3 ms·

> healthier cities > move through cities > cities populated with these vehicles This article seems to be forgetting how many people don't live in cities. >

by mreome 7y ago

> healthier cities > move through cities > cities populated with these vehicles This article seems to be forgetting how many people don't live in cities. > For long distance trips, inclement weather, or for the elderly or disabled, of course cars will still play a role. In the part of the US I live in, about about 4 continuous months of the year could easily be described as "inclement weather" and many of my coworker's daily commutes would qualify as "long distance trips" (with no mass-transit alternatives). A more traditional vehicle is not an option, it's a requirement, and electric vehicles seem like the most intimidate route to meeting that requirement while reducing the environmental impact. While I think focusing on alternatives to cars in urban areas is a great idea, and has potentially massive benefits beyond even the obvious environmental impact, any long-term view of the automotive industry has to take into consideration the needs of the roughly 50% of the population that doesn't live in urban centers.

ForHackernews 7y ago
The majority (>60%) of Americans live in cities: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.... A environment designed and built to make car-ownership a requirement (your word) has massive ecological and sociological downsides, and we should be doing what we can to shift away from it.
- kemitche 7y ago
  That article says the average population density of cities is ~1,500 per square mile. NYC has a population density of ~27,000 people per square mile. There's a huge gap in the viability of foregoing a car between cities of those densities. A large portion of the US's cities are a LONG way from being able to go car-free.
- cheald 7y ago
  Phoenix is the 5th most populous city in the US and spans 517 square miles. The Phoenix Metro area spans over 14,000 square miles. Good luck navigating that on your scooter - especially with kids or cargo. "Cities" don't necessarily mean "densely-packed sardine cans where people conduct their entire lives within a 2 mile radius of home".
  - xbmcuser 7y ago
    In the last 5 years how many times did you have to travel 100 miles in a day. For most people it would be less then 5. Cars are mostly wasteful where you use energy to move few tons when actually want to move just 100-200kg.
    - cheald 7y ago
      Me personally? Quite a few. Work is 43 miles each way. My mom's 53 miles away. Not that unusual for Phoenix residents, particularly those who live out in the suburbs where housing is more affordable. Weekend activities are frequently 20-30+ miles from home.
- mreome 7y ago
  > Four places in Alaska are among the nation’s largest in land area, such as Sitka city and borough, which consists of 2,870.4 square miles of land and has 3.1 people per square mile That percentage is quite inflated though because they're using the legal definition of "city." Where I live just recently incorporated and is now a "city" but that doesn't mean people aren't still commuting 20+ miles to work in the winter. That being said, I could easily imagine 40%-50% of people living in dense urban areas either now or in the near future, but there are always going to be a significant portion of people who don't. Given that, the article's premise that the future of transportation is just "personal electric vehicles like e-bikes, scooters, or micro-cars" makes little sense, even if these can replace traditional cars in dense urban settings, there are still going to be a huge number of people who will need a more traditional sized/styled vehicle. That being the case, traditionally sized electric (or other non-fossil fuel) vehicles (such as Teslas) need to be part of the future of transportation if we want to reduce the overall negative impacts we have on the environment. I would also disagree that there are more "sociological downsides" to living outside of dense urban environments (there are pros and cons to each), but that feels like an entirely separate debate. =]

by mreome 7y ago

ForHackernews 7y ago

The majority (>60%) of Americans live in cities: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.... A environment designed and built to make car-ownership a requirement (your word) has massive ecological and sociological downsides, and we should be doing what we can to shift away from it.

kemitche 7y ago
That article says the average population density of cities is ~1,500 per square mile. NYC has a population density of ~27,000 people per square mile. There's a huge gap in the viability of foregoing a car between cities of those densities. A large portion of the US's cities are a LONG way from being able to go car-free.
cheald 7y ago
Phoenix is the 5th most populous city in the US and spans 517 square miles. The Phoenix Metro area spans over 14,000 square miles. Good luck navigating that on your scooter - especially with kids or cargo. "Cities" don't necessarily mean "densely-packed sardine cans where people conduct their entire lives within a 2 mile radius of home".
- xbmcuser 7y ago
  In the last 5 years how many times did you have to travel 100 miles in a day. For most people it would be less then 5. Cars are mostly wasteful where you use energy to move few tons when actually want to move just 100-200kg.
  - cheald 7y ago
    Me personally? Quite a few. Work is 43 miles each way. My mom's 53 miles away. Not that unusual for Phoenix residents, particularly those who live out in the suburbs where housing is more affordable. Weekend activities are frequently 20-30+ miles from home.
mreome 7y ago
> Four places in Alaska are among the nation’s largest in land area, such as Sitka city and borough, which consists of 2,870.4 square miles of land and has 3.1 people per square mile That percentage is quite inflated though because they're using the legal definition of "city." Where I live just recently incorporated and is now a "city" but that doesn't mean people aren't still commuting 20+ miles to work in the winter. That being said, I could easily imagine 40%-50% of people living in dense urban areas either now or in the near future, but there are always going to be a significant portion of people who don't. Given that, the article's premise that the future of transportation is just "personal electric vehicles like e-bikes, scooters, or micro-cars" makes little sense, even if these can replace traditional cars in dense urban settings, there are still going to be a huge number of people who will need a more traditional sized/styled vehicle. That being the case, traditionally sized electric (or other non-fossil fuel) vehicles (such as Teslas) need to be part of the future of transportation if we want to reduce the overall negative impacts we have on the environment. I would also disagree that there are more "sociological downsides" to living outside of dense urban environments (there are pros and cons to each), but that feels like an entirely separate debate. =]