5 ms·
I hate how we are doubling down on car centric transportation. Whether it’s an ICE or EV. At the end of the day, it’s another car on the road. We take one step
by xyst 3y ago
I hate how we are doubling down on car centric transportation. Whether it’s an ICE or EV. At the end of the day, it’s another car on the road.
We take one step further with reducing or zeroing out tail pipe emissions. But take 3 steps backwards because department of ~~~highway~~~ transportation engineers feel the need to expand the expensive highways to accommodate increased demand. Ignoring all historical evidence that widening interstate highways or state regional roads is not an efficient way to resolve the issue.
Let’s not forget the increased amount of tire wear particles released into the environment, brake dust, and eventually the e-waste when lithium based battery packs need to be changed out.
Also where are these vehicles going to be stored? More parking garages. Less walkable infrastructure. More subsidies for the suburban rat at the expense of cities. More heavier cars, trucks, and SUVs on the road means existing infrastructure breaks down must faster. Thus the need to replace more often or maintain more often. All of this at the expense of local cities and state budgets. Also most cities tend to ask voters to approve municipal bonds for such improvements. These are private financial instruments or loans that need to be paid back to private investors. Each new muni bond is one more step towards filing for bankruptcy (hello Detroit!)
Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income, housing for everyone, easily accessible public transportation, improved paramedic, fire and police response times.
We wAnT mOrE eXpEnSiVe RoAdS aNd hIgHwAyS aNd fReE pArKiNg GaRaGeS!!111
- infamouscow 3y agoMassive changes to how most people think about anything in society are non-starters. Doubly-so with something as central to the American lifestyle like transportation. I don't understand why this is so difficult for some people to grasp.
- typewithrhythm 3y agoNot everyone is a socialist, or high density enthusiast. Personally I want the local government to only spend money in ways that result in people being more independent of a dense centre, that allows people to have more control over their immediate environment, and less impact from neibours. Roads and highways are worth the expense, I am not convinced when it comes to many other public infrastructure or services.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoSocialism? The current transportation system is largely through taxes and no not gas taxes. The way it works is that gas taxes and Federal funds are used to pay for interstates, arterials, and collector roads in almost every state and MSA in the US (pretty much any municipality big enough to apply for transportation grants.) The Federal government then helps fund road construction while states and consequently cities take the maintenance burden on. Maintenance itself is paid for through a combination of gas and state taxes along with Federal grants which are also based on other taxes. The current system is already largely funded through taxation. It's just a matter of whether you think those taxes should be spent on creating and maintaining roads or whether you think they should be spent on transit. The closest to use taxes we have is the gas tax and the Federal one hasn't been raised since 1993 (state taxes differ per state and have been raised more recently.) If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular.
- typewithrhythm 3y agoYou have a very unsophisticated comprehension if you are taking funded with taxes to be the same as socialism. The part of the parents comment that was directed at was "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..."
- kalleboo 3y ago> If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular. One example of this is Japan, where nearly all of the highways are privatized and tolled. To get to the nearest metropolis to me I can either drive for 3.5 hours and pay $60 in tolls+gas, or ride the bullet train for 1.5 hours for $70. (Now as soon as you have a family of people in that car, the train starts looking really expensive, but for business travelers it's a no-brainer)
- kiba 3y agoChoosing roads and highways are a form of central planning. Single Family Homes zoning and lack of mixed use zoning are a form of central planning. The government is intimately involved with regulating and encouraging car centric transportation. Ultimately, using the term 'socialism' is a useless label especially when it is misapplied. It is better to discuss specific policies and details.
- kcnenskcfn 3y ago[flagged]
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago[dead]
- crooked-v 3y agoIf you're talking 'destroying homes', consider how many neighborhoods have been torn down in their entirety to build city highway interchanges.
- kiba 3y agoImproving car technology is good, but it cannot solve the fundamental problem of geometry. Cars just need a lot of space to store and drive. There are mode of transportation that are lower impact on the environment such as the humble bicycle.
- baggy_trough 3y agoIt's good, then, that we have a lot of space.
