4 ms·

> I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices OP of this comment tree is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But I think it should su

> I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices OP of this comment tree is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But I think it should suffice to make the alternatives more attractive. People are open to renewables, but not a drastic reduction in their quality of life. We should not demand a reduction or stagnation in quality-of-life for developing countries either as it's inhumane. Ostensibly they would be just as interested in pursuing renewable tech if it can help them grow.

JAlexoid 3y ago
Suburban sprawl is both ecologically and financially unsustainable, with city dwellers subsidizing suburban living.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Trivially resolved through zoning reform. Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" will not deter sprawl or achieve anything of note, it will just be considered fringe fanaticism. > unsustainable The global population growth rate is going to stall, and by extension, cities will cease to grow. Sustainability is a moot point.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    > Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" Which I never engaged in. Banning cars is nonsense and is counter productive. > The global population growth rate is going to stall If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. That's the whole point. We don't even have to have any growth in population.
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      > If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. Leaving aside that we aren't, sustainability necessarily implies perpetual increase. This hypothetical doesn't make sense. If the demand were there to supply everyone with a vehicle, we would, the materials are there. That would of course result in environmental encroachment, but not indefinitely. Plus vehicles on the road will all be EV in the coming decades.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  Which adds salt to the wound because car traffic in denser areas is largely caused by the surrounding suburbs, as the locals can get to places by walking and transit, and often don't even have a car.
- treis 3y ago
  This is a widely believed factoid on the internets but is not supported by the numbers. Roads have always been a relatively small percentage of government spending and has been going down over time. The big ticket items for local & state governments are criminal justice, education, health, and in many areas pensions for retirees. This site has a good graph half way down showing the relative growth in spending by area: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20state%20and%20local%20motor%20fuel%20tax%20revenue%20(%24,billion)%20provided%20another%2011%20percent https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative....
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    Roads aren't the only expense, just like you said.
ska 3y ago
> is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But it's a conversation and I am rejecting that framing. Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game. They are a natural result of a ton of policy interactions and subsidies, and the focus on it clearly has +ves and -ves. And of course it's always nice if you can get someone else to partially pay for your lifestyle, but that's inherently got downsides. I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. Will fewer people choose to live in suburbs? Sure - that's how incentives work. I don't think "banning cars" makes any sense. But if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving, which doesn't seem like a bad outcome, and more likely to have +ve impact than the fantasy that EVs are a drop in replacement for ICEs, no other changes needed.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc. > I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. No one's saying that. I fully support zoning reform. If one's imagination leads to such bright ideas as "ban cars" however, it will have more detractors. > if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving That is possible and I support it also.
  - ska 3y ago
    > Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc. Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices. However, there is no reason to assume that if those policies change, peoples impressions and preferences won't change too. Quite the opposite, actually - that's just how incentives (and the related PR) work.

JAlexoid 3y ago

Suburban sprawl is both ecologically and financially unsustainable, with city dwellers subsidizing suburban living.

slothtrop 3y ago
Trivially resolved through zoning reform. Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" will not deter sprawl or achieve anything of note, it will just be considered fringe fanaticism. > unsustainable The global population growth rate is going to stall, and by extension, cities will cease to grow. Sustainability is a moot point.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" Which I never engaged in. Banning cars is nonsense and is counter productive. > The global population growth rate is going to stall If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. That's the whole point. We don't even have to have any growth in population.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. Leaving aside that we aren't, sustainability necessarily implies perpetual increase. This hypothetical doesn't make sense. If the demand were there to supply everyone with a vehicle, we would, the materials are there. That would of course result in environmental encroachment, but not indefinitely. Plus vehicles on the road will all be EV in the coming decades.
david-gpu 3y ago
Which adds salt to the wound because car traffic in denser areas is largely caused by the surrounding suburbs, as the locals can get to places by walking and transit, and often don't even have a car.
treis 3y ago
This is a widely believed factoid on the internets but is not supported by the numbers. Roads have always been a relatively small percentage of government spending and has been going down over time. The big ticket items for local & state governments are criminal justice, education, health, and in many areas pensions for retirees. This site has a good graph half way down showing the relative growth in spending by area: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20state%20and%20local%20motor%20fuel%20tax%20revenue%20(%24,billion)%20provided%20another%2011%20percent https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative....
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  Roads aren't the only expense, just like you said.

ska 3y ago

> is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But it's a conversation and I am rejecting that framing. Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game. They are a natural result of a ton of policy interactions and subsidies, and the focus on it clearly has +ves and -ves. And of course it's always nice if you can get someone else to partially pay for your lifestyle, but that's inherently got downsides. I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. Will fewer people choose to live in suburbs? Sure - that's how incentives work. I don't think "banning cars" makes any sense. But if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving, which doesn't seem like a bad outcome, and more likely to have +ve impact than the fantasy that EVs are a drop in replacement for ICEs, no other changes needed.

slothtrop 3y ago
> Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc. > I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. No one's saying that. I fully support zoning reform. If one's imagination leads to such bright ideas as "ban cars" however, it will have more detractors. > if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving That is possible and I support it also.
- ska 3y ago
  > Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc. Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices. However, there is no reason to assume that if those policies change, peoples impressions and preferences won't change too. Quite the opposite, actually - that's just how incentives (and the related PR) work.