While the power source that generated the electricity is not necessarily sustainable, power plants should have more at scale Features to limit the pollutants than a traditional petrol engine.
Or at least the power plants should if one lives in a civilized society....
The problem with EVs is that in almost all ways other than local pollution they are just as bad as ICE vehicles. They
need massive amounts of asphalted space for roadways and parking
use this space very inefficiently and cause traffic congestion at any given spike in traffic
drive urban sprawl and thus make housing less sustainable (more sewage,water supply, electric supply, heating, roads/person required)
urban sprawl stretches everything far apart and makes public transit much less feasible so people who can't drive cars struggle to get places, for example kids can't walk to school or take public transit, instead must be driven
are loud (because tyres rolling is the driving source of noise)
are dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists
their dangers and tendency to cause traffic congestion inhibit other, more efficient and sustainable modes of transport so that when not regulated properly, they take over all of the streetscape as is evident in most western places
This is a general complaint about vehicles, not necessarily EVs, and extends to trucks, motorcycles, and basically anything that gives humans more range than their feet.
This position would probably be best directed at the city planning office.
This is a general complaint about vehicles, not necessarily EVs
Yes, that's like the whole point of my post, being E doesn't fix 90% of the issues caused by individual motorised transport vehicles. And city planning can't do anything about these inherent issues either, they can merely decide to make good, sustainable cities or car friendly cities. Good city planning policies stand in direct contrast to the amount of cars expected to be driven.
And I'm saying this not to shit on EVs, they must clearly replace ICE vehicles as soon as possible, but to warn that they will not fix the unsustainable state of affairs in transportation. Loads of people appear to actually believe they do and that's sort of dangerous. We're not gonna fix jack shit if we just transition these vehicles to being electric while further increasing car dependency and sprawl. We're gonna make it even worse.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
I'm going to state it as a fact: EVs are loud. About as loud as ICE cars. I live on a busy street, so I know that this is beyond dispute. The tire noise and wind resistance dominate the noise produced above about 30 kph. ICE vehicles these days have efficient engines and good soundproofing. Many are virtually silent if they go past my house slowly.
Unexpectedly, the hybrid-electric city buses that go past are among the quietest vehicles. They must use tires designed for a quiet, comfortable ride, because all I hear is a slight whoosh, even when they pass by in the quiet, wee hours of the morning.
(To be fair, EVs with quiet tires and moving <30kph are virtually silent, too.)
the wear of the tires constantly pollutes the environment with synthetic material dust (rubber, plastic, etc). much more so, than from buses, because every car has to move more of its weight around per passenger.
I'd say long term, neither of those should be problems
The electricity it uses is not sustainable.
Many EV users also go for solar panels to alleviate energy costs. Also as a country's electrical grid modernises, it should make use of a greater share of renewables given they're cheaper than the alternatives now.
It has lots of tracking etc and in some cases remote control.
Slightly less certain, but I'd hope this kind of thing is legislated away at some point. There's also always customer choice, there will be manufacturers that compete on the privacy angle if enough of us care
The main problem with EVs is it doesn't solve any of the problems inherent to cars being treated as the main mode of transportation in a given area. Places like that will see EVs as the solution compared to an alternative of investing into better public transit infrastructure.
Infrastructure that is basically inevitable, since we know now that any town/city that eschews anything but car transit will ultimately bankrupt themselves on road maintenance alone.
Like ~15 years ago I heard peter singer saying that the emissions from the lifetime use of a car were lower than those from making it, so you should only ever buy a second hand car.
That was before widespread EVs though.
I often wonder how long you have to use a 2nd hand gas car for, before the emissions outstrip those of making a brand new EV.
Well, there is a good chance the data is distorted for fossil interests. It's from 2021 too!
2025 vehicles are miles ahead! (Literally).
They have those solid-state batteries that charge in 5 minutes. There is the lightyear prototype that was insanely expensive...but it could run for decades given optimal light, and 40km/h or bellow speed with it's solar panels.
I'm struggling just to earn enough breathing space to think. I need a lot of time, and I dreamed of self-sufficiency for a while now. Even have my own Lemmy idea related to Solarpunk.
Something is screwy with the power generation part of that graphic, or the person who made it is basing it on a country that doesn't have much wind or solar power.
In the UK there are cheap tariffs for overnight electricity because of all the wind power.
If you're in America, you're pretty much fucked for green transport in any case. Canada has some great trolly bus and underground public transport because of all the hydroelectric power. My home city has only been buying electric buses for a long while now.
Like I say, there's no way those wind turbines cost anywhere like as much co2 to build and maintain as those oil rigs, oil tankers and oil refineries. Not even close. Not even comparable. This has to be US data from some state with no solar or something. Graph is screwy.
incidentally, the us has the second most intstalled solar capacity of any single country, about 2/3rds that of europe.
wind turbines seem to average at 10kg CO~2~eq/MWh over their lifetime, but since they are not "plannable" power you always need something else to meet demand. if that something else is a gas peaker plant (490kg CO~2~eq/MWh), you're screwed emissions wise.
Edit:Here's a chart of the total CO~2~eq for the different regions of the world. using the 2021 EU number of 235g/kWh, 26 tonnes of total charging emissions would require you to fully charge a 2021 polestar 2 standard range 26 000 000g ÷ 235g ÷ 64kWh ≈ 1728 times, which would give the car a lifetime of between four and sixteen years, depending on your driving style (lower end you charge it every day, which is not realistic, higher end you charge once or twice a week). if we use the 2021 world average of 369g, that gives us 1101 full charges, or 3-10 years depending on driving style.
I wanted to double-check my numbers so i found a reddit thread asking people how often they charge their cars, and tried to extract info from it using mistral (so take it with a grain of salt. it gave sources but i managed to close the page after screenshotting). ::: spoiler transcript
Mistral: In the Reddit thread you linked, most EV owners report charging their cars about 2–3 times per week on average. Many users mentioned plugging in their EVs at home whenever convenient, often overnight, rather than waiting for the battery to run low. Some charge daily out of habit, while others charge every few days depending on their driving needs and battery range. The majority have access to home charging, which makes frequent top-ups easy and convenient.
Charging Frequency (from user comments):
About 30–40% of users charge daily, often overnight at home, regardless of battery level.
Another 30–40% charge 2–3 times per week, usually when their battery drops below a certain range (e.g., 100 miles or 50%).
The remaining 20–30% charge less frequently, such as once a week or only when needed for longer trips.
Typical Charging Behavior:
Many users set their charge limit to 60–80% for daily use to preserve battery health.
Some Tesla owners (especially with LFP batteries) keep their cars plugged in most of the time, charging to 100% without issue.
Users with shorter commutes (e.g., <50 miles/day) often charge every 2–3 days, while those with longer commutes or less efficient EVs charge daily.
Range Added per Charge:
Short Commutes (<50 miles/day): Many users add 50–100 miles per charge, often charging every 2–3 days.
Moderate Use (50–150 miles/day): Users in this group typically add 100–200 miles per session, charging daily or every other day.
Longer Trips or Less Frequent Charging: Some users add 150–300 miles, charging once a week or as needed.
Summary Table (Based on Thread Comments)
Miles Added Per Charge
Frequency Mentioned
Typical Use Case
50–100 miles
Common
Short commutes, 2–3x/week
100–150 miles
Very common
Daily commutes, overnight charge
150–300 miles
Less common
Long trips, weekly charging
Inference: Most home chargers add enough range to cover their daily driving, rarely letting the battery drop below 20–30%. The data is sufficient to infer that 50–150 miles per charge is the norm for regular use.
User: how about car models? are there enough mentions of which model people drive that we can figure out the average number of kWhs used per capita from the added range and the size of the battery of the mentioned models?
Mistral: The Reddit thread does mention several specific EV models, and we can use their battery sizes and the reported range added per charge to estimate average kWh used per person. Here’s what we know:
Commonly Mentioned Models & Battery Sizes
From the thread, the most frequently mentioned models include:
Tesla Model 3 (Standard/Long Range): ~50–82 kWh
Tesla Model Y (Standard/Long Range): ~60–81 kWh
Hyundai Kona Electric: ~39–64 kWh
Chevy Bolt: ~65 kWh
Ford Mustang Mach-E: ~68–98 kWh
Nissan Leaf: ~40–62 kWh
Reported Range Added per Charge
Most users add 50–150 miles per charge.
A few add 150–250 miles (usually for longer trips or less frequent charging).
Estimating kWh Used per Charge
Using the EPA efficiency ratings (miles per kWh) for these models, we can estimate kWh used per charge:
Model
Battery Size (kWh)
EPA Efficiency (mi/kWh)
Reported Range Added
Estimated kWh Used Per Charge
Tesla Model 3 (LR)
82
4.1
100–150 miles
24–37 kWh
Tesla Model Y (LR)
81
3.8
100–150 miles
26–39 kWh
Hyundai Kona
64
3.2
50–100 miles
16–31 kWh
Chevy Bolt
65
3.6
50–100 miles
14–28 kWh
Ford Mach-E (ER)
98
3.0
100–150 miles
33–50 kWh
Nissan Leaf
40–62
3.0
50–100 miles
17–33 kWh
Note: Efficiency varies with driving conditions, but these are reasonable averages.
Average kWh Used per Charge (Per Capita)
For 50–100 miles added: ~15–35 kWh per charge
For 100–150 miles added: ~25–50 kWh per charge
Most users fall in the 20–40 kWh per charge range, depending on their model and daily needs.
User: using the data on this page iea.org/reports/electricity-20… can we create a table for how much emissions each car would produce while charging in the listed regions? use the 2021 number.
Mistral: Here is a table estimating the CO2 emissions per 100 km for common EV models when charged in different regions, using 2021 CO2 emissions per kWh data from the IEA and typical battery sizes and efficiencies:
CO2 Emissions per 100 km for EVs by Region (2021 Data)
Region
CO2 per kWh (g)
Tesla Model 3 (15 kWh/100 km)
Hyundai Kona (17 kWh/100 km)
Chevy Bolt (16 kWh/100 km)
Ford Mach-E (18 kWh/100 km)
European Union
~250
3.75 kg CO2
4.25 kg CO2
4.00 kg CO2
4.50 kg CO2
United States
~380
5.70 kg CO2
6.46 kg CO2
6.08 kg CO2
6.84 kg CO2
China
~550
8.25 kg CO2
9.35 kg CO2
8.80 kg CO2
9.90 kg CO2
India
~700
10.50 kg CO2
11.90 kg CO2
11.20 kg CO2
12.60 kg CO2
Notes & Assumptions
CO2 per kWh (2021): EU ~250g, US ~380g, China ~550g, India ~700g.
Energy use per 100 km: Based on EPA/real-world efficiency for each model.
Calculation: (CO2 per kWh) × (kWh per 100 km) = kg CO2 per 100 km.
Key Takeaways
EU and US: Lower emissions due to cleaner electricity grids.
China and India: Higher emissions due to coal-heavy grids.
Efficiency matters: More efficient cars (like the Tesla Model 3) emit less CO2 per km, even in high-emission regions.
User: data from polestar and rivian lifecycle analyses in 2021 estimates that over its lifetime, the electricity used by an "average" electric vecicle produces a total of 26 tonnes CO2eq. using the data we now have, can we estimate lower and upper bounds for the age of the mentioned models where they would have "produced" 26tCO2eq in different regions?
Mistral: Let’s use the kWh per charge and CO2 per kWh by region from our earlier tables to estimate how many years it would take for the mentioned EV models to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq from charging alone, based on typical charging habits.
Recap of Key Data
kWh per charge (typical): 20–40 kWh
CO2 per kWh (2021):
EU: 250 g
US: 380 g
China: 550 g
India: 700 g
Charging frequency: 2–3 times per week (104–156 charges/year)
Calculations
1. CO2 per Charge (kg)
EU: 20–40 kWh × 0.25 kg = 5–10 kg CO2/charge
US: 20–40 kWh × 0.38 kg = 7.6–15.2 kg CO2/charge
China: 20–40 kWh × 0.55 kg = 11–22 kg CO2/charge
India: 20–40 kWh × 0.70 kg = 14–28 kg CO2/charge
2. Annual CO2 from Charging
EU: 5–10 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 520–1,560 kg CO2/year
US: 7.6–15.2 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 790–2,371 kg CO2/year
China: 11–22 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 1,144–3,432 kg CO2/year
India: 14–28 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 1,456–4,368 kg CO2/year
3. Years to Reach 26 Tonnes (26,000 kg) CO2eq
EU: 26,000 ÷ (520–1,560) = 17–50 years
US: 26,000 ÷ (790–2,371) = 11–33 years
China: 26,000 ÷ (1,144–3,432) = 8–23 years
India: 26,000 ÷ (1,456–4,368) = 6–18 years
Note: These are rough estimates based on charging habits and grid emissions, and do not include manufacturing or other lifecycle emissions.
User: let's see how they change with different charging frequencies.
Mistral: Here’s how the years to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq change with different charging frequencies (1x, 2x, 3x, and 4x per week), using the same kWh per charge (20–40 kWh) and 2021 grid emissions:
Assumptions
kWh per charge: 20–40 kWh
CO2 per kWh (2021): EU 250g, US 380g, China 550g, India 700g
Years to 26 Tonnes CO2eq by Charging Frequency
Region
1x/week ( 52 charges/yr)
2x/week (104 charges/yr)
3x/week (156 charges/yr)
4x/week (208 charges/yr)
EU
34–100 years
17–50 years
11–33 years
8–25 years
US
22–66 years
11–33 years
7–22 years
5–17 years
China
15–45 years
8–23 years
5–15 years
4–11 years
India
12–36 years
6–18 years
4–12 years
3–9 years
User: what's the average scrapping age of vehicles in the listed regions?
