In cold climates, EVs should absolutely include a propane tank to generate passenger heat and bring the battery into its proper operating range. Generating high entropy heat with low entropy electricity from a battery offends my sensibilities.
Most modern EVs have heat pumps. Not using heat pumps to generate heat - exploiting the larger than 100% efficiency you get in the process - offends my sensibilities.
If we have propane, and want to use it for energy/heating, it’d be better to burn it at some large central efficient generator (perhaps supplying waste heat as district heating for nearby homes), and use the electricity to power heat pumps.
At -40C, the COP is only going to be 1.4. A natural gas fired cogen plant is 60% efficient so even without transmission losses this ultra complex arrangement is not more efficient at generating heat.
You are conflating the efficiency of generating mechanical energy (where such arguments hold) with generating heat.
> Not good enough to trust your life to if you’re an Albertan.
I believe the heat pumps intended for these climates provided alternatives for those cold days. If you want to stay all electric, it would include a resistive electric heater, but could be paired with some other fuel source.
Personally, I'd seriously consider going ground source where temperatures like this are the norm, but that doesn't work for everyone either.
Good EVs can heat up their battery pretty fast using only electricity.
I know someone who was using a diesel heater in its Mitsubishi I-miev, an old EV that had a terrible factory heating system. It did sound a lot less convenient than electric heating.
Absolutely? Maybe adding a propane tank, the systems to use propane to heat the passenger compartment and battery safely, the complexity refuel it, the extra mass, the extra maintenance, being banned from some underground parking...
I get your sensibilities to be efficient but I think overall it's not efficient or a great idea to add propane and propane accessories to EVs.
Well a Tern GSD has a max carry weight of 379 lbs and a max speed of 20 mph. Only needs a 0.5 kWh battery too. Has infinite range, depending on your fitness.
No has mentioned that the initial assertion is incorrect? The US Government sent troops to remove native inhabitants. Then they gave the land away. Having an army clear the land ahead of time makes a lot of homesteading possible.
And for that matter, the clearance job wasn’t always exactly complete: part of the price of admission to your “free homestead” was fending off the occasional raid by its armed and rightfully furious former occupants.
I suppose a similar sense of menace applies to some of the options on the linked inventory, but my first interpretation of the task was to think of places sufficiently remote/economically-irrelevant as to be uncontested.
Rightfully? What right do they have to the fruit of the earth more than any other person? They only have the right to take it by force, if they can, as they did before from other people and animals.
I agree the assertion with regard to America is incorrect. However, there were several truly inhabitable-yet-uninhabited territories discovered during the Age of Discovery.
I dont think that is a historical take. I think the vast majority expansion was homesteading first, which troops and militias coming in only later and as needed when inevatible resource conflicts arose.
This is is closer to the cycle that expansion has always taken. Groups first expand, develop economic interests, and then fight over those economic interests.
For real, the entire “lawless, free, wild west” cultural image we have was a federally subsidized endeavor from beginning to end. It needs to be re-understood as a giant welfare project for white Americans
The Americas largely were empty