7 ms·

I hear a lot of people saying "the future isn't X" when they really mean "I wish the future wasn't X". The future absent radical change of cultural heart clear

I hear a lot of people saying "the future isn't X" when they really mean "I wish the future wasn't X". The future absent radical change of cultural heart clearly is personal EVs. You don't have to like it, but it's the direction 99% of countries are moving and clearly normal people do want it.

mupuff1234 3y ago
> 99% of countries A large percentage of the world's population commutes on mopeds/scooters.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  > A large percentage of the world's population commutes on mopeds/scooters. That is due to lack of money not lack of desire. If you asked the moped/scooter riders if they would rather have a car, they would choose a car. As countries become more developed and wealthier, more people will be able to afford cars and car use will increase.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Scooters are probably the most rapidly electrifying class of personal vehicle.
  - mupuff1234 3y ago
    Yes, but the comment I was replying to was referring to car EVs, not scooters.
webdood90 3y ago
people _think_ it's what they want because it's all they know. cities should be pushing for alternatives because they're better in literally every possible way, except convenience. better for our safety, for our health, for the environment, for less noise, for the cost, for a sense of community, for the saved space, and so on.
- standardUser 3y ago
  > cities should be pushing for alternatives Most are, but a massive number of Americans live in sprawling suburbs and small-to-medium sized towns, not cities. Most of those places are ill-suited (to the extreme) for mass transit and other non-car options - yet they are perfectly designed to handle cars.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    63% of Americans live in an urban area having a population density greater than 1,500 per square mile. There's no agreed-upon definition of "sprawl", but it's generally computed at being under 2,000 residents per square mile. None of the people collecting this particular data used that definition, they used 1,500. Even so, some 2/3 of Americans live in areas that would benefit from pursuing alternatives.
    - standardUser 3y ago
      As someone who has driven around a lot of this giant country, that 2/3rds number sounds hopelessly optimistic. Most places that fit that criteria are still remarkably ill-suited for mass transit solutions. Because they were deliberately designed that way.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Yeah, there's more to it than just population density. There also needs to be a sufficient density of walkable places for people to take transit to, and that's also missing in much of American suburbia. Bog standard suburban strip mall is way too spread out and buried in a sea of parking lots. They're simply not designed around pedestrian travel.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Suburbs are not that badly suited to mass transit. It costs more per person than in denser cities, but most suburbs are dense enough to support great mass transit, and it would be cheaper than the cost of cars. However great is key. This means you need great operations: including worse case waiting time everyone should be 15 minutes or less from a place where they can find plenty things to do in the community (stores, parks, schools); and a transfer to express service to elsewhere. If you don't have great transit: people in the suburbs can afford a car, and traffic isn't a problem so they will just drive. Note that this is a higher level of service than many downtowns get. The above is very very expensive. However cars are very very very expensive.
aplummer 3y ago
I mean, 99% of countries absolutely not. 1 big wealthy country, absolutely yes.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Literally every country that moves from low to middle income, or middle income to wealthy, gets more personal vehicles because it's what people want. Denying this or misunderstanding human nature will not get you closer to mass transit, you have to first understand what motivates people before trying to convince them of another path.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    Owning a personal vehicle, is not inherently at the expense of mass or public transit. Building cities and infrastructure that precludes anything other than personal vehicles - that what forces people to use them primarily. Human nature wants convenience. A personal vehicle is not always the most convenient transport method.
orwin 3y ago
I'm widely doubtful about personnal EV. The renewable energy production chain growth this year is already slowing down, and we will probably be 20-30% under the net0 objectives in renewable production by 2030. Objectives that did not take into account metal availability either, so we could fall of behind really, really quick.

mupuff1234 3y ago

> 99% of countries A large percentage of the world's population commutes on mopeds/scooters.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> A large percentage of the world's population commutes on mopeds/scooters. That is due to lack of money not lack of desire. If you asked the moped/scooter riders if they would rather have a car, they would choose a car. As countries become more developed and wealthier, more people will be able to afford cars and car use will increase.
thfuran 3y ago
Scooters are probably the most rapidly electrifying class of personal vehicle.
- mupuff1234 3y ago
  Yes, but the comment I was replying to was referring to car EVs, not scooters.

webdood90 3y ago

people _think_ it's what they want because it's all they know. cities should be pushing for alternatives because they're better in literally every possible way, except convenience. better for our safety, for our health, for the environment, for less noise, for the cost, for a sense of community, for the saved space, and so on.

standardUser 3y ago
> cities should be pushing for alternatives Most are, but a massive number of Americans live in sprawling suburbs and small-to-medium sized towns, not cities. Most of those places are ill-suited (to the extreme) for mass transit and other non-car options - yet they are perfectly designed to handle cars.
- taylodl 3y ago
  63% of Americans live in an urban area having a population density greater than 1,500 per square mile. There's no agreed-upon definition of "sprawl", but it's generally computed at being under 2,000 residents per square mile. None of the people collecting this particular data used that definition, they used 1,500. Even so, some 2/3 of Americans live in areas that would benefit from pursuing alternatives.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    As someone who has driven around a lot of this giant country, that 2/3rds number sounds hopelessly optimistic. Most places that fit that criteria are still remarkably ill-suited for mass transit solutions. Because they were deliberately designed that way.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Yeah, there's more to it than just population density. There also needs to be a sufficient density of walkable places for people to take transit to, and that's also missing in much of American suburbia. Bog standard suburban strip mall is way too spread out and buried in a sea of parking lots. They're simply not designed around pedestrian travel.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Suburbs are not that badly suited to mass transit. It costs more per person than in denser cities, but most suburbs are dense enough to support great mass transit, and it would be cheaper than the cost of cars. However great is key. This means you need great operations: including worse case waiting time everyone should be 15 minutes or less from a place where they can find plenty things to do in the community (stores, parks, schools); and a transfer to express service to elsewhere. If you don't have great transit: people in the suburbs can afford a car, and traffic isn't a problem so they will just drive. Note that this is a higher level of service than many downtowns get. The above is very very expensive. However cars are very very very expensive.

aplummer 3y ago

I mean, 99% of countries absolutely not. 1 big wealthy country, absolutely yes.

justrealist 3y ago
Literally every country that moves from low to middle income, or middle income to wealthy, gets more personal vehicles because it's what people want. Denying this or misunderstanding human nature will not get you closer to mass transit, you have to first understand what motivates people before trying to convince them of another path.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  Owning a personal vehicle, is not inherently at the expense of mass or public transit. Building cities and infrastructure that precludes anything other than personal vehicles - that what forces people to use them primarily. Human nature wants convenience. A personal vehicle is not always the most convenient transport method.

orwin 3y ago

I'm widely doubtful about personnal EV. The renewable energy production chain growth this year is already slowing down, and we will probably be 20-30% under the net0 objectives in renewable production by 2030. Objectives that did not take into account metal availability either, so we could fall of behind really, really quick.