711–720 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't it worry you to live in a city whose infrastructure is not compatible with global emission goals? It does. I'm constantly pushing to rezone the entire city as multi-use and multi-dwelling. The city council has ignored me, and most of my fellow citizens vehemently disagree, as they believe that would devalue their property.
Is moving an option?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not talking about biking as the choice for most people for every day use.
Why does everything have to be discussed in absolutes? It can be the default choice for most people most of the time and yet you've decided that it can't ever be because of a small set of scenarios in which you've decided it doesn't work. Like I said, not advocating for bikes and nothing else but the default choice for most people should not be owning and driving a car everywhere, electric or not.
Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…
While I appreciate the contrarian view, it’s not either/or. Cars are a wonderful thing and facilitate independence and long distance travel. Electric cars are even more wonderful things. And Bikes are wonderful for active transport and but not a substitute for cars
Right now with continuing near zero investment in active transportation the government is saying that its pretty much going go with the near status quo, minor and easy to achieve solution. The amount of CO2 reductions that follow will reflect this lack of ambition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I fully follow "I am pretty far from your utopian dense dream yet largely living it", but I think there are two potential points of disagreement: 1) Living in dense cities is not for everybody, but given that large and (at least pre-covid) growing majority of people in the developed world do choose to live in cities, I think it's safe to say that there is a very sizable demand. For an example of the bene…
The pre-covid world is kinda over. Density has very clear downsides that have never been more apparent. I don't know how often you do the train + car rental thing, but the friction is much, much higher than driving (especially if you have any sort of gear like you would for skiing). Not everyone wants to be so contricted both in freedom of movement and in living space.
I really doubt this is the case. In fact people are placing large bets of the opposite. Just saw in the news that some texas developer is planning a new 23 story commercial building in Vancouver's downtown.
Cities have been the norm since humans started living together. They been been a success despite many, many pandemics. They are not going away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everything have to be discussed in absolutes? It can be the default choice for most people most of the time and yet you've decided that it can't ever be because of a small set of scenarios in which you've decided it doesn't work. Like I said, not advocating for bikes and nothing else but the default choice for most people should not be owning and driving a car everywhere, electric or not.
Because cars don't suddenly appear when there is a heavy rain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems. Without really staring at the underlying geometry, it is hard for laypeople to understand that automobile-centric development patterns are by-and-large incapable of producing the kind of human-scale, dense, walkable areas that are (1) instinctively pleasing to be in,…
The issue boils down to roads and parking more than cars. Trees need sunlight, but cars don’t so roads work just fine segregated below street level away from pedestrians and inclement weather. It sounds expensive, but work out how expensive NYC’s above ground road network costs both in terms of land value and ongoing property taxes and you see just how pricy cheap roads end up. Go 3D to segregate N/S traffic from E/W…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The coming sea change in electrifying transportation will include roads just as much as cars. Right now we are just barely off the bottom of the 'S' curve of transitioning from ICE to electric. But in about fifteen years we'll be near the middle of that curve and that's when we'll realize roads could be much better if the ICE cars where banned. With only electric vehicles the air will cease to be continually poisoned…
The trend has already started. E.g. in Germany, some cities prohibit older Diesel engines within city limits. This has lead especially commuters of low-wage jobs quickly being forced to buy a new, more environmentally-friendly car (and their Diesel car just lost a lot of value in the market), so they have no option other than switch to gasoline engines - which are usually OLDER cars than they used to be with WORSE po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems. Without really staring at the underlying geometry, it is hard for laypeople to understand that automobile-centric development patterns are by-and-large incapable of producing the kind of human-scale, dense, walkable areas that are (1) instinctively pleasing to be in,…
Love the explanation. But what about adding some underground parking?
As well there's the environmental impact. Concrete creates a lot of CO2 and we actually need to use less of it going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue boils down to roads and parking more than cars. Trees need sunlight, but cars don’t so roads work just fine segregated below street level away from pedestrians and inclement weather. It sounds expensive, but work out how expensive NYC’s above ground road network costs both in terms of land value and ongoing property taxes and you see just how pricy cheap roads end up. Go 3D to segregate N/S traffic from E/W…
lol ok elon
From the 1939 worlds fair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_(New_York_World%27s_F...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_(New_York_World%27s_F...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are only comfortable in cars because they've learned to be. Before I owned a car and cycled every day I didn't once think it was uncomfortable and that I'd rather be in a car. My body was used to it.
No. Cycling is fine until its too cold, too wet, too hot, and oh I am late or I need to carry something else or .. or... or.. seriously all these articles act as if it is a viable solution day in and day out and its far from one. people like cars, buses, and other enclosed transport, all for the same reason. because it can make the weather irrelevant to the trip
And I’m far from alone. For a lot of people it is the solution, day in and day out, and it has been for many years.
#/media/File:Street_intersection_Futurama.jpg){kind=link}