4 ms·
Most of the forms of travel that are energy and space efficient are typically not time efficient due to inherent tradeoffs. Nothing saves time, space, and energ
by biomcgary 4y ago
Most of the forms of travel that are energy and space efficient are typically not time efficient due to inherent tradeoffs. Nothing saves time, space, and energy simultaneously like not commuting in the first place. To butcher an old phrase, "Think globally, live locally".
Universal-ish WFH dramatically undercuts the need for both energy and infrastructure (which also takes energy) and will allow us to scale back both dramatically (e.g., multi-lane roads), while saving lives and giving employees more life flexibility.
Advocates for public transportation (for environmental reasons, particularly) risk fighting the last war. They should shift focus to WFH instead. I really don't understand why Greens and Labor don't push for WFH mandates (for environmental and quality of life reasons, respectively). Probably too tied to the commercial real estate industry.
- wizofaus 4y agoYou seem to be replying to my original comment which I deleted on realising it didn't make sense in the context of the GP post about taking advantage of charging EVs at the office. FWIW almost nobody in the downtown area (CBD) where I work drives there, it'd be crazy to try. Luckily for me it's a 15 minute bike ride (mostly bike paths) and there's good end-of-trip facilities.
- biomcgary 4y agoYes, I was replying to your original comment, which was deleted by the time I posted it. I decided to post on your new comment just to save the thought, which was new to me.
- twblalock 4y agoUniversal WFH put more stress on the power grid in California during the lockdowns than was normally the case, because everyone was running their heat and AC more often than normal. The result was rolling blackouts.