5 ms·
IMO, this is much closer to the direction we should be heading. The typical 4-seat, 1600+ kg, to move around one or two people, at a total of ~200kg, is just s
by cashsterling 7y ago
IMO, this is much closer to the direction we should be heading.
The typical 4-seat, 1600+ kg, to move around one or two people, at a total of ~200kg, is just stupid. Most of the energy is spent just moving the car... very inefficient.
Also, the environmental footprint of manufacturing modern cars is horrible: metals mining and refining, fabrication, waste from manufacturing, the energy to do it all. Making Li-ion batteries is extremely energy intensive; which is one reason they are so expensive.
- amiga_500 7y agoWe should live near stuff we use repeatedly. Schools. Work. Shops. Walk there. This is the only solution with our existing technology.
- CameronNemo 7y agoSomeone tell California.
- asdff 7y agoCA is trying. Most of the new apartments being built are mixed use developments. In LA you can live above your bodega above your subway station in some of these apartments.
- CameronNemo 7y agoMaybe in some small pockets of LA. But the vast majority is hills and hills of single family homes. And many suburban cities and towns are actively resisting state measures to make housing affordable and transit available.
- olivermarks 7y agoCalifornia is huge. France has a long tradition of flimsy lightweight vehicles (Deux Chevaux etc) for local use, this is a logical extension of this cultural norm.
- CameronNemo 7y agoFrance is larger than California, but both have similar overall population densities. I bet France has fewer metropolitan centers, though.
- olivermarks 7y agohttps://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/citroen-2cv/ https://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/citroen-2cv/
- ken 7y agoHave you seen the price of rent recently? That's a nice dream but half the people I know can't afford to live within 25 miles of where they work. <$100 a month in gas will save >$750 a month in rent. The economics aren't there, and most people won't act against their own economic self interest.
- Pfhreak 7y agoWe should invest in excellent public housing, and not require it to fund its own maintenance. Build more units, rent them below market rates.
- papermachete 7y agoNo, we shouldn't. I don't want my tax money being wasted on people getting a better place to live. What's next, loners and the elderly should be outcast to the outskirts?
- 0xfaded 7y agoIf tax dollars were spent exactly how each individual tax payers wanted them to be, there would be little point in taxation. And I highly doubt that someone living in public housing who is able to live close to work would see those tax dollars being "wasted". The right to own private property is more or less bought through taxes. If the deal becomes too unfair, you get Trump or Bernie. If the deal becomes untenable, you get guillotines.
- Pfhreak 7y agoWhat? Right now people are being forced to the outskirts. Especially the elderly, the poor, etc. A healthy supply of non commodity housing keeps them in the neighborhood.
- papermachete 7y agoThat's just the free market. The same free market that decides a structured bunch of bricks should cost 10x more in SF than Austin.
- franga2000 7y agoThat simply can't work. Do I move every time I switch jobs? What if me and my partner don't work in the same area? Do we really need a hardware store every [insert average reasonable walking distance]? The solution is good public transport. If every car owner dumped as much money into public transport as they do for only the registration of their cars, we could have a (methane or better) bus every 5 minutes on every street. This would still be better for the environment, cheaper and safer than cars.
- int_19h 7y agoPeople dump so much money into cars because cars provide convenience and comfort that public transport generally does not.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoThat simply can't work. It used to, widespread car ownership is a relatively recent innovation.
- amiga_500 7y ago1. longer tenure at jobs 2. moving is a simple matter as after we stop financialisation of land it is no longer a huge financial gamble 3. money for good schools everywhere because we are taxing land and spivs cannot avoid it