Mistral: Here’s the average scrapping age of vehicles in the regions you asked about, based on the latest available data:
Average Scrapping Age by Region (2021–2024)
Region | Average Scrapping Age | Notes -|--|- European Union | ~12–17 years | EU average is 12.3 years; some countries (e.g., Greece, Estonia) average 17 years. Newer cars are found in Luxembourg (~7.9 years). United States | ~12.6 years | As of 2024, the average age of cars and light trucks on the road is 12.6 years, with scrappage rates around 4.5–4.6% per year. China | ~10–15 years | Most passenger vehicles are scrapped after 10–15 years, though policies are pushing for earlier scrappage of older, more polluting vehicles. India | ~15 years | The national scrappage policy targets vehicles older than 15 years for mandatory scrapping, with incentives for voluntary scrappage of private cars over 15 years. :::
my takeaway is that, if charged three times a week, which seems to be common, most ev's get to 26tCO~2~eq before being scrapped no matter their location.
The graph fails the plausibility check of "does using fossil fuelled car pollute about the same as EVs" and the graph trying to make out that they do. I too can ask AI questions, but I think AIs are full of shit. Here it is anyway, and the fossil fuel cars are getting a free pass for ALL the CO2 emissions during generation, which as per my other comment, are about 50 times higher assuming that oil extraction and refinery isn't actually better than natural gas:
CO2 Emissions Comparison
Assumptions
Electric Vehicle (EV): * Average energy consumption: 20 kWh/100 km (or 0.2 kWh/km). * Carbon intensity during overnight charging: 75 gCO2/kWh. Petrol Engine: * Average emissions: 150 gCO2/km (this can vary based on vehicle efficiency). Diesel Engine: * Average emissions: 120 gCO2/km (again, this can vary based on vehicle efficiency).
CO2 Emissions Calculation
Electric Vehicle (EV) Energy consumption per mile: * 1 km = 0.621371 miles, so 20 kWh/100 km = 20 kWh/62.1371 miles = 0.321 kWh/mile. CO2 emissions per mile: * 0.321 kWh/mile×75 gCO2/kWh=24.1 gCO2/mile.
Petrol Engine CO2 emissions per mile: * 150 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=93.2 gCO2/mile.
Diesel Engine CO2 emissions per mile: * 120 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=74.6 gCO2/mile.
Summary of CO2 Emissions per Mile Vehicle Type CO2 Emissions (gCO2/mile) Electric Vehicle (EV) 24.1 Petrol Engine 93.2 Diesel Engine 74.6
Conclusion Charging an electric vehicle overnight on a greener grid results in approximately 24.1 gCO2 per mile, which is significantly lower than the emissions from petrol engines at 93.2 gCO2 per mile and diesel engines at 74.6 gCO2 per mile. This comparison highlights the environmental advantages of EVs, especially when charged during times of high renewable energy availability. If you have any further questions or need more details, feel free to ask!
i've provided mistral with sources and asked it to summarize them, then do averages on those summarisations. i've not just asked it to pull data from wherever (except the scrapping thing). i too think ai's are full of shit, but i can go back and check because i provided the data.
the assumptions made in your text give a gCO~2~/kWh figure of about half the IEA's, where's that from? also, the emissions numbers of your fossil fuels engines are way off. assuming a fuel consumption of 10l/100km, the number for a petrol car would be 230g CO~2~/km rather than 150. also you're mixing your units a lot.
Yeah, like I say, AI is shit. Quoting it as an authoritative source is crazy, and AI is surprisingly bad at arithmetic.
The graphic is screwy. It doesn't pass plausibility test. Somehow the carbon cost of generating green electricity is far higher than the carbon cost of extracting oil and refining it. Someone's adding in a whole bunch of CO2 for manufacturing and installing some wind turbines but not for oil extraction machinery and oil refineries. Just the sheer quantity of steel alone isn't even comparable.
So no, you can chatgpt your argument as much as you like but you can't convince me that the cheapest greenest wind overnight electricity I power my EV with somehow took more CO2 by quite a margin than the oil extraction, oil tankers and oil refining that my neighbour's diesel car does. That's so backwards and obviously incorrect and I don't know why you persist with entertaining the idea.
I only objected to the graphic because it makes obviously screwy claims about power generation, somehow concluding that electricity is more polluting than double that of oil extraction, refinery and transportation, which is clearly false unless you're in America or somewhere else that aggressively refuses to invest in wind and solar, despite onland wind being the cheapest form of electricity. The rest of the thread is you pointlessly trying to defend the absurd conclusion of the misleading graphic that it doesn't matter whether you buy a polluting car or not. It does.
My advice for everyone: Next car, buy electric for the planet's sake and the sheer joy of driving that brings (turn off spongy acceleration gasoline emulation mode), and buy second hand for your wallet and the planet's sake.
Don't believe the FUD around EVs; stop repeating the lies that the petrochemical industry is pushing so hard.
A small point Re the EU average, you're including a bunch of countries that don't have as much wind power as the UK, and there's a world of difference between peak CO2 for peak electricity at teatime and early evening and CO2 for charging the car overnight when the electricity is cheapest exactly because it's greenest and there's so much wind power overnight (in the UK).
From your Forbes article:
Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.
So I don't see how the carbon cost of generating that electricity can be so much higher than the carbon cost of petrol which is surely even higher than natural gas which doesn't require refineries, when it's actually about 2% as much over the lifetime of the equipment.
Like I said, graph is screwy. Someone in the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think that electric is greener. It's a lie. It's FUD. Stop parroting it.
The UK isn’t even in the EU, and different countries certainly have different energy mixes anyway.
there's a huge mass of cables connecting the uk to the eu. energy you use is never "from" a single source, it's from wherever it's generated, which means it's from the eu grid. i don't even know why the uk is in this conversation?
I literally quoted your own sources! I followed the links and I read them. Didn’t you? I quoted them back to you. What a weird comment.
i did. i used the actual numbers presented by the sources though, rather than the predictions.
Also they're blatantly not comparing like for like.
For example, the Toyota Yaris has a petrol-only version that get 4.6 to 5.8L/100km, whereas the (non-plugin) hybrid version of the exact same car gets 3.8L/100km, so all this guff about "it takes a lot to move the heavy hybrid system" is clearly FUD.
I got a 2019 used nissan leaf in 2020 (the lessee didn’t like it), but it looked new. My coworkers tripped over themselves to tell me that the production of a vehicle is worse for the planet anyway. Then, when I explained that it was used, they all responded that the electricity was probably dirty anyway. I charged it at the company garage or at my town’s public spots, both of which were solar powered.
You always get FUD about EVs from people who don't like the idea that they might be responsible for unnecessarily harming the planet and their neighbours through their actions and would far rather believe that you're just as bad as them. It's BoTh sIdES but for polluters.
For me, I usually accept around +50% of travel time for the convinience of beeing able to browse lemmy, watching videos or reading in general on public transport. Then it doesnt feel like I wasted my time like I would have taking the car.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
I bought one specifically for work, flew into a dirch trying to ride up sidewalks (I didn't trust the drivers behind me at all), and my father straight up said "I'd rather kick you out than watch you get run over". So now I have to carpool.
You are way better than the average car owner but it still takes a lot of energy to build an electric car. For the environment it would be even better if the batteries are used in buses and electric bikes, then more people can transport themselves with less pollution.
In the US and for those that live outside of municipal boundaries and that live in unincorporated regions, lots of states have "townships" that are the default local government below county-level. Municipal corporations like towns and cities replace townships.
Still, those townships have local governments that can be engaged with politically.
And then there's counties in the US which act as the local government overseeing townships, etc.
People's political activism doesn't have to start and end in towns/cities.
No not doomed. I'm just tired of people thinking that public transport works in every situation.
People live in different places, and have different needs. I live where there's very good public transport and yet my commute would be 4x the time and 10x the cost if I had no option but to use it. People who live in rural areas will never have good public transport as the practicalities don't make sense.
So I still see a need for private transport. I just want it to be as clean as possible.
If I had control over the government, sure. I would get him a nice little apartment in a location where he doesn't have to burden the rest of society with his libertarian fantasies.
Fortunately nothing you say is relevant or should be taken seriously because there's a .ml after your name. It's not possible for you to have a meaningful opinion.
Lol! You're so mad that you're bringing old comments. This is hilarious. You .ml users really are all brain dead. You're blocked now but please stop helping fascists get into power just because the Russian propaganda machine is telling you to. So fuckin sad honestly
I mean from engineering perspective batteries in the board part do get damaged when you damage the board by hitting the floor, and they have increased chances to catch fire when your charge them. And when they do, they fucking destroy everything around. You can't really stop it either.
Key point: when you charge them. There is no reason to assume that would happen in tram or something.
Not in South FL. Our trains have designated bike racks on the interior and our busses have bike racks on the front. I take a train to work every day, it's really nice.
As long as they're being purchased as a replacement for buses that are either at the end of their life or being donated to smaller communities, then sure. This said from the perspective of an American whose city, state and federal governments refuse to fund the public transit that we already have. (╥_╥)
The nearest major city to me has had electric buses since 1940. There are power cables overhead and poles that link the bus to the grid. No need for expensive flammable batteries that need extensive charging.
Historically they didn't. But many (certainly not all) modern trolley busses have batteries (or more common, super capacitors) that allow for short distances to be travelled without contact with the lines. It's certainly not an 'all' thing though.
Cars and eating meat are some of the largest polluters on the planet, and driven entirely by consumers. The commerical fishing industry exists because you buy the fish. Do not mistake that every individual is part of the problem and we all need to work together to improve reality
I'm all for public transit, but I will mention for the sake of honesty, Paul Weyrich, the creator of the Heritage Foundation had a bizarre fixation on trains from an early age.
Government funding for basically anything else related to common public good was forbidden, but for some reason trains were like his one "thing" he believed the government should fund.
So I'm all for public transit, but I would still demand public accountability. We deserve to know exactly who is profiting from any publicly funded projects.
Edit: He wrote a lot, and frequently found a way to sneak something about his public transportation fetish in just about everything he wrote (even somehow in a blog post shitting on New Orleans days after Katrina), but this is probably one of my favorite takes:
Everything. It is a fine summer day in New Westminster, British Columbia, in the year 1909. Car 39 has stopped briefly on Park Row on its way into town. It carries its passengers through a world that is ordered, serene, at peace. Their eyes feast upon the glories of Queen Anne architecture. They hear the birds and the trolley wire sing a duet in an ether as yet unpolluted by engine noise or boom boxes. Their poised servants, the motorman and conductor of the car, stand as visible assurances of responsibility and reliability. God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world.
🤣 This would be so hilarious if we weren't all watching the U.S. being torn apart as a direct result of his life's work.
Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind explore in this 2002 report how urban downtowns are reviving, and new towns are being built to traditional patterns. Not...
Interestingly enough, even though healthcare didn't make the cut for the current budget, it does appear there is still somehow money for transportation projects under this administration:
Come to my mind, for a while back in the nineties and two-thousands, there was a push to abandon those dirty public transportation devices like buses and trains in favor of biking, walking, etc., but it mainly ended with people switching to cars. Maybe there was some industry push.
My friend’s work is over an hour from his house by public transport—if public transport is working, and it’s a weekday. If it isn’t working well, if it’s late, if it’s a weekend or holiday, then it’s closer to two hours (or more).
It’s 15 minutes max by car.
And he lives in a place with good public transportation.
Until we improve how public transportation runs, so that it really is designed around how people need to get from A to B, cars are going to be the more popular choice.
Yes but that is never going to happen without putting restraints on the auto industry, which puts big money into preventing public transit from being built, and if its already exists, to destroy it.
Car culture is killing us. I get you're trying to be pragmatic but more is necessary.
I really hate that shit. To suburbs? Sure, that's acceptable cox public transportation prioritizes high density areas.
To city to another city and public transportation takes double of driving? That's bad design. Infrastructure that prioritizes cars no matter the population density is not sustainable, whether that's shown as car traffic or massive deficit to keep roads maintained
Bikes combined with public transit usually cut down those times massively. And to ask---good, or good by usa standards? Cities in Germany or japan are impressive with how fast you can get places by train.
Also-- people being unwilling to trade a bit of convenience in exchange for a better world is a major part of the problem. I got off my car and started biking for everything, and it was easy. More people could easily do the same. Combined with trains, I can go very far.
The roads are deadly. I've lived here almost 20 years and I have seen exactly one person trying to ride on these roads. There are some places with bikes in the ditch on the side of the road with crosses as memorials. You can't walk the roads either.
If its 15 mins by car it's likely a gentle 30 mins ride. A small vespa or motorbike has to be better than a car for that sort of distance - we need to avoid thinking car is the only private transport solution
Speaking from past lived experience trying to get to work in -30c weather in my old city, and the once-every-half-hour bus is either full, late, or broken down. FORGET that noise.
It's definitely better where I am now l, but vast swaths of cityscape in my country are massively underserved, and I would assert that calling it "daunting" is comically trivializing the daily stress of trying to make a schedule happen in those cases.
Just telling someone to buck up and endure that is extremely condescending; you'll win so few allies to your cause with this approach (which I, incidentally l, support). You're basically saying their time is of little to no value, and what they want to accomplish with it doesn't matter. And time is the only true non-renewable resource in your life, kids.
Speaking from past lived experience trying to get to work in -30c weather in my old city, and the once-every-half-hour bus is either full, late, or broken down. FORGET that noise.
It's definitely better where I am now l, but vast swaths of cityscape in my country are massively underserved, and I would assert that calling it "daunting" is comically trivializing the daily stress of trying to make a schedule happen in those cases.
Just telling someone to buck up and endure that is extremely condescending; you'll win so few allies to your cause with this approach (which I, incidentally l, support). You're basically saying their time is of little to no value, and what they want to accomplish with it doesn't matter. And time is the only true non-renewable resource in your life, kids.
I'm not speaking without doing. I've done as cold as it gets in my city, which is admittedly short of -30c, probably closer to -23c. This is about bikes, not buses. (But honestly goes for both!)
People aren't going to like being told it. But I'm ever of the opinion that people who whine when told they're wrong are not ever going to be the ones changing in the first place. They merely sit there, in the comfort of the car, justifying their decision by pretending the gas guzzling environment harming and dangerous vehicles are somehow justified by the small amount of lightly discomfortable weather and short bikeable rides.
