.
tropo 8y ago
Nearly all trains in the US burn diesel. Subways are an exception.

megaremote 8y ago

EVs are not the solution, they still require having a large part of our cities and suburbs covered in roads, which is ridiculous.

wwweston 8y ago

EVs are central to every focused conversation I've seen on the topic. As an example, one of the highest profile recent media discussions (Tucker Carlson interviewing AOC advisor Robert Hockett) featured the merits of having government coordinated rollout of charging stations (alongside the apparently high-effort enterprise of getting Carlson to believe that having one form of transportation supercede another might be accomplished by means other than bans and forcible seizures). I don't know what the promise of short-haul electric planes looks like; maybe that's real, maybe it's like AI predictions in the 80s. It'll be interesting to see what its profile looks like in the space defined by energy requirements per passenger/freight mile, desired vs efficient maximum speeds, overhead & logistics of loading/unloading, and maintenance costs. Though I'd be willing to bet that it's premature at best to assume that electric planes or autos will categorically dominate in every consideration.

yongjik 8y ago

I think you're mismatching problems and solutions. EVs are a solution for climate change. Modern railroads are a solution for commutes taking hours in Silicon Valley (and other places in CA). Electrifying all the single occupancy sedans in 101/680/880 won't do anything to the commute time.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
This 77 billion boondoggle would have done very little to improve commute times either. It is a mismatch as well. It isn't local transit, and would be serving a few stations at most in the bay area. It doesn't provide any new routes or alternatives other than moving farther out from the city.

emanuensis 8y ago

The main transport issue the US faces is sprawl. NO one vehicle, certainty not EVs, can solve that -- it is a system level issue. However i do believe that the last mile problem can be solved ... making the solution of the overall problem soluble by (public) transit (on steroids). The last mile issue could be solved with AV's (autonomous vehicles). Eg Ubers Jump could be outfitted to be an AV and transport Americans to a (usably frequent!) transit point. AVs could be made to work much easier (ie a shorter timeline) in the low density scenarios sprawl has produced, and which now make Public Transport infeasible.