41–50 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We wAnT mOrE eXpEnSiVe RoAdS aNd hIgHwAyS aNd fReE pArKiNg GaRaGeS!!111 Yes, we want these things, because cars are overwhelmingly popular.
A wealthy society is not one where poor people own cars, it's one where they can afford to not to.
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 t…
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.
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 t…
[flagged]
There are mode of transportation that are lower impact on the environment such as the humble bicycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look where Tesla puts their Superchargers [1]. There’s a reason they go at businesses instead of rest areas. If you site them where they are at the whim of politics, your infra is in constant political/bureaucratic peril. Businesses are incentivized to keep customers coming. Tangentially, the EV chargers are always out of order at O’hare and Midway airport parking lots. The Superchargers at the nearby gas station (OR…
> There’s a reason they go at businesses instead of rest areas. With a few grandfathered exceptions, rest areas are prohibited from hosting private enterprise.
https://www.tesla.com/en_US/findus/location/supercharger/Gen...
https://www.tesla.com/en_US/findus/location/supercharger/gen...
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 t…
Not 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.
Ultimately, using the term 'socialism' is a useless label especially when it is misapplied. It is better to discuss specific policies and details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Improving 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.
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 t…
Not 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not 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.
Choosing 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.
This is a classic socialist point, one I feel the need to call out.
Yes, there is a decision on what to encourage, and I think it's important to acknowledge that density inherently comes with more restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wealthy society is not one where poor people own cars, it's one where they can afford to not to.
Go 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not 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.
Socialism? 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…
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..."