You're basically saying their time is of little to no value, and what they want to accomplish with it doesn't matter
It's not of little value. It's the amount saved by driving is not worth it. For them and for others.
Bikes would be even worse imo. Your uphill battle just got much steeper. You're also not helping anything by making the sweeping generalizations you seem to enjoy making.
I can't say I have heard it before from countless others (to precisely no avail), but regardless, best of luck in gathering momentum for your cause.
Bikes are not even half as hard as you think they are.
I sold my bike last summer. I dislike riding bikes now; they hurt my back, and the cycling community is unfriendly (QED). I prefer my VESC board, it's more fun, and I can do a local grocery run without worrying that someone will steal it, and I've made more friends in the community.
I prefer my EV for longer distances, it's more practical.
For whatever reason, you seem unable to see someone else's perspectives on this subject. I'm going to chalk it up to inexperience.
Either way, it makes you a poor advocate for your cause.
A glance at this thread would show you I'm right. People's primary reasons for not switching is not wanting to bike in the rain, winter, and not wanting to be sweaty --all of which products are made to deal with.
Even kids are easily transportable with a small trailer
No, it's not good public transportation. Good public transportation is faster and cheaper than a car. That's terrible public transportation, just because other places are even worse it doesn't mean that one is good.
Depends on population density. Even if there was passenger train service on the existing lines here, a lot of people would need a vehicle to get to the station, and I don't think public buses / vans could cover all the roads at a reasonable schedule.
But, also, you don't have to get very dense before public transport is better than individual vehicles for intracity trips.
We've been trying to get a LRT in a 400k population area for decades and can't make it happen. There's even an old unused rail line with right of way all the way from the biggest nearby municipality that causes all the traffic problems to downtown.
They still don't think it's enough people to warrant the upgrade/conversion costs.
They have been adding bus only lanes between downtown and that area though including in town and on the highway, but they've maybe only connected half the highway with bus only. That has been helping, and more frequent busses on it.
Yup. Here in Chicago we now have bike racks inside the trains so you can bring your bike into the city on the metra, as well as allowed in all trains including the colored lines outside of peak hours
I think distance is a pretty good reason not to. Just not wanting to is a fair excuse too, honestly. A car is convenient.
That said, at the point where the weather prohibits going by bicycle, in my experience at least, you generally just don't go anywhere because it'd be perilous in a car as well. I recall when I visited Kiruna some years ago, other than the cars, most people I saw were getting around on kicksleds and bicycles. Even saw a couple of dog sleds.
As for kids, what I've generally seen here are three options; chariots (can usually hold up to two kids), parcel shelf seats (one child), or the kid bikes themselves. I was taught to ride a bicycle at three, and at seven I biked to and from school on my own.
Granted, in the U.S. I can see this not happening on account of everything being so bloody spread out that you need a car, and even if you did put up with the distance, the infrastructure isn't there; you can't go on the motorway with a bicycle. Urban planning over in the states is abysmal.
Cars are a problem. They pollute(yes, even electric ones), are costly to run, greatly increase the danger of neighborhoods, cause a reduction in smaller businesses. They make it more expensive for people who don't have money to get around, make it harder for children to get safely from place to place. They generate sizeable areas of development damage to growing people along major highways and roads(again, even electric causes this).
It's a small inconvenience for a major bettering of the world. You really underestimate how bad cars are for society and the planet. Cars account for 28% of usa emissions according to the epa(on a yet ungriefed section). Add in the rubber tires breaking down everywhere which gets worse as car weight increases, and you can see how it creates issues to wildlife, children, and the climate. Don't underestimate the emissions created in producing your electric car's batteries and tires either--- they're better than an ice but still an issue.
No, it does not. Still has considerably more environmental impact that can be reasonably justified. Still creates more death. Wheel rubber will still be a major, and ignored, issue. Still encourages poor land use and lower activity. And frankly, ring me up when small electric cars exist--none of the current electric car models are small. Except the rarely used electric smart car.
Sure. Point is they're not a serious consideration, they're not bought, have no range, and are useless. Larger models like yours have almost all the same issues cars do. You just want to feel better about the choices you make, instead of just understanding the actual issues cars pose
If you think 14km is even close to comparable to a marathon, I'm going to continue questioning. that's a simple bike ride. Again, you have no idea how much energy it takes to bike.
I prefer to arrive at work/school/shops not sopping wet, and it sometimes rains.
I, personally, could bike or walk because the station would be particularly close to my residence. But, there are others in the county where to get to the closest station they'd be biking much further than they are currently healthy enough to accomplish.
Bikes are not a good option at this density either.
Ablest is when pro environment . Yeah no. It's easy to create exceptions for the small portion of the population who is fully incapable of biking. Less car dependency will allow those who can't drive to get around far more safely, actually leading to more mobility for people with issues like legal blindness that prevent them from driving but not prevent them from other multimodal forms of transit
I prefer to arrive at work/school/shops not sopping wet, and it sometimes rains.
Raincoats! I have a nice yellow raincoat that folds up and inverts into its own pocket, turning into a little square you can tuck away in a bag or something. It's super convenient.
If public transit was valued by the local government, the city would be built in a way to make that work ok. If cars are valued, the city is built to be driven in.
I agree, by the time you really deserve the term "city" you should provide public transit as a community good and it can be made so that most people want to use it.
I'm in the "city" of Cove, Arkansas. It's a 15 minute drive to the nearest produce section, and I have to work remotely because there aren't computer programmer jobs within a reasonable commute.
At low densities, EVs are the way to go. The more dense, the more public transit makes sense.
I do still wish passenger rail service was restored along the line through here to the county seat; there are days it would save me a drive.
I could see some very well-meaning folks in local government being boxed in by citizens on one side that make their luxury SUVs and even more luxurious pickup trucks into major parts of their identities, and then the various layers of government above them driving the standards that make all of our towns samey-looking stroads. I'm in the US if that wasn't obvious, and the car-centrism runs deep.
I'm a middle aged dude and my house was build multiple decades before I was born. Back then my neighborhood was designed 100% for cars. They even put in drainage ditches that precluded the addition of sidewalks. But several years back the township did paint a walking path down one side of my street.
The new neighborhoods built in the last decade are mostly the same as far as being car-only. They usually have sidewalks and you will see people taking walks or children playing. But it's only local recreation, to walk the dog or to visit a neighbor. If you need to go to the grocery store, it's time to hop into the 2-3 ton family vehicle.
I will give my local government and developers credit though, that some recent projects have been to create what look like islands of walkable community. I have look through the businesses and see if they have groceries and the like. From what I've seen the neighborhood seems to be densely packed expensive apartments and townhomes that were rapidly built en masse, and then in the center there's a grassy field and some breweries and restaurants and stuff. So possibly some very American designs going on there.
From what I've seen the neighborhood seems to be densely packed expensive apartments and townhomes that were rapidly built en masse, and then in the center there's a grassy field and some breweries and restaurants and stuff. So possibly some very American designs going on there.
I used to live in one of these kind of complexes. It was even next to a river with a nice little 2 mile trail along it. At first I thought it would be cool to live within a short walk of things. There was a convenience store that was quite nice. However, the owner told me that the complex told them they couldn't sell nicotine products "to keep homeless out". That shouldve been a red flag. Then the convenience store closed in favor of a fancy coffee shop. Then a fancy German restaurant with outdoor seating. Suddenly I felt like I lived in an outdoor mall. The site for that apartment complex was previously used for the states death row so I guess it's still an improvement from that.
eww, yeah I can see that happening and a lot of people liking it too.
Even though our suburban neighborhoods are designed to be pro-car and anti-community, the one nice thing about the single family home and little fenced in yard setup is that I can keep some natural beauty close by.
Edison Trucks out of Canada is betting on diesel-electric hybrids. They're starting with logging trucks but if they succeed (or if someone copies their ideas) I expect they'd expand into long haul.
It still burns fuel for the generator, but with regen braking, charge-depleting during acceleration, an engine tuned for a narrow power band, start-stop for clean idle, and the ability to charge from the grid overnight before short hauls, it can't possibly pollute more than straight diesel.
Like for example, my gasoline car can do about 30 MPG highway and worse in the city. Pure ICE drivetrains suck balls in the city. A 10-year-old Prius on its original battery can do 50 highway and 50 city. I expect hybrids can squeeze some efficiency out of diesel the same way.
To add to what others are saying, you should consider the framing of your question. Progress isn't all-or-nothing. There will still be situations where a truck, van, or car is the best tool for the job, and electrifying them will take time, or require advances in technology. We would still benefit from expanding public transportation and decreasing the need to use a personal vehicle for everyday tasks.
Eventually, though, yes, it would be good to replace diesel trucks with trains where possible, and electrify the ones we can't, when we can.
I get it that there would be a need to develop better motors to run on alcohol alone and that alcohol's output is lower than gasoline but at least the first part is solvable in the same way that diesel motors got better over time (spending money on R&D).
I ask this because, here in Brazil, Lula tried to implement pure alcohol cars back in his first or second term but faced some backlash both because we didn't had the necessary tech to make good alcohol motors and from a lot of other reasons (one which is probably to be petrol companies fucking the project to keep their gains, which although sounds conspirational, may also be true since it is patently obvious that petrol companies lobbyed against climate change measures).
Also, as long as we don't fuck up the soil by mismanagement, it will be almost carbon neutral in emission since all CO2 output was used to grow plants, which is different from using petrol that needs millions of years to be put back under a rock deep down the soil.
I'd even risk to say that it could even be a net-positive(?) carbon capture since the fiber from sugar cane (for brasil's case) is captured carbon that could be used to fertilize the soil back again.
But I don't think we will see a resurgence of alcohol based cars because, as it seems, it failed here on Brazil and oil companies' greed definitivelly aren't the only reason for that (though I believe it played a smal to medium role)
Something even easier to implement than public transit is treating e-scooters and e-bikes like first class citizens. Governments love to restrict their speed to make them uncompetitive with cars without an easy legal alternative.
We recently moved to a very bike friendly city in California, and it's a night and day difference to where we had moved from in Texas. There are bike lanes, and bike racks EVERYWHERE.
There is also a heavily used e-bike/e-scooter service available as well. Its been a genuine game changer.
Separate lanes and bike racks all over the place means that the e-scooters aren't ditched all over the sidewalk AND the separate bike lanes do not disrupt traffic so the drivers don't hate them either. We've only used our vehicle for commuting to work since moving here. For everything else, we walk, bike, or scooter. Bought a little collapsible wagon for grocery shopping too!
AND the separate bike lanes do not disrupt traffic so the drivers don’t hate them either.
Oh, they usually still hate them. In there minds, that's a lane of traffic that got taken away. For those people, I usually like to point out an unused sidewalk and complain that those damned pedestrians are also taking away perfectly good driving space.
I doubt speed is an adequate consideration here. Especially considering lack of dedicated protection like helmets and other coverings. Access, usability, price (assuming rental), and dedicated protected lanes for travel are much more important, but harder to manage.
I'm talking about owning your own e-scooter. It's not hard to gear up for the ride. Protected lanes with limited speeds are an ideal, but the truth is that you need bursts of more speed on most of our sprawling suburbs in the US.
It's also collectivizing the solution rather than expecting us each to address the problem on an individual level that doesn't change the status quo one iota.
I'm a city bus driver. I can run more or less empty one way, and be slammed on the return. I can be running an odd, less populated route just to reposition. Also we run routes that have low ridership just so people have the option, these are the first chopped when we run into financial difficulties, but we do have them.
Sounds like the build out of the transit hubs was bungled.
I've seen this happen once or twice in Houston. Tiny lines that go nowhere and are spun up just so municipal government leaders can say "This doesn't work! Build more highways instead!" Our new "Silver Line" is a great example. It was supposed to be a spoke within a larger spoke/wheel build out, but the state sabotaged roll out of the rest of the network.
Meanwhile, we've got a commuter rail line down Main Street (built back in 2012 for the Olympic bid) that's the third most utilized in the country, just because it gets you into downtown without fighting traffic choke points.
In South Korea u see a lot of electric unicycles and hoover boards. I think the west should adopt that way more. Good public transport + clean personal transport for where it's needed. There are even laptop sized transport solutions that u could store in your backpack. The Honda Motocompacto is also really cool!
It already does. Where I live, you can just rent an electric scooter by the minute/kilometer. Just grab one from the street, scan it in the app and go. Plenty of people who never bothered to get drivers licenses or just haven't bought cars, have electric scooters.
Electric bicycles seem a bit more efficient and comfortable, but scooters are soooo portable. Easier to fit on trains, buses, hallways... And even in your car. Have a car and an electric scooter? Drive to another city, park the car in a lower density area, take your scooter out and go. No longer dependent on intercity transit times, and yet you save a bunch of fuel (because city consumption > highway consumption) and nerves (because fuck city traffic) and don't have to work about expensive and crowded city center parking...
Anyway, new electric scooters start at like 300 EUR for Chinese ones that probably spy on you somehow. Ones with more range and power cost a bit more.
You don't have to do that at work. You can do that at the library, bar, farmer's market, etc. In fact, I'd rather do it with people near where I live, instead of people that share the other end of my commute.
I don't currently. Are you hiring computer programmers? I've got 20+ applications sent out via Indeed, but I haven't found one yet.
Even when I was employed, I still visited the library, a few bars, and the saturday farmer's market. While I don't think visiting the bar is necessarily a must, you really should participate in your local library and farmer's market. Connecting to your community is important.
I get why you're digging at them, but there was a period in my life I went to the bar after every workday. Now I have a child. But back then, that's just how I met new people and socialized. Now I... just don't really meet new people. Maybe I'll start meeting other parents soon when it's kindergarten time, but that's about it.
I think this depends most on what kind of city you live in. I had an 8 minute walk from office to bar, and a 4 minute walk from bar to home. And the bar was on the way anyway.