- kiba 3y agoSpace, unsurprisingly, are at a premium within cities and even suburban area. You can only widen the roads so many time that you may start to demolish homes. Rural areas are where it makes the most senses to have cars.
- baggy_trough 3y ago> We wAnT mOrE eXpEnSiVe RoAdS aNd hIgHwAyS aNd fReE pArKiNg GaRaGeS!!111 Yes, we want these things, because cars are overwhelmingly popular.
- vkou 3y agoA wealthy society is not one where poor people own cars, it's one where they can afford to not to.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoGo live in a city like Milwaukee then? 85% of the land area of Wisconsin has less than 100 people per square mile - it isn't clear to me at all how even the richest society could blanket that area with useful public transit.
- earthling8118 3y agoWe managed to blanket it with cars and roads despite them being unaffordable in the long term. We can do it just fine.
- baggy_trough 3y agoWhy do you think cars and roads are unaffordable in the long term?
- frumper 3y agoWisconsin is bigger than England with 10% of the population. It’s missing the mass in mass transit. Wisconsin is middle of the pack for density in the US.
- jen20 3y agoAnd not even England makes trains work unless you’re (basically) rich and in a city center, or need to go anywhere other than London.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alextheterrible 3y ago> We wAnT mOrE eXpEnSiVe RoAdS aNd hIgHwAyS You bet. Plenty of choo choo trains available to ride in Europe and Asia.
- jwells89 3y agoAs someone who’s lived in Japan, immensely enjoys its train system, and wants to see an equivalent established in the US… Unfortunately, I don’t see a way for it to happen in a timely manner. Even if everybody dropped everything and started working on public rail tomorrow, with all the red tape, obstruction from a variety of parties, and general glacial nature of construction here it’d be an uphill struggle to get even a quarter of the country’s populated regions thoroughly covered with rail in the next 50 years. If given the chance I’ll vote for implementation of public rail and am happy to fund it with my taxes, but I think electric cars are unavoidable in the interim. It’s better than continuing to burn fossil fuels that whole time.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoI'm a transit activist. The infrastructure bill allocated more money for transit ($39 billion) and Amtrak ($66 billion) than EVs. The funding for EV chargers is a mere $7.5 billion. If anything, the angst should be directed toward the $110 billion allocated to roads and highways. EVs are mostly just harm reduction. An important step but not the end goal in cities.
- Tagbert 3y agoThese are not MOAR CARS these are replacing the existing cars to cut down on the CO2 emissions. EVs do contribute to brake dust but they do not produce as much brake dust as ICEVs. Yes, there is mining now for lithium, but that has limits. As the car fleet is switched over, the lithium and other minerals in the batteries are very recyclable. There are several companies with pilot recycling programs in place already even though the volume is small. Not sure about your area but in our city, they are just finishing a massive expansion of the light rail network with more planned. The busses are being converted to be EVs, too.
- tzs 3y ago> Also where are these vehicles going to be stored? I'd expect most people are going to store their new EV where they previously stored whatever car they traded in when they bought the EV. > Also most cities tend to ask voters to approve municipal bonds for such improvements. These are private financial instruments or loans that need to be paid back to private investors. Each new muni bond is one more step towards filing for bankruptcy (hello Detroit!) ... > Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income, housing for everyone, easily accessible public transportation, improved paramedic, fire and police response times. Wouldn't many of those things on your list likely need in most cities to be funded by bonds?
- toast0 3y ago> Ignoring all historical evidence that widening interstate highways or state regional roads is not an efficient way to resolve the issue. If the issue is transportation demand exceeds transportation supply for some portion of the day, and that portion is too high. I think you're right, there are more efficient ways. Reducing transportation demand is much more efficient than increasing transportation supply. Departments of transportation should be engineering recessions, pandemics, or ground wars to reduce our societal demand for transportation to enable commuting. Alternatively, they should consider forciably relocating some residents our of their survey area and limit population growth.
- paholg 3y agoThat is an impressively shit take and piss poor reading of the comment you're replying to. I would enumerate some of the many problems in your comment, but I can't believe you would take it in good faith.