3 ms·

... but we shouldn't be trying to replace every single ICV with an EV? That seems like a silly goal. We have too many cars. EV's are a stop-gap, a cushion, a bu

... but we shouldn't be trying to replace every single ICV with an EV? That seems like a silly goal. We have too many cars. EV's are a stop-gap, a cushion, a buffer. The real goal are livable, productive areas with good public infrastructure that aren't designed around cars. All the infrastructure to support cars is a big part of the problem: concrete! Storm sewer systems! Traffic control! Highways cutting off migratory paths of native fauna! And the side effects of designing cities around cars: noise, auto collisions, pedestrian fatalities! This is more automaker/oil industry FUD.

hedora 4y ago
Actually, next generation concrete is one of the more promising carbon sinks. Also, trains also have most of the issues you mentioned, and they have accessibility issues that cars solve. We should be working toward minimizing total ecological impact, and simultaneously maximizing the number of workers our cities can accommodate each day. That means more cars, more bike lanes, high density housing near offices, higher throughput public transportation, and more telecommuting. All of those are equally important. In most parts of the US, cars are extremely overfunded compared to the other stuff in that list.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Wow, so incredibly wrong an almost all counts. Concrete currently is the literal opposite of a carbon sink and this will not change anytime soon. Trains either don't have any of the issues or have them at an incredibly low level. So low that comparing it to car infrastructure its utterly ridiculous to even discuss them. > That means more cars, That makes literally 0 sense. Like actually 0. Cars are the single most inefficient way of transport both in terms of space and energy. Literally anytime you have access to cars you could use the same space for MUCH MUCH more access for buses, metros, trains, bikes or literally anything else. > high density housing near offices Yeah and where are all those cars gone be parked? I guess its either in parking lots, making it low density. Or you have to build hugely expensive underground parking garages. And if you go underground, that money would be better invested in something else.

hedora 4y ago

Actually, next generation concrete is one of the more promising carbon sinks. Also, trains also have most of the issues you mentioned, and they have accessibility issues that cars solve. We should be working toward minimizing total ecological impact, and simultaneously maximizing the number of workers our cities can accommodate each day. That means more cars, more bike lanes, high density housing near offices, higher throughput public transportation, and more telecommuting. All of those are equally important. In most parts of the US, cars are extremely overfunded compared to the other stuff in that list.

panick21_ 4y ago
Wow, so incredibly wrong an almost all counts. Concrete currently is the literal opposite of a carbon sink and this will not change anytime soon. Trains either don't have any of the issues or have them at an incredibly low level. So low that comparing it to car infrastructure its utterly ridiculous to even discuss them. > That means more cars, That makes literally 0 sense. Like actually 0. Cars are the single most inefficient way of transport both in terms of space and energy. Literally anytime you have access to cars you could use the same space for MUCH MUCH more access for buses, metros, trains, bikes or literally anything else. > high density housing near offices Yeah and where are all those cars gone be parked? I guess its either in parking lots, making it low density. Or you have to build hugely expensive underground parking garages. And if you go underground, that money would be better invested in something else.