A lot of cities were designed around cars. In Cities Skyline you can just bulldoze entire neighbourhoods and completely change the roads and transit. Unfortunately in real life you can't easily bulldoze people's homes, and transit networks can take a decade to build.
Global warming is a problem now, and perfect is the enemy of good enough. We know EVs aren't the ideal solution, but it's important part of a solution that involves improved transit, better quality of life in dense population centers AND EVs for neighbourhoods that were built in a car-centric past. Maybe in 100 years the suburbs won't exist and there won't be any need for cars, but if we wait 100 years to have perfectly designed transit friendly neighbourhoods we'll all be fucked.
You also need to fix the karen problem that plagues society. I don't like getting called a slur or "go back to where you came from", and its very bad when you're stuck inside the small space as them. (By "karen" I don't mean just white women, but the attitude of some people, anyone can become a karen)
I mean, Europe hasn't torn it's cities down (well not all of them and not for rebuilding purposes anyway) despite managing to utilise good public transport.
Then again guess your point is rather that American cities were built stupidly car centric and that somehow those can't be replaced with any sort of public transport?
Okay I mayyyy be glossing over the occasional pee stains, bad scheduling, overly expensive tickets, and occasional fella high out of his gourd taking the occasional break from his hazed trance to scream at me because I'm secretly the devil.
That's great if public transport goes from near where you are to near where you want to be, in a reasonable time.
For me that's not the case. Anywhere I want to go takes 27 changes over at least 5 hours for a net distance of three miles; it'd be quicker to hop backwards blindfold on a bent pogo stick.
While there's something to that, it's also a difficult fact that rail is just harder than roads, and by extension more expensive. You have hills? You are going to need to do tunnels and bridges for the rail because you can't turn that sharply and you mustn't have more than 1.5% grade. For road, just snake it around and up and down the hills.
You have a source and destination that not many people will be using? It's cost prohibitive to run a whole train or bus to cover that route.
Now it's one thing when the population distribution was based around settling around the harsh realities of needing to be along viable transit paths, but when a great deal of the population settled with the assumption of roads, you are going to have a hard time sorting out transit routes without mass resettlement.
Of course, if you apply mass transit to cities and nearby areas you've gotten the worst of the troubles solved and it's viable for mass transit. But cars are just part of the equation for longer hauls.
people who argue for public transport argue for better implementation of it (and also city planning that supports it). the idea isn't for everyone to just stop using cars in favor of public transport even if the public transport system is absolute shit. it's for systemic support of public transport in such a way that commuters would willingly choose it over being stuck in traffic in their little metal boxes for hours.
While I agree that we need a national public works project worth of new modern trains.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
Anywhere to anywhere. Drive for 10 hours. Then plot your completed course on a map of the lower 48. Just to demonstrate how monstrously fucking huge this country is. So they understand that while trains are amazing. They aren't the panacea some seem to think.
So in part, yes because of that's what we spent the money on and also yes, because we can do things with roads that we can't do with rail.
With rail, you generally don't want over 0.5% grade, maybe 1.5% grade. With roads 5% grade is considered no big deal, 8% for freeway ramps, and mountain roads commonly being 15-20%. Also turns can be much tighter with roads.
It's much much cheaper to do roads, particularly through hilly or mountainous terrain.
10 hours only gets you 1/3 across the US. I drive that regularly. The US is huge, and so many places you could never get to in a train like you mention. Hell even any of the proposed train routes anywhere only touch the surface of anywhere in this country. If you live in a city, and never leave, it only occasionally travel to another major city, sure a train or a bus work, I spent 8 years without owning a car, I know more then most how limiting it is.
It's not about getting rid of cars entirely. It's about prioritizing other modes of transport that are more efficient at moving people for 90% of daily trips they need to make.
Cars will still exist, they will just not be most people's first choice for going to/from places. Ideally they exist more as a tool for specific situations where needed, such as work that covers a broad/rural area and requires large/specialized tools.
no one is saying "get rid of cars". if you live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere where it'd be inefficient to build transit infrastructure due to the low population it would serve, then no one is trying to take away your car.
it's all about decreasing society's dependence on cars where it makes sense (higher population areas like towns and cities, as well as long-distance options between those areas) in favour of way more efficient modes of transport.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
I am gonna be honest, this is such a lame, US exceptionalism line that people in the US repeat ad nauseam as if it adds anything to the conversation.
Nobody is saying for the couple of people living in North Dakota that they can't keep their truck and drive around everywhere, the transportation needs of people that live in rural places like this are vanishingly small compared to the problem we are talking about here. We are talking about MASS TRANSIT so places that actually have enough people for major industry, and for major movements of people and material that can actually clog transportation networks. Why when people try to have a conversation about the economic centers of the US that actually make this country run do people obsess about the guy living in the middle of nowhere Kansas who can go on happily driving a pickup for the rest of eternity and who has no impact on the places that actually matter in the US in terms of transit?
Nobody lives in most of the US, so no the fact that those parts of the US exist does not make the US uniquely difficult to make mass transit for because "it is too big", you just make the mass transit where the high population density is. Deep red rural government-handout states can continue to be based entirely around cars, great, it really doesn't affect much of the US population because most of the US population doesn't live in those places and don't desire to go to them.
Great now that we have been over this, please never throw this line out lazily again, it adds nothing.
why are you asking for a less granular map? I'd have preferred to give you a more granular map as an increase of detail would just make the point even more clear.
If i'm driving 10 hours across the US, it's going to be on the freeway between population centers. A relatively flat course between population centers... oh that sounds perfect for a train! I'd much rather take the train than drive!
That is true, which makes it so weird to get so much backlash from advocating for good transit in the first place.
Also driving by bike is often times overlooked. In my home town of 10k the supermarket has a us sized parking lot and is located right in the center... Its cheaper for you and others, healthier for you, others and the earth and its safer for others.
I live in a small town. The town has a couple vans that old people can call to be driven to the doctor. And like all government services and social safety nets, it's gonna be gone by the time it's my turn. If I'm going somewhere, it's my car, my bike or my feet.
You are technically correct, but I think this fact is often used by new car purchasers to soften the blow: “Someone will buy my old car / this one when I’m done.” Actually committing to the implications of this fact is difficult.
Electric cars are a type of vehicle. Public transit is a type of transportation system that include many different types of vehicles and can include electric cars.
They aren't doing that, you are. The apples to apples comparison that they are making is our current transit system; with the cars being fully electrified but otherwise as it exists today; versus a transit system that prioritizes mass transit (and walking and biking) over personal vehicles.
Electric cars are a solution to save the auto industry, not the climate.
Maybe in your bubble it's common parlance that "electric cars" = "electrifying mass private vehicle infrastructure", but from the outside, that's not a straightforward interpretation.
I'm just letting you know the most good faith interpretation of this post, in case you missed it. I'm not interested in arguing about "common parlance"
It's amazing how much it takes for some to reach the conclusion that systemic change is both necessary and requires... systemic change. As in systems changing. As in greater change than your individual decision to ride an EV or ICEV or public transit. Change that would make it exponentially more intuitive for you to choose the most sustainable one of those options.
Especially if mass transit is not feasible for you, this post is not to shame you or call on you to try and do it anyways. It's a recognition that riding mass transit is not feasible or intuitive for most people, and a call to make mass transit available to more people rather than investing all that time and energy into the wild goose chase of EV adoption.
Oh boy more of the same. Can I still have a side of billion dollar rail lines desired by those who don't own property and a complaint about houses being to expenaive and wages too small?
Come up with some new shit. Like how many Republicans and democrats you got to have sex. And why doesnt language translate for man's oldest friend.....a dog.
I have Reduced my car/bike usage. I'm still a hobby driver/motorcyclist but I do it less nowadays.
All my vehicles are bought second hand and will be Reused until I can't fix them anymore. They're both mid 00's Hondas (car and bike) so that's likely going to be until I run out of parts on the market.
Then they will be Recycled for scrap metal. At that point I'll think about Reusing some other second hand car. If electric makes sense it'll be that.
It's not even just about sustainability. It's also largely about comfort (public transport is just 10x as comfortable as any car could be), price to the end consumer (public transport is typically much cheaper to the end consumer than cars, and that's even by a lot), space management (compare how much space cars need vs. public transport) and all these things. it's not just climate change.
I'm with you entirely except for comfort. I think the only comfort advantage is that trains can have comparable leg room and you can standup.
I have never been on any type of mass transit where the seats were as comfortable as even a crappy car. That's ignoring system dependent stuff like cleanliness or the discomforts of being close to strangers.
You can certainly clean more, put in better seats, and suck it up when it comes to strangers, but as it is right now, I struggle to see how you could say it's more comfortable based purely on the amenities.
Ah, I wouldn't have called that comfort, more boredom. I still don't agree on the comfort thing, but at least I can see where you're coming from.
I'm tall and overweight. Even when I wasn't overweight the seats have never been wide enough and I almost always have my knees pressed into the back of the seat in front of me. With the seat being too short as well, I usually end up with a fair bit of pain unless I can stand or get a seat without someone close in front of me.
It's not really boredom, you have that time left to sleep, draw, read, or enjoy the scenery. All the more worth it for public transit.
It also takes cars off the road, meaning fewer and shorter traffic jams. Win in my book.
The seating is more of an issue with cars, I've felt. It's always cramped and big cars are uncomfortable and unsafe. Hassle to park as well, and they end up costing you way more than it's worth.
Yeah, for me the real status symbol is a bicycle and healthy legs. Or a good public transit card.
I mean, I used to be exclusively a bus rider or pedestrian, so I'm not unfamiliar with them. Sleeping is a bad choice because you can miss your stop, and at least in my experience the scenery is no different than you would get from the windshield. Did like reading though, since that was relaxing. If I'm being fair though, taking a car for the trip I used to bus is fast enough that I wouldn't find a book worth it.
Does the seat softness not bother you? For me, seat softness and leg room are the two biggest drives for feeling uncomfortable and even the smallest car has more.
To be clear, I'm not saying public transit is bad. Far from it. If it were remotely viable for any of the trips I need to take it would be my go to. I just think that they could put more padding on the seats, make them a little larger, and give a touch more leg room.
The scenery is certainly different. You don't always see roads, you look at the side.
The seats are pretty comfy in train and bus, enough leg space too. I do agree with you that more padding and extra leg space would be always welcome, though.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the seats. It's just not comfortable from my view. A cheap office chair would be an upgrade. We almost certainly live in different areas with different buses, so it's not really something we can compare specifically.
Completely different scenery is pushing it a bit. I can pretty much see whatever I could see out of the bus window through the windshield, and for the most part it's not what you would call "scenic". I don't live in the country nor do I live in a big enough city for interesting architecture, so it's just a long suburban and urban sprawl of slightly run down houses and low grade commercial along the bus routes. We're not talking some run down dystopia, but there just isn't much interesting to see, at least more than once.
I don't think an alarm would help me not miss my stop. The buses here are reliable, but not regular enough to set an alarm for arrival times. I was always worried they'd show up early and I'd miss it, and that sucked when the weather was bad.
... Have you ever used public transportation in any major city? It is about the only instance in modern age where you are in a vehicle that may be going 50 kph and you are standing. If you are going to be making claims, I would drop that "10x as comfortable" bit.
Comfortable is probably the biggest reason most people don't use public transportation. With their own cars, they don't need to wait, they don't need to worry about whether they are going to be packed like sardines because of the work rush, or forced to even wait for another pass because it got full before they were able to get on, or have to worry about getting cramps from not being able to sit, or having the transit take significantly more because it's not direct, or pickpockets..
About the only comfortable thing about public transport is if you can get on it during off-peak hours when seats are available, in a route that doesn't require a lot transfers, that isn't much longer due to the stops and side-routing, and that doesn't have a high wait time. All the stars have to align.
In comparison, bikes are probably the better option overall, and it would be epic if public transport started incorporating e-bike/scooter transit along with it. Unfortunately it seems to be quite the opposite where I live due to concerns about Lithium battery fires, but hopefully someone somewhere realizes that that is just a standardization issue.
public transport is just 10x as comfortable as any car could be
Yes, nothing beats walking to a bus stop and waiting there in the cold, rain or burning sun, hoping the bus shows up in time or at all. Then stressing, because it being 15 minutes late probably means your connecting train will be gone. Oh yes, there it goes. Half an hour wait with no place to sit. And then repeat this two more times for more connecting trains and buses.
And I haven't even talked about not being able to sit during train rides, or having to sit on back wrecking seats. Unfortunately I have back issues and after having enjoyed the 'comfort' of our public transport I often end up just not being able to stand or sit anymore at the end of the day because my back hurts so bad.
That is my average commute, and as a bonus there ultimately isn't a difference in price here between taking the car or public transport. To top it off my average travel time is 60 minutes by car, 1.5 - 2 hours by public transport, often depending whether or not the first bus shows up in time.
It would be able to overlook a lot of this if it was feasible to do some work in the train, but with all the fragmentation on my route I never really get anything done.
I really would like to use public transport, as it is more sustainable than my gas guzzler, but each time I try it the experience just sucks so bad.
No stress about searching parking spots, no cursing people driving too fast or slow... and reliable, fast, affordable and comfortable.
Political will is not even the problem; corruption, ie. corporatism and oligarchs are. They stand in the way of a truly public transit friendly society. None of the oligarchs are part of 'us'.
And even if we consider cars,good driving experiences necessitate public transit, bicycle lanes, and walkability!
Rustling Leaves
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Yes, though not always as accessible.
The problem with electric cars is two fold as far as I understand it:
like this
YoSoySnekBoi likes this.
milkisklim
in reply to Rustling Leaves • • •While the power source that generated the electricity is not necessarily sustainable, power plants should have more at scale Features to limit the pollutants than a traditional petrol engine.
Or at least the power plants should if one lives in a civilized society....
like this
YoSoySnekBoi e Benign like this.
