4 ms·
Half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles.[0] If even a quarter of already existing roads were turned over for use by pedestrians and cyclists, then mos
by dublinben 4y ago
Half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles.[0] If even a quarter of already existing roads were turned over for use by pedestrians and cyclists, then most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. That would substantially reduce our use of gas for transportation overnight, save hundreds of millions of dollars, and millions of tons of CO2 emissions. It would also have secondary effects of improving local air and water quality, improving physical and mental health, lowering healthcare costs, and reducing future infrastructure costs.[1]
Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. From there, we could tackle the more difficult challenges you mention of the remaining quarter of oil used for industrial purposes. None of these problems are impossible to solve. Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution.
[0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
[1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-parked-trips-less-one-mile https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-p...
- landemva 4y agoDo you have neighbors in USA who will walk three miles to the grocery store? USA is ridiculously obese, so those walks would be good in many ways.
- adrianN 4y agoWalking and driving are not the only two options.
- notacoward 4y ago> most people could accomplish those trips without driving with little to no new infrastructure investment. Cost is not the only issue. Often not even the main one. Please go to a town meeting (or planning board meeting) some time. Pay attention to what arguments people actually put forth, and how. They'll cite not only cost but inconvenience, damage to local businesses, historical character, even environmental issues. And here's the thing: any new project has to win every one of those battles, while the NIMBYs only have to win one. That's what we call systemic bias. It can be fixed eventually, but not just hand-waved over. Until then, better sidewalks and bike lanes will take years in most towns if they're allowed to proceed at all, even when the money is readily available. > Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. Not just political will but authoritarian political will. The US is a country where toxic individualism rules all, to the extent that even agreeing to pay our bills is a major political fight. Starting major new initiatives is even harder, which is why there haven't been many since NASA was formed. The structural support for obstructionism has to be weakened - local, state, federal - before meaningful change can occur. > None of these problems are impossible to solve. Not impossible, but not easy. > Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution. Neither does hand-waving, which seems to be the favorite way to do nothing productive around here lately. Recognizing the difficulty or complexity of a problem isn't defeatism. Would you make that claim about building a new compiler or relational database? Indeed, that recognition is an essential part of doing the planning and resource marshaling to solve a problem where and how it needs to be solved. The Manhattan Project didn't go with the first day's design. Neither did NASA. Neither did the allies at Normandy. Nor, most relevantly, did cities and countries that did put in decent transit infrastructure. "Just whack away at it without a clue and look down your nose at anyone not joining you" is not generally the way to really get things done. And if you don't like that characterization, fix your own first.