2 ms·

Either this article is contentless compared to the press release or the press release itself is just based on platitudes. Don't fucking “incentivize” alternati

Either this article is contentless compared to the press release or the press release itself is just based on platitudes. Don't fucking “incentivize” alternatives to the five-seater. Architecture it. Make more of the urban area car-free.[1] Make other modes of transportation superior except for things like emergency care. Am I holding my breath for cheap bus fares and actual bikelanes? Not exactly. The usual fare is to keep maintaining and upgrading the road network with only automobiles in mind and then act surprised when people keep choosing the mode of transporation that the infrastructure was built around. Cheaper EVs was a nice way to pander to the middle class. There is less of a reason to pander to people who either don't own a car or can't afford the more expensive (at least back then) EVs. That's why there is less of a chance to see cheaper bus fares. > EVs already have escape velocity in Norway to replace ICE cars, and incentivizing more walking and cycling not only promotes more efficient modes of short distance travel, but makes the population healthier. > Over reliance on cars kills us slowly via lifestyle degradation. Many people who work in Oslo can't afford to live in Oslo (I'm sure many can relate). Then they get stuck in traffic for hours a day because many others, you know, live outside of the bikeable/walkable core. Commuting home from perhaps a sedentary job. Then this gets labeled as a matter of lifestyle. What the hell? [1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/byutvikling/bilfritt-byliv/ https://www.oslo.kommune.no/byutvikling/bilfritt-byliv/

ambicapter 3y ago
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If the living space is architected the way it is, people will gravitate towards the most convenient method to access it (cars). If you prioritize re-architecting you will find it difficult to move people already invested in the depreciating asset which is their vehicle, out of it. At the same time they won't move out of their car until the other transportation options are, if not equally, at least somewhat close to convenient. So basically you need to tug a little on both sides, have fewer people using cars, then it's easier to make changes that affect those cars in favor of greener transport architecture, cycle and repeat.

ambicapter 3y ago

It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If the living space is architected the way it is, people will gravitate towards the most convenient method to access it (cars). If you prioritize re-architecting you will find it difficult to move people already invested in the depreciating asset which is their vehicle, out of it. At the same time they won't move out of their car until the other transportation options are, if not equally, at least somewhat close to convenient. So basically you need to tug a little on both sides, have fewer people using cars, then it's easier to make changes that affect those cars in favor of greener transport architecture, cycle and repeat.