Hegar
in reply to milkisklim • • •I'm sorry sir but such a thing does not exist, I fear you must have dreamed it.
like this
YoSoySnekBoi likes this.
schnokobaer
in reply to Rustling Leaves • • •The problem with EVs is that in almost all ways other than local pollution they are just as bad as ICE vehicles. They
like this
YoSoySnekBoi likes this.
nucleative
in reply to schnokobaer • • •This is a general complaint about vehicles, not necessarily EVs, and extends to trucks, motorcycles, and basically anything that gives humans more range than their feet.
This position would probably be best directed at the city planning office.
schnokobaer
in reply to nucleative • • •Yes, that's like the whole point of my post, being E doesn't fix 90% of the issues caused by individual motorised transport vehicles. And city planning can't do anything about these inherent issues either, they can merely decide to make good, sustainable cities or car friendly cities. Good city planning policies stand in direct contrast to the amount of cars expected to be driven.
And I'm saying this not to shit on EVs, they must clearly replace ICE vehicles as soon as possible, but to warn that they will not fix the unsustainable state of affairs in transportation. Loads of people appear to actually believe they do and that's sort of dangerous. We're not gonna fix jack shit if we just transition these vehicles to being electric while further increasing car dependency and sprawl. We're gonna make it even worse.
Log in | Sign up
in reply to schnokobaer • • •Resonosity
in reply to schnokobaer • • •schnokobaer
in reply to Resonosity • • •BeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to schnokobaer • • •dubyakay
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •schnokobaer
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •My comment is not about what people claim about EVs but how they actually are.
youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8?t=797
- YouTube
youtu.beBeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to schnokobaer • • •schnokobaer
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •BeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to schnokobaer • • •SwingingTheLamp
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •I'm not going to claim that EVs are loud.
I'm going to state it as a fact: EVs are loud. About as loud as ICE cars. I live on a busy street, so I know that this is beyond dispute. The tire noise and wind resistance dominate the noise produced above about 30 kph. ICE vehicles these days have efficient engines and good soundproofing. Many are virtually silent if they go past my house slowly.
Unexpectedly, the hybrid-electric city buses that go past are among the quietest vehicles. They must use tires designed for a quiet, comfortable ride, because all I hear is a slight whoosh, even when they pass by in the quiet, wee hours of the morning.
(To be fair, EVs with quiet tires and moving <30kph are virtually silent, too.)
BeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to SwingingTheLamp • • •SwingingTheLamp
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •BeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to SwingingTheLamp • • •lurch (he/him)
in reply to Rustling Leaves • • •9point6
in reply to Rustling Leaves • • •I'd say long term, neither of those should be problems
Many EV users also go for solar panels to alleviate energy costs. Also as a country's electrical grid modernises, it should make use of a greater share of renewables given they're cheaper than the alternatives now.
Slightly less certain, but I'd hope this kind of thing is legislated away at some point. There's also always customer choice, there will be manufacturers that compete on the privacy angle if enough of us care
The main problem with EVs is it doesn't solve any of the problems inherent to cars being treated as the main mode of transportation in a given area. Places like that will see EVs as the solution compared to an alternative of investing into better public transit infrastructure.
Infrastructure that is basically inevitable, since we know now that any town/city that eschews anything but car transit will ultimately bankrupt themselves on road maintenance alone.
msage
in reply to Rustling Leaves • • •I would suggest different downsizes:
Solution: trains, more trains, even more trains.
Hegar
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Like ~15 years ago I heard peter singer saying that the emissions from the lifetime use of a car were lower than those from making it, so you should only ever buy a second hand car.
That was before widespread EVs though.
I often wonder how long you have to use a 2nd hand gas car for, before the emissions outstrip those of making a brand new EV.
like this
YoSoySnekBoi likes this.
lime!
in reply to Hegar • • •threeish years apparently, given you run it on green electricity.
like this
riot likes this.
WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to lime! • • •Well, there is a good chance the data is distorted for fossil interests. It's from 2021 too!
2025 vehicles are miles ahead! (Literally).
They have those solid-state batteries that charge in 5 minutes. There is the lightyear prototype that was insanely expensive...but it could run for decades given optimal light, and 40km/h or bellow speed with it's solar panels.
lime!
in reply to WorldsDumbestMan • • •source is polestar and rivian, as noted in the graphic.
solid-state batteries are not yet viable at vehicle scale.
lightyear went bankrupt in 2023.
WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to lime! • • •Oh, nice....
That's what I get for forgetting we live in Warhammer 2k
lime!
in reply to WorldsDumbestMan • • •primrosepathspeedrun
in reply to WorldsDumbestMan • • •WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to primrosepathspeedrun • • •BeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to primrosepathspeedrun • • •primrosepathspeedrun
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •Something is screwy with the power generation part of that graphic, or the person who made it is basing it on a country that doesn't have much wind or solar power.
In the UK there are cheap tariffs for overnight electricity because of all the wind power.
If you're in America, you're pretty much fucked for green transport in any case. Canada has some great trolly bus and underground public transport because of all the hydroelectric power. My home city has only been buying electric buses for a long while now.
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •i'm confused. you say "those wind turbines" but we're talking about loads, not generators.
on average, the world has less than 15% of its energy needs met by renewables.
incidentally, the us has the second most intstalled solar capacity of any single country, about 2/3rds that of europe.
wind turbines seem to average at 10kg CO~2~eq/MWh over their lifetime, but since they are not "plannable" power you always need something else to meet demand. if that something else is a gas peaker plant (490kg CO~2~eq/MWh), you're screwed emissions wise.
Edit: Here's a chart of the total CO~2~eq for the different regions of the world. using the 2021 EU number of 235g/kWh, 26 tonnes of total charging emissions would require you to fully charge a 2021 polestar 2 standard range 26 000 000g ÷ 235g ÷ 64kWh ≈ 1728 times, which would give the car a lifetime of between four and sixteen years, depending on your driving style (lower end you charge it every day, which is not realistic, higher end you charge once or twice a week). if we use the 2021 world average of 369g, that gives us 1101 full charges, or 3-10 years depending on driving style.
Estimating carbon dioxide emissions from gas plants - Global Energy Monitor
Global Energy Monitorlime!
in reply to lime! • • •I wanted to double-check my numbers so i found a reddit thread asking people how often they charge their cars, and tried to extract info from it using mistral (so take it with a grain of salt. it gave sources but i managed to close the page after screenshotting).
::: spoiler transcript
Mistral: In the Reddit thread you linked, most EV owners report charging their cars about 2–3 times per week on average. Many users mentioned plugging in their EVs at home whenever convenient, often overnight, rather than waiting for the battery to run low. Some charge daily out of habit, while others charge every few days depending on their driving needs and battery range. The majority have access to home charging, which makes frequent top-ups easy and convenient.
Charging Frequency (from user comments):
Typical Charging Behavior:
Range Added per Charge:
Summary Table (Based on Thread Comments)
Inference: Most home chargers add enough range to cover their daily driving, rarely letting the battery drop below 20–30%. The data is sufficient to infer that 50–150 miles per charge is the norm for regular use.
Mistral: The Reddit thread does mention several specific EV models, and we can use their battery sizes and the reported range added per charge to estimate average kWh used per person. Here’s what we know:
Commonly Mentioned Models & Battery Sizes
From the thread, the most frequently mentioned models include:
Reported Range Added per Charge
Estimating kWh Used per Charge
Using the EPA efficiency ratings (miles per kWh) for these models, we can estimate kWh used per charge:
Note: Efficiency varies with driving conditions, but these are reasonable averages.
Average kWh Used per Charge (Per Capita)
Most users fall in the 20–40 kWh per charge range, depending on their model and daily needs.
Mistral: Here is a table estimating the CO2 emissions per 100 km for common EV models when charged in different regions, using 2021 CO2 emissions per kWh data from the IEA and typical battery sizes and efficiencies:
CO2 Emissions per 100 km for EVs by Region (2021 Data)
Notes & Assumptions
Key Takeaways
Mistral: Let’s use the kWh per charge and CO2 per kWh by region from our earlier tables to estimate how many years it would take for the mentioned EV models to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq from charging alone, based on typical charging habits.
Recap of Key Data
Calculations
1. CO2 per Charge (kg)
2. Annual CO2 from Charging
3. Years to Reach 26 Tonnes (26,000 kg) CO2eq
Note: These are rough estimates based on charging habits and grid emissions, and do not include manufacturing or other lifecycle emissions.
Mistral: Here’s how the years to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq change with different charging frequencies (1x, 2x, 3x, and 4x per week), using the same kWh per charge (20–40 kWh) and 2021 grid emissions:
Assumptions
Years to 26 Tonnes CO2eq by Charging Frequency
Mistral: Here’s the average scrapping age of vehicles in the regions you asked about, based on the latest available data:
Average Scrapping Age by Region (2021–2024)
Region | Average Scrapping Age | Notes
-|--|-
European Union | ~12–17 years | EU average is 12.3 years; some countries (e.g., Greece, Estonia) average 17 years. Newer cars are found in Luxembourg (~7.9 years).
United States | ~12.6 years | As of 2024, the average age of cars and light trucks on the road is 12.6 years, with scrappage rates around 4.5–4.6% per year.
China | ~10–15 years | Most passenger vehicles are scrapped after 10–15 years, though policies are pushing for earlier scrappage of older, more polluting vehicles.
India | ~15 years | The national scrappage policy targets vehicles older than 15 years for mandatory scrapping, with incentives for voluntary scrappage of private cars over 15 years.
:::
my takeaway is that, if charged three times a week, which seems to be common, most ev's get to 26tCO~2~eq before being scrapped no matter their location.
Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •The graph fails the plausibility check of "does using fossil fuelled car pollute about the same as EVs" and the graph trying to make out that they do. I too can ask AI questions, but I think AIs are full of shit. Here it is anyway, and the fossil fuel cars are getting a free pass for ALL the CO2 emissions during generation, which as per my other comment, are about 50 times higher assuming that oil extraction and refinery isn't actually better than natural gas:
CO2 Emissions Comparison
Assumptions
Electric Vehicle (EV):
* Average energy consumption: 20 kWh/100 km (or 0.2 kWh/km).
* Carbon intensity during overnight charging: 75 gCO2/kWh.
Petrol Engine:
* Average emissions: 150 gCO2/km (this can vary based on vehicle efficiency).
Diesel Engine:
* Average emissions: 120 gCO2/km (again, this can vary based on vehicle efficiency).
CO2 Emissions Calculation
Electric Vehicle (EV)
Energy consumption per mile:
* 1 km = 0.621371 miles, so 20 kWh/100 km = 20 kWh/62.1371 miles = 0.321 kWh/mile.
CO2 emissions per mile:
* 0.321 kWh/mile×75 gCO2/kWh=24.1 gCO2/mile.
Petrol Engine
CO2 emissions per mile:
* 150 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=93.2 gCO2/mile.
Diesel Engine
CO2 emissions per mile:
* 120 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=74.6 gCO2/mile.
Summary of CO2 Emissions per Mile
Vehicle Type CO2 Emissions (gCO2/mile)
Electric Vehicle (EV) 24.1
Petrol Engine 93.2
Diesel Engine 74.6
Conclusion
Charging an electric vehicle overnight on a greener grid results in approximately 24.1 gCO2 per mile, which is significantly lower than the emissions from petrol engines at 93.2 gCO2 per mile and diesel engines at 74.6 gCO2 per mile. This comparison highlights the environmental advantages of EVs, especially when charged during times of high renewable energy availability. If you have any further questions or need more details, feel free to ask!
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •i've provided mistral with sources and asked it to summarize them, then do averages on those summarisations. i've not just asked it to pull data from wherever (except the scrapping thing). i too think ai's are full of shit, but i can go back and check because i provided the data.
the assumptions made in your text give a gCO~2~/kWh figure of about half the IEA's, where's that from? also, the emissions numbers of your fossil fuels engines are way off. assuming a fuel consumption of 10l/100km, the number for a petrol car would be 230g CO~2~/km rather than 150. also you're mixing your units a lot.
What is the carbon footprint of a conventional car? | D-Carbonize
Mélanie Costanza (D-Carbonize)Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •Yeah, like I say, AI is shit. Quoting it as an authoritative source is crazy, and AI is surprisingly bad at arithmetic.
The graphic is screwy. It doesn't pass plausibility test. Somehow the carbon cost of generating green electricity is far higher than the carbon cost of extracting oil and refining it. Someone's adding in a whole bunch of CO2 for manufacturing and installing some wind turbines but not for oil extraction machinery and oil refineries. Just the sheer quantity of steel alone isn't even comparable.
So no, you can chatgpt your argument as much as you like but you can't convince me that the cheapest greenest wind overnight electricity I power my EV with somehow took more CO2 by quite a margin than the oil extraction, oil tankers and oil refining that my neighbour's diesel car does. That's so backwards and obviously incorrect and I don't know why you persist with entertaining the idea.
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •I only objected to the graphic because it makes obviously screwy claims about power generation, somehow concluding that electricity is more polluting than double that of oil extraction, refinery and transportation, which is clearly false unless you're in America or somewhere else that aggressively refuses to invest in wind and solar, despite onland wind being the cheapest form of electricity. The rest of the thread is you pointlessly trying to defend the absurd conclusion of the misleading graphic that it doesn't matter whether you buy a polluting car or not. It does.
My advice for everyone: Next car, buy electric for the planet's sake and the sheer joy of driving that brings (turn off spongy acceleration gasoline emulation mode), and buy second hand for your wallet and the planet's sake.
Don't believe the FUD around EVs; stop repeating the lies that the petrochemical industry is pushing so hard.
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •A small point Re the EU average, you're including a bunch of countries that don't have as much wind power as the UK, and there's a world of difference between peak CO2 for peak electricity at teatime and early evening and CO2 for charging the car overnight when the electricity is cheapest exactly because it's greenest and there's so much wind power overnight (in the UK).
From your Forbes article:
So I don't see how the carbon cost of generating that electricity can be so much higher than the carbon cost of petrol which is surely even higher than natural gas which doesn't require refineries, when it's actually about 2% as much over the lifetime of the equipment.
Like I said, graph is screwy. Someone in the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think that electric is greener. It's a lie. It's FUD. Stop parroting it.
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •your first paragraph makes no sense. yes the eu includes more countries than the uk. it's a connected market.
these stats are by polestar and rivian, as it says in the thing. if you have better sources, give them to me.
check my followup post.
Log in | Sign up
in reply to lime! • • •The UK isn't even in the EU, and different countries certainly have different energy mixes anyway.
I literally quoted your own sources! I followed the links and I read them. Didn't you? I quoted them back to you. What a weird comment.
lime!
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •there's a huge mass of cables connecting the uk to the eu. energy you use is never "from" a single source, it's from wherever it's generated, which means it's from the eu grid. i don't even know why the uk is in this conversation?
i did. i used the actual numbers presented by the sources though, rather than the predictions.
rising_man
in reply to Hegar • • •My old petrol car consumes 4.5L/100km. New Hybrid EVs consume 4.5L/100km because it takes a lot to move the heavy hybrid system.
Solution: I use public transport a lot unless I can't. That's my hybrid mode of transport.
Grimy
in reply to rising_man • • •like this
riot likes this.
skisnow
in reply to Grimy • • •Also they're blatantly not comparing like for like.
For example, the Toyota Yaris has a petrol-only version that get 4.6 to 5.8L/100km, whereas the (non-plugin) hybrid version of the exact same car gets 3.8L/100km, so all this guff about "it takes a lot to move the heavy hybrid system" is clearly FUD.
idiomaddict
in reply to Hegar • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to idiomaddict • • •nobody158
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •rockerface🇺🇦
in reply to nobody158 • • •Spezi
in reply to nobody158 • • •WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •But I have to be together with people!
I'd rather drive my bike to work.
friend_of_satan
in reply to WorldsDumbestMan • • •- YouTube
youtu.beWorldsDumbestMan
in reply to friend_of_satan • • •Dequei
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Kjell
in reply to Dequei • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to Kjell • • •Resonosity
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •Next step would be attending city/town hall meetings, and slowly advocating for more and more public transit over time.
The dream of coast-to-coast public transit, the likes of which we saw before WWII, is still possible
wewbull
in reply to Resonosity • • •Resonosity
in reply to wewbull • • •In the US and for those that live outside of municipal boundaries and that live in unincorporated regions, lots of states have "townships" that are the default local government below county-level. Municipal corporations like towns and cities replace townships.
Still, those townships have local governments that can be engaged with politically.
And then there's counties in the US which act as the local government overseeing townships, etc.
People's political activism doesn't have to start and end in towns/cities.
wewbull
in reply to Resonosity • • •Do the have a local government capable of building effective municipal transport?
They might be able to put a bus on that takes half a day to cover all the scatted houses, but nobody is going to use it.
Resonosity
in reply to wewbull • • •A bus network is a good first step, yes.
And why all the pushback against political action? You're giving off doomer vibes.
wewbull
in reply to Resonosity • • •No not doomed. I'm just tired of people thinking that public transport works in every situation.
People live in different places, and have different needs. I live where there's very good public transport and yet my commute would be 4x the time and 10x the cost if I had no option but to use it. People who live in rural areas will never have good public transport as the practicalities don't make sense.
So I still see a need for private transport. I just want it to be as clean as possible.
NotJohnSmith
in reply to Log in | Sign up • • •Log in | Sign up
in reply to NotJohnSmith • • •chloroken
in reply to Dequei • • •Sestren
in reply to chloroken • • •chloroken
in reply to Sestren • • •catsarebadpeople
in reply to chloroken • • •chloroken
in reply to catsarebadpeople • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to catsarebadpeople • • •catsarebadpeople
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to catsarebadpeople • • •Mika
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •PrettyFlyForAFatGuy
in reply to Mika • • •Mika
in reply to PrettyFlyForAFatGuy • • •PrettyFlyForAFatGuy
in reply to Mika • • •Mika
in reply to PrettyFlyForAFatGuy • • •I mean from engineering perspective batteries in the board part do get damaged when you damage the board by hitting the floor, and they have increased chances to catch fire when your charge them. And when they do, they fucking destroy everything around. You can't really stop it either.
Key point: when you charge them. There is no reason to assume that would happen in tram or something.
NotJohnSmith
in reply to PrettyFlyForAFatGuy • • •butwhyishischinabook
in reply to Mika • • •jaybone
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Underwaterbob
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •kamenLady.
in reply to Underwaterbob • • •Ocean
in reply to Underwaterbob • • •F_State
in reply to Underwaterbob • • •groet
in reply to F_State • • •sugarfoot00
in reply to groet • • •F_State
in reply to groet • • •Underwaterbob
in reply to F_State • • •Bizzle
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •chuckleslord
in reply to Bizzle • • •Wrong! I could become the president and nuke the world. Boom, worse than industrial fishing.
Hahaha!
Oh, sorry. I meant
MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
piccolo
in reply to chuckleslord • • •sugarfoot00
in reply to piccolo • • •Tja
in reply to piccolo • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Bizzle • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Basic Glitch
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •I'm all for public transit, but I will mention for the sake of honesty, Paul Weyrich, the creator of the Heritage Foundation had a bizarre fixation on trains from an early age.
Government funding for basically anything else related to common public good was forbidden, but for some reason trains were like his one "thing" he believed the government should fund.
Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation
So I'm all for public transit, but I would still demand public accountability. We deserve to know exactly who is profiting from any publicly funded projects.
Edit: He wrote a lot, and frequently found a way to sneak something about his public transportation fetish in just about everything he wrote (even somehow in a blog post shitting on New Orleans days after Katrina), but this is probably one of my favorite takes:
Bring Back the Streetcars! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation
🤣 This would be so hilarious if we weren't all watching the U.S. being torn apart as a direct result of his life's work.
Bring Back the Streetcars! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation : American Public Transportation Association : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Internet ArchiveBeeegScaaawyCripple
in reply to Basic Glitch • • •i'm not familiar with that information being hidden
Juice
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •Basic Glitch
in reply to BeeegScaaawyCripple • • •Public accountability for the plebs and not the oligarchs is standard operating procedure for these people.
Recent examples:
After promising transparency, RFK guts public records teams at HHS
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Interestingly enough, even though healthcare didn't make the cut for the current budget, it does appear there is still somehow money for transportation projects under this administration:
U.S. Department of Transportation and Amtrak Unveil Timeline for NewYork Penn Station Transformation Project
Lol what a crazy coincidence. Heritage was pumped to have this guy confirmed back in Jan.
U.S. Department of Transportation and Amtrak Unveil Timeline for NewYork Penn Station Transformation Project - Amtrak Media
Jason Abrams (Amtrak Media)ZILtoid1991
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Seleni
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •My friend’s work is over an hour from his house by public transport—if public transport is working, and it’s a weekday. If it isn’t working well, if it’s late, if it’s a weekend or holiday, then it’s closer to two hours (or more).
It’s 15 minutes max by car.
And he lives in a place with good public transportation.
Until we improve how public transportation runs, so that it really is designed around how people need to get from A to B, cars are going to be the more popular choice.
Juice
in reply to Seleni • • •Yes but that is never going to happen without putting restraints on the auto industry, which puts big money into preventing public transit from being built, and if its already exists, to destroy it.
Car culture is killing us. I get you're trying to be pragmatic but more is necessary.
romanticremedy
in reply to Seleni • • •I really hate that shit. To suburbs? Sure, that's acceptable cox public transportation prioritizes high density areas.
To city to another city and public transportation takes double of driving? That's bad design. Infrastructure that prioritizes cars no matter the population density is not sustainable, whether that's shown as car traffic or massive deficit to keep roads maintained
ILoveUnions
in reply to Seleni • • •Bikes combined with public transit usually cut down those times massively. And to ask---good, or good by usa standards? Cities in Germany or japan are impressive with how fast you can get places by train.
Also-- people being unwilling to trade a bit of convenience in exchange for a better world is a major part of the problem. I got off my car and started biking for everything, and it was easy. More people could easily do the same. Combined with trains, I can go very far.
doingthestuff
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to doingthestuff • • •What's stopping you?
doingthestuff
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •NotJohnSmith
in reply to Seleni • • •cdf12345
in reply to NotJohnSmith • • •NotJohnSmith
in reply to cdf12345 • • •It does for me (southern uk) but to be fair doesn't often go beyond - 5 and.im driven by something more powerful than environmentalism - cheapness! 😀
Edit: I see you said constant below freezing, yeah fair point, that would tip the balance
sugarfoot00
in reply to cdf12345 • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to cdf12345 • • •Seleni
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •Holy crap does it ever not.
Speaking from past lived experience trying to get to work in -30c weather in my old city, and the once-every-half-hour bus is either full, late, or broken down. FORGET that noise.
It's definitely better where I am now l, but vast swaths of cityscape in my country are massively underserved, and I would assert that calling it "daunting" is comically trivializing the daily stress of trying to make a schedule happen in those cases.
Just telling someone to buck up and endure that is extremely condescending; you'll win so few allies to your cause with this approach (which I, incidentally l, support). You're basically saying their time is of little to no value, and what they want to accomplish with it doesn't matter. And time is the only true non-renewable resource in your life, kids.
So, I say thee: nay.
oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •Holy crap does it ever not.
Speaking from past lived experience trying to get to work in -30c weather in my old city, and the once-every-half-hour bus is either full, late, or broken down. FORGET that noise.
It's definitely better where I am now l, but vast swaths of cityscape in my country are massively underserved, and I would assert that calling it "daunting" is comically trivializing the daily stress of trying to make a schedule happen in those cases.
Just telling someone to buck up and endure that is extremely condescending; you'll win so few allies to your cause with this approach (which I, incidentally l, support). You're basically saying their time is of little to no value, and what they want to accomplish with it doesn't matter. And time is the only true non-renewable resource in your life, kids.
So, I say thee: nay.
ILoveUnions
in reply to oortjunk • • •I'm not speaking without doing. I've done as cold as it gets in my city, which is admittedly short of -30c, probably closer to -23c. This is about bikes, not buses. (But honestly goes for both!)
People aren't going to like being told it. But I'm ever of the opinion that people who whine when told they're wrong are not ever going to be the ones changing in the first place. They merely sit there, in the comfort of the car, justifying their decision by pretending the gas guzzling environment harming and dangerous vehicles are somehow justified by the small amount of lightly discomfortable weather and short bikeable rides.
It's not of little value. It's the amount saved by driving is not worth it. For them and for others.
oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •Bikes would be even worse imo. Your uphill battle just got much steeper. You're also not helping anything by making the sweeping generalizations you seem to enjoy making.
I can't say I have heard it before from countless others (to precisely no avail), but regardless, best of luck in gathering momentum for your cause.
ILoveUnions
in reply to oortjunk • • •Bikes are not even half as hard as you think they are.
Thankfully, there's already significant momentum, bike lanes and transit are growing stronger.
oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •I sold my bike last summer. I dislike riding bikes now; they hurt my back, and the cycling community is unfriendly (QED). I prefer my VESC board, it's more fun, and I can do a local grocery run without worrying that someone will steal it, and I've made more friends in the community.
I prefer my EV for longer distances, it's more practical.
For whatever reason, you seem unable to see someone else's perspectives on this subject. I'm going to chalk it up to inexperience.
Either way, it makes you a poor advocate for your cause.
ILoveUnions
in reply to oortjunk • • •"i sold my hammer because the hammer community was unfriendly"
It's a tool first and a culture second. Choosing a tool based on culture is already poor decision making.
I can see their perspective. I think their perspective is simply pure selfishness, desire for a small convenience over the greater overall good.
A bike that hurts your back is likely not a practical commuter upright bike.
oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to oortjunk • • •A glance at this thread would show you I'm right. People's primary reasons for not switching is not wanting to bike in the rain, winter, and not wanting to be sweaty --all of which products are made to deal with.
Even kids are easily transportable with a small trailer
oortjunk
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •Tja
in reply to Seleni • • •Seleni
in reply to Tja • • •Well, ‘good’ by US standards.
Wish we had Japan standards 🙁
bss03
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Depends on population density. Even if there was passenger train service on the existing lines here, a lot of people would need a vehicle to get to the station, and I don't think public buses / vans could cover all the roads at a reasonable schedule.
But, also, you don't have to get very dense before public transport is better than individual vehicles for intracity trips.
twice_hatch
in reply to bss03 • • •NotMyOldRedditName
in reply to bss03 • • •We've been trying to get a LRT in a 400k population area for decades and can't make it happen. There's even an old unused rail line with right of way all the way from the biggest nearby municipality that causes all the traffic problems to downtown.
They still don't think it's enough people to warrant the upgrade/conversion costs.
They have been adding bus only lanes between downtown and that area though including in town and on the highway, but they've maybe only connected half the highway with bus only. That has been helping, and more frequent busses on it.
bss03
in reply to NotMyOldRedditName • • •NotMyOldRedditName
in reply to bss03 • • •I think part of the concern is ridership outside work commutes, but I think it's more if you build it they will come kinda thing.
But something like this doesn't need to be profitable. It can be a service. Need to get away from the thought that it all has to be profitable.
ILoveUnions
in reply to bss03 • • •BIKE. BIKE TO THE TRAIN STATION
NotJohnSmith
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •It also solves the problem at the other end where I'm 4 miles from my office.
Trains don't make it easy to get bikes on but that's easily resolved also
ILoveUnions
in reply to NotJohnSmith • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •While a lot of people can, some live far away, or have small kids, or the weather doesn't allow it, or...
There is no one single solution, every bit helps, and often they help each other.
Leon
in reply to Tja • • •I think distance is a pretty good reason not to. Just not wanting to is a fair excuse too, honestly. A car is convenient.
That said, at the point where the weather prohibits going by bicycle, in my experience at least, you generally just don't go anywhere because it'd be perilous in a car as well. I recall when I visited Kiruna some years ago, other than the cars, most people I saw were getting around on kicksleds and bicycles. Even saw a couple of dog sleds.
As for kids, what I've generally seen here are three options; chariots (can usually hold up to two kids), parcel shelf seats (one child), or the kid bikes themselves. I was taught to ride a bicycle at three, and at seven I biked to and from school on my own.
Granted, in the U.S. I can see this not happening on account of everything being so bloody spread out that you need a car, and even if you did put up with the distance, the infrastructure isn't there; you can't go on the motorway with a bicycle. Urban planning over in the states is abysmal.
Tja
in reply to Leon • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Small kids doesn't stop you from biking lmfao. It just changes what setup of bike you need to have.
The only weather that would prevent it is a hurricane and you shouldn't be driving in one of those either.
bss03
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to bss03 • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •No, it's spoken like someone who's been to the numerous countries where they bike with their kids just fine.
A 5-7 mile commute is doable without being sweaty with the right bike.
Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Cars are a problem. They pollute(yes, even electric ones), are costly to run, greatly increase the danger of neighborhoods, cause a reduction in smaller businesses. They make it more expensive for people who don't have money to get around, make it harder for children to get safely from place to place. They generate sizeable areas of development damage to growing people along major highways and roads(again, even electric causes this).
It's not a solved problem, cars are a problem.
Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •No wonder, americans still use 6 liters engines on 4 ton trucks to get groceries.
A small electric compact car with a small battery (soon to be sodium) solves all of the problems while performing the same functions.
ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Huh? They have 60 mile ranges, that's less than a bike.
But no, for long distance biking you take it in conjunction with trains. Can't take a smart car on a train
Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •It's impressive how little you understand about how much energy biking takes
Anyone allowing themselves a 60 mile commute to work is crazy for multiple reasons. But again, trains
Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to Tja • • •Tja
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •bss03
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •I prefer to arrive at work/school/shops not sopping wet, and it sometimes rains.
I, personally, could bike or walk because the station would be particularly close to my residence. But, there are others in the county where to get to the closest station they'd be biking much further than they are currently healthy enough to accomplish.
Bikes are not a good option at this density either.
sugarfoot00
in reply to bss03 • • •If only science could devise some sort of way to keep you dry in the rain. One day, perhaps
bss03
in reply to sugarfoot00 • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to bss03 • • •bss03
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to bss03 • • •bss03
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to bss03 • • •Leon
in reply to bss03 • • •Raincoats! I have a nice yellow raincoat that folds up and inverts into its own pocket, turning into a little square you can tuck away in a bag or something. It's super convenient.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to Leon • • •Okay but what if I’m sopping wet with sweat from the heat and I also smell bad now.
Unless the general stink of the any large concentration of humans will overpower it.
insaneinthemembrane
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •doingthestuff
in reply to ILoveUnions • • •ILoveUnions
in reply to doingthestuff • • •JillyB
in reply to bss03 • • •bss03
in reply to JillyB • • •I agree, by the time you really deserve the term "city" you should provide public transit as a community good and it can be made so that most people want to use it.
I'm in the "city" of Cove, Arkansas. It's a 15 minute drive to the nearest produce section, and I have to work remotely because there aren't computer programmer jobs within a reasonable commute.
At low densities, EVs are the way to go. The more dense, the more public transit makes sense.
I do still wish passenger rail service was restored along the line through here to the county seat; there are days it would save me a drive.
Zink
in reply to JillyB • • •I could see some very well-meaning folks in local government being boxed in by citizens on one side that make their luxury SUVs and even more luxurious pickup trucks into major parts of their identities, and then the various layers of government above them driving the standards that make all of our towns samey-looking stroads. I'm in the US if that wasn't obvious, and the car-centrism runs deep.
I'm a middle aged dude and my house was build multiple decades before I was born. Back then my neighborhood was designed 100% for cars. They even put in drainage ditches that precluded the addition of sidewalks. But several years back the township did paint a walking path down one side of my street.
The new neighborhoods built in the last decade are mostly the same as far as being car-only. They usually have sidewalks and you will see people taking walks or children playing. But it's only local recreation, to walk the dog or to visit a neighbor. If you need to go to the grocery store, it's time to hop into the 2-3 ton family vehicle.
I will give my local government and developers credit though, that some recent projects have been to create what look like islands of walkable community. I have look through the businesses and see if they have groceries and the like. From what I've seen the neighborhood seems to be densely packed expensive apartments and townhomes that were rapidly built en masse, and then in the center there's a grassy field and some breweries and restaurants and stuff. So possibly some very American designs going on there.
JillyB
in reply to Zink • • •I used to live in one of these kind of complexes. It was even next to a river with a nice little 2 mile trail along it. At first I thought it would be cool to live within a short walk of things. There was a convenience store that was quite nice. However, the owner told me that the complex told them they couldn't sell nicotine products "to keep homeless out". That shouldve been a red flag. Then the convenience store closed in favor of a fancy coffee shop. Then a fancy German restaurant with outdoor seating. Suddenly I felt like I lived in an outdoor mall. The site for that apartment complex was previously used for the states death row so I guess it's still an improvement from that.
Zink
in reply to JillyB • • •eww, yeah I can see that happening and a lot of people liking it too.
Even though our suburban neighborhoods are designed to be pro-car and anti-community, the one nice thing about the single family home and little fenced in yard setup is that I can keep some natural beauty close by.
SpiceDealer
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •twice_hatch
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •Edison Trucks out of Canada is betting on diesel-electric hybrids. They're starting with logging trucks but if they succeed (or if someone copies their ideas) I expect they'd expand into long haul.
It still burns fuel for the generator, but with regen braking, charge-depleting during acceleration, an engine tuned for a narrow power band, start-stop for clean idle, and the ability to charge from the grid overnight before short hauls, it can't possibly pollute more than straight diesel.
Like for example, my gasoline car can do about 30 MPG highway and worse in the city. Pure ICE drivetrains suck balls in the city. A 10-year-old Prius on its original battery can do 50 highway and 50 city. I expect hybrids can squeeze some efficiency out of diesel the same way.
vaionko
in reply to twice_hatch • • •betanumerus
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •eCascadia | Freightliner Trucks
www.freightliner.comLianodel
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •To add to what others are saying, you should consider the framing of your question. Progress isn't all-or-nothing. There will still be situations where a truck, van, or car is the best tool for the job, and electrifying them will take time, or require advances in technology. We would still benefit from expanding public transportation and decreasing the need to use a personal vehicle for everyday tasks.
Eventually, though, yes, it would be good to replace diesel trucks with trains where possible, and electrify the ones we can't, when we can.
twice_hatch
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •nekbardrun
in reply to twice_hatch • • •Serious question: What about Alcohol cars?
I get it that there would be a need to develop better motors to run on alcohol alone and that alcohol's output is lower than gasoline but at least the first part is solvable in the same way that diesel motors got better over time (spending money on R&D).
I ask this because, here in Brazil, Lula tried to implement pure alcohol cars back in his first or second term but faced some backlash both because we didn't had the necessary tech to make good alcohol motors and from a lot of other reasons (one which is probably to be petrol companies fucking the project to keep their gains, which although sounds conspirational, may also be true since it is patently obvious that petrol companies lobbyed against climate change measures).
Also, as long as we don't fuck up the soil by mismanagement, it will be almost carbon neutral in emission since all CO2 output was used to grow plants, which is different from using petrol that needs millions of years to be put back under a rock deep down the soil.
I'd even risk to say that it could even be a net-positive(?) carbon capture since the fiber from sugar cane (for brasil's case) is captured carbon that could be used to fertilize the soil back again.
But I don't think we will see a resurgence of alcohol based cars because, as it seems, it failed here on Brazil and oil companies' greed definitivelly aren't the only reason for that (though I believe it played a smal to medium role)
SuperSpruce
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •ayyy
in reply to SuperSpruce • • •SuperSpruce
in reply to ayyy • • •AquaTofana
in reply to SuperSpruce • • •We recently moved to a very bike friendly city in California, and it's a night and day difference to where we had moved from in Texas. There are bike lanes, and bike racks EVERYWHERE.
There is also a heavily used e-bike/e-scooter service available as well. Its been a genuine game changer.
Separate lanes and bike racks all over the place means that the e-scooters aren't ditched all over the sidewalk AND the separate bike lanes do not disrupt traffic so the drivers don't hate them either. We've only used our vehicle for commuting to work since moving here. For everything else, we walk, bike, or scooter. Bought a little collapsible wagon for grocery shopping too!
sugarfoot00
in reply to AquaTofana • • •Oh, they usually still hate them. In there minds, that's a lane of traffic that got taken away. For those people, I usually like to point out an unused sidewalk and complain that those damned pedestrians are also taking away perfectly good driving space.
Blackmist
in reply to SuperSpruce • • •lengau
in reply to Blackmist • • •Korhaka
in reply to Blackmist • • •SuperSpruce
in reply to Blackmist • • •LobsterJim
in reply to SuperSpruce • • •SuperSpruce
in reply to LobsterJim • • •mad_lentil
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •jaykrown
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •qjkxbmwvz
in reply to jaykrown • • •First, that would be lousy public transit design and the route should be rethought.
Second --- does this hyppthetical bus run other routes? Is it electric, powered by overhead lines?
Of course you can up with niche counterexamples for an argument presented in meme format, but that doesn't mean it's not, broadly speaking, correct.
MintyFresh
in reply to jaykrown • • •Zink
in reply to MintyFresh • • •You have the best username + job combo I've seen all day!
And honestly it works whether it's accurate or not, lol.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to jaykrown • • •Sounds like the build out of the transit hubs was bungled.
I've seen this happen once or twice in Houston. Tiny lines that go nowhere and are spun up just so municipal government leaders can say "This doesn't work! Build more highways instead!" Our new "Silver Line" is a great example. It was supposed to be a spoke within a larger spoke/wheel build out, but the state sabotaged roll out of the rest of the network.
Meanwhile, we've got a commuter rail line down Main Street (built back in 2012 for the Olympic bid) that's the third most utilized in the country, just because it gets you into downtown without fighting traffic choke points.
The difference in usage is Night and Day.
Blackmist
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •AmanitaCaesarea
in reply to Blackmist • • •doingthestuff
in reply to AmanitaCaesarea • • •AmanitaCaesarea
in reply to doingthestuff • • •boonhet
in reply to Blackmist • • •It already does. Where I live, you can just rent an electric scooter by the minute/kilometer. Just grab one from the street, scan it in the app and go. Plenty of people who never bothered to get drivers licenses or just haven't bought cars, have electric scooters.
Electric bicycles seem a bit more efficient and comfortable, but scooters are soooo portable. Easier to fit on trains, buses, hallways... And even in your car. Have a car and an electric scooter? Drive to another city, park the car in a lower density area, take your scooter out and go. No longer dependent on intercity transit times, and yet you save a bunch of fuel (because city consumption > highway consumption) and nerves (because fuck city traffic) and don't have to work about expensive and crowded city center parking...
Anyway, new electric scooters start at like 300 EUR for Chinese ones that probably spy on you somehow. Ones with more range and power cost a bit more.
mechoman444
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •InternetCitizen2
in reply to mechoman444 • • •bigbabybilly
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to bigbabybilly • • •Very difficult to build class solidarity when you're atomized to the point of not even seeing one another's real faces.
bss03
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to bss03 • • •😕
The place you spend half your waking hours?
Do you have a job?
bss03
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •I don't currently. Are you hiring computer programmers? I've got 20+ applications sent out via Indeed, but I haven't found one yet.
Even when I was employed, I still visited the library, a few bars, and the saturday farmer's market. While I don't think visiting the bar is necessarily a must, you really should participate in your local library and farmer's market. Connecting to your community is important.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to bss03 • • •We are, in fact.
I'll shoot you a DM.
bigbabybilly
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •boonhet
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •I get why you're digging at them, but there was a period in my life I went to the bar after every workday. Now I have a child. But back then, that's just how I met new people and socialized. Now I... just don't really meet new people. Maybe I'll start meeting other parents soon when it's kindergarten time, but that's about it.
I think this depends most on what kind of city you live in. I had an 8 minute walk from office to bar, and a 4 minute walk from bar to home. And the bar was on the way anyway.
Lushed_Lungfish
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Yes but only if you run it competently.
Source: live in Ottawa.
Korhaka
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •SpaceCowboy
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •A lot of cities were designed around cars. In Cities Skyline you can just bulldoze entire neighbourhoods and completely change the roads and transit. Unfortunately in real life you can't easily bulldoze people's homes, and transit networks can take a decade to build.
Global warming is a problem now, and perfect is the enemy of good enough. We know EVs aren't the ideal solution, but it's important part of a solution that involves improved transit, better quality of life in dense population centers AND EVs for neighbourhoods that were built in a car-centric past. Maybe in 100 years the suburbs won't exist and there won't be any need for cars, but if we wait 100 years to have perfectly designed transit friendly neighbourhoods we'll all be fucked.
agamemnonymous
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •鳳凰院 凶真 (Hououin Kyouma)
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •DarthAstrius
in reply to 鳳凰院 凶真 (Hououin Kyouma) • • •happyfullfridge
in reply to DarthAstrius • • •Gammelfisch
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Dasus
in reply to Gammelfisch • • •And if they're hadn't thrashed the railcars, the cities might look wildly different.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera…
Illegal monopolies by GM and others in the 1940s
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)JcbAzPx
in reply to Dasus • • •Dasus
in reply to JcbAzPx • • •I mean, Europe hasn't torn it's cities down (well not all of them and not for rebuilding purposes anyway) despite managing to utilise good public transport.
Then again guess your point is rather that American cities were built stupidly car centric and that somehow those can't be replaced with any sort of public transport?
DarthAstrius
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •I agree, but, this country, unfortunately, is built around cars now, and I certainly can’t walk to work as it would take hours, same with biking.
We need more public transportation, but we also need electric cars.
AmericanEconomicThinkTank
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •In a car I am in constant conflict, constant in risk.
In a plane I am but a commodity, worth only my payment.
In a bus we are a union, to endure together, and one another.
In a train we are a tribe, fortified in goals, interests, as philosophers of old.
Echo Dot
in reply to AmericanEconomicThinkTank • • •AmericanEconomicThinkTank
in reply to Echo Dot • • •Okay I mayyyy be glossing over the occasional pee stains, bad scheduling, overly expensive tickets, and occasional fella high out of his gourd taking the occasional break from his hazed trance to scream at me because I'm secretly the devil.
Just the colors of life I say.
JcbAzPx
in reply to AmericanEconomicThinkTank • • •AmericanEconomicThinkTank
in reply to JcbAzPx • • •jaupsinluggies
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •That's great if public transport goes from near where you are to near where you want to be, in a reasonable time.
For me that's not the case. Anywhere I want to go takes 27 changes over at least 5 hours for a net distance of three miles; it'd be quicker to hop backwards blindfold on a bent pogo stick.
polle
in reply to jaupsinluggies • • •OneWomanCreamTeam
in reply to polle • • •polle
in reply to OneWomanCreamTeam • • •romanticremedy
in reply to jaupsinluggies • • •jj4211
in reply to romanticremedy • • •While there's something to that, it's also a difficult fact that rail is just harder than roads, and by extension more expensive. You have hills? You are going to need to do tunnels and bridges for the rail because you can't turn that sharply and you mustn't have more than 1.5% grade. For road, just snake it around and up and down the hills.
You have a source and destination that not many people will be using? It's cost prohibitive to run a whole train or bus to cover that route.
Now it's one thing when the population distribution was based around settling around the harsh realities of needing to be along viable transit paths, but when a great deal of the population settled with the assumption of roads, you are going to have a hard time sorting out transit routes without mass resettlement.
Of course, if you apply mass transit to cities and nearby areas you've gotten the worst of the troubles solved and it's viable for mass transit. But cars are just part of the equation for longer hauls.
pyre
in reply to jaupsinluggies • • •people who argue for public transport argue for better implementation of it (and also city planning that supports it). the idea isn't for everyone to just stop using cars in favor of public transport even if the public transport system is absolute shit. it's for systemic support of public transport in such a way that commuters would willingly choose it over being stuck in traffic in their little metal boxes for hours.
it's a criticism of the system, not the people.
valtia
in reply to jaupsinluggies • • •doingthestuff
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •valtia
in reply to doingthestuff • • •blady_blah
in reply to doingthestuff • • •Deflated0ne
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •While I agree that we need a national public works project worth of new modern trains.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
Anywhere to anywhere. Drive for 10 hours. Then plot your completed course on a map of the lower 48. Just to demonstrate how monstrously fucking huge this country is. So they understand that while trains are amazing. They aren't the panacea some seem to think.
bstix
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •polle
in reply to bstix • • •jj4211
in reply to bstix • • •So in part, yes because of that's what we spent the money on and also yes, because we can do things with roads that we can't do with rail.
With rail, you generally don't want over 0.5% grade, maybe 1.5% grade. With roads 5% grade is considered no big deal, 8% for freeway ramps, and mountain roads commonly being 15-20%. Also turns can be much tighter with roads.
It's much much cheaper to do roads, particularly through hilly or mountainous terrain.
titanicx
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •HatchetHaro
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •It takes about 10 hours to drive 688 miles from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City, an actual distance of 580 miles.
For more than double that distance, at 1238 miles, a high-speed train from Hong Kong to Beijing takes 9 hours.
"The US is way too big for trains and public transit to be feasible" is a lousy excuse for poor infrastructure and planning.
Deflated0ne
in reply to HatchetHaro • • •Ashelyn
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •It's not about getting rid of cars entirely. It's about prioritizing other modes of transport that are more efficient at moving people for 90% of daily trips they need to make.
Cars will still exist, they will just not be most people's first choice for going to/from places. Ideally they exist more as a tool for specific situations where needed, such as work that covers a broad/rural area and requires large/specialized tools.
HatchetHaro
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •no one is saying "get rid of cars". if you live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere where it'd be inefficient to build transit infrastructure due to the low population it would serve, then no one is trying to take away your car.
it's all about decreasing society's dependence on cars where it makes sense (higher population areas like towns and cities, as well as long-distance options between those areas) in favour of way more efficient modes of transport.
a Kendrick fan
in reply to HatchetHaro • • •glitchdx
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •supersquirrel
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •I am gonna be honest, this is such a lame, US exceptionalism line that people in the US repeat ad nauseam as if it adds anything to the conversation.
Nobody is saying for the couple of people living in North Dakota that they can't keep their truck and drive around everywhere, the transportation needs of people that live in rural places like this are vanishingly small compared to the problem we are talking about here. We are talking about MASS TRANSIT so places that actually have enough people for major industry, and for major movements of people and material that can actually clog transportation networks. Why when people try to have a conversation about the economic centers of the US that actually make this country run do people obsess about the guy living in the middle of nowhere Kansas who can go on happily driving a pickup for the rest of eternity and who has no impact on the places that actually matter in the US in terms of transit?
Nobody lives in most of the US, so no the fact that those parts of the US exist does not make the US uniquely difficult to make mass transit for because "it is too big", you just make the mass transit where the high population density is. Deep red rural government-handout states can continue to be based entirely around cars, great, it really doesn't affect much of the US population because most of the US population doesn't live in those places and don't desire to go to them.
Great now that we have been over this, please never throw this line out lazily again, it adds nothing.
Deflated0ne
in reply to supersquirrel • • •Wow. Talk about overused lines of delusional bullshit.
Twinsies I guess?
Please never say this absurd nonsense again. For your own benefit.
glitchdx
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •Deflated0ne
in reply to glitchdx • • •glitchdx
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •supersquirrel
in reply to glitchdx • • •valtia
in reply to Deflated0ne • • •But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Bjarne
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •That is true, which makes it so weird to get so much backlash from advocating for good transit in the first place.
Also driving by bike is often times overlooked. In my home town of 10k the supermarket has a us sized parking lot and is located right in the center...
Its cheaper for you and others, healthier for you, others and the earth and its safer for others.
JcbAzPx
in reply to Bjarne • • •Captain Aggravated
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •valtia
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •Taalnazi
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •HugeNerd
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Dr. Moose
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •wabasso
in reply to Dr. Moose • • •betanumerus
in reply to Dr. Moose • • •Soleos
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Electric cars are a type of vehicle.
Public transit is a type of transportation system that include many different types of vehicles and can include electric cars.
You're comparing apples to orchards.
causepix
in reply to Soleos • • •They aren't doing that, you are. The apples to apples comparison that they are making is our current transit system; with the cars being fully electrified but otherwise as it exists today; versus a transit system that prioritizes mass transit (and walking and biking) over personal vehicles.
Electric cars are a solution to save the auto industry, not the climate.
Soleos
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
in reply to Soleos • • •betanumerus
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Coleslaw4145
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •causepix
in reply to Coleslaw4145 • • •causepix
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •It's amazing how much it takes for some to reach the conclusion that systemic change is both necessary and requires... systemic change. As in systems changing. As in greater change than your individual decision to ride an EV or ICEV or public transit. Change that would make it exponentially more intuitive for you to choose the most sustainable one of those options.
Especially if mass transit is not feasible for you, this post is not to shame you or call on you to try and do it anyways. It's a recognition that riding mass transit is not feasible or intuitive for most people, and a call to make mass transit available to more people rather than investing all that time and energy into the wild goose chase of EV adoption.
The crying indian really did a number on us.
Nomorereddit
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •Oh boy more of the same. Can I still have a side of billion dollar rail lines desired by those who don't own property and a complaint about houses being to expenaive and wages too small?
Come up with some new shit. Like how many Republicans and democrats you got to have sex. And why doesnt language translate for man's oldest friend.....a dog.
Fedegenerate
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •I have Reduced my car/bike usage. I'm still a hobby driver/motorcyclist but I do it less nowadays.
All my vehicles are bought second hand and will be Reused until I can't fix them anymore. They're both mid 00's Hondas (car and bike) so that's likely going to be until I run out of parts on the market.
Then they will be Recycled for scrap metal. At that point I'll think about Reusing some other second hand car. If electric makes sense it'll be that.
gandalf_der_12te
in reply to socialistpartyca • • •ricecake
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •I'm with you entirely except for comfort. I think the only comfort advantage is that trains can have comparable leg room and you can standup.
I have never been on any type of mass transit where the seats were as comfortable as even a crappy car.
That's ignoring system dependent stuff like cleanliness or the discomforts of being close to strangers.
You can certainly clean more, put in better seats, and suck it up when it comes to strangers, but as it is right now, I struggle to see how you could say it's more comfortable based purely on the amenities.
gandalf_der_12te
in reply to ricecake • • •easy, i don't have to focus on the street for 50 minutes. that's a big win for me.
ricecake
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •Ah, I wouldn't have called that comfort, more boredom. I still don't agree on the comfort thing, but at least I can see where you're coming from.
I'm tall and overweight. Even when I wasn't overweight the seats have never been wide enough and I almost always have my knees pressed into the back of the seat in front of me. With the seat being too short as well, I usually end up with a fair bit of pain unless I can stand or get a seat without someone close in front of me.
Taalnazi
in reply to ricecake • • •It's not really boredom, you have that time left to sleep, draw, read, or enjoy the scenery. All the more worth it for public transit.
It also takes cars off the road, meaning fewer and shorter traffic jams. Win in my book.
The seating is more of an issue with cars, I've felt. It's always cramped and big cars are uncomfortable and unsafe. Hassle to park as well, and they end up costing you way more than it's worth.
Yeah, for me the real status symbol is a bicycle and healthy legs. Or a good public transit card.
ricecake
in reply to Taalnazi • • •I mean, I used to be exclusively a bus rider or pedestrian, so I'm not unfamiliar with them. Sleeping is a bad choice because you can miss your stop, and at least in my experience the scenery is no different than you would get from the windshield.
Did like reading though, since that was relaxing. If I'm being fair though, taking a car for the trip I used to bus is fast enough that I wouldn't find a book worth it.
Does the seat softness not bother you? For me, seat softness and leg room are the two biggest drives for feeling uncomfortable and even the smallest car has more.
To be clear, I'm not saying public transit is bad. Far from it. If it were remotely viable for any of the trips I need to take it would be my go to. I just think that they could put more padding on the seats, make them a little larger, and give a touch more leg room.
Taalnazi
in reply to ricecake • • •You don't miss your stop with an alarm.
The scenery is certainly different. You don't always see roads, you look at the side.
The seats are pretty comfy in train and bus, enough leg space too. I do agree with you that more padding and extra leg space would be always welcome, though.
ricecake
in reply to Taalnazi • • •We'll have to agree to disagree on the seats. It's just not comfortable from my view. A cheap office chair would be an upgrade. We almost certainly live in different areas with different buses, so it's not really something we can compare specifically.
Completely different scenery is pushing it a bit. I can pretty much see whatever I could see out of the bus window through the windshield, and for the most part it's not what you would call "scenic". I don't live in the country nor do I live in a big enough city for interesting architecture, so it's just a long suburban and urban sprawl of slightly run down houses and low grade commercial along the bus routes. We're not talking some run down dystopia, but there just isn't much interesting to see, at least more than once.
I don't think an alarm would help me not miss my stop. The buses here are reliable, but not regular enough to set an alarm for arrival times. I was always worried they'd show up early and I'd miss it, and that sucked when the weather was bad.
TheObviousSolution
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •... Have you ever used public transportation in any major city? It is about the only instance in modern age where you are in a vehicle that may be going 50 kph and you are standing. If you are going to be making claims, I would drop that "10x as comfortable" bit.
Comfortable is probably the biggest reason most people don't use public transportation. With their own cars, they don't need to wait, they don't need to worry about whether they are going to be packed like sardines because of the work rush, or forced to even wait for another pass because it got full before they were able to get on, or have to worry about getting cramps from not being able to sit, or having the transit take significantly more because it's not direct, or pickpockets..
About the only comfortable thing about public transport is if you can get on it during off-peak hours when seats are available, in a route that doesn't require a lot transfers, that isn't much longer due to the stops and side-routing, and that doesn't have a high wait time. All the stars have to align.
In comparison, bikes are probably the better option overall, and it would be epic if public transport started incorporating e-bike/scooter transit along with it. Unfortunately it seems to be quite the opposite where I live due to concerns about Lithium battery fires, but hopefully someone somewhere realizes that that is just a standardization issue.
HugeNerd
in reply to TheObviousSolution • • •Some users smell like them too.
Aganim
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •Yes, nothing beats walking to a bus stop and waiting there in the cold, rain or burning sun, hoping the bus shows up in time or at all. Then stressing, because it being 15 minutes late probably means your connecting train will be gone. Oh yes, there it goes. Half an hour wait with no place to sit. And then repeat this two more times for more connecting trains and buses.
And I haven't even talked about not being able to sit during train rides, or having to sit on back wrecking seats. Unfortunately I have back issues and after having enjoyed the 'comfort' of our public transport I often end up just not being able to stand or sit anymore at the end of the day because my back hurts so bad.
That is my average commute, and as a bonus there ultimately isn't a difference in price here between taking the car or public transport. To top it off my average travel time is 60 minutes by car, 1.5 - 2 hours by public transport, often depending whether or not the first bus shows up in time.
It would be able to overlook a lot of this if it was feasible to do some work in the train, but with all the fragmentation on my route I never really get anything done.
I really would like to use public transport, as it is more sustainable than my gas guzzler, but each time I try it the experience just sucks so bad.
Taalnazi
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •Agree, it's so much nicer.
No stress about searching parking spots, no cursing people driving too fast or slow... and reliable, fast, affordable and comfortable.
Political will is not even the problem; corruption, ie. corporatism and oligarchs are. They stand in the way of a truly public transit friendly society. None of the oligarchs are part of 'us'.
And even if we consider cars,good driving experiences necessitate public transit, bicycle lanes, and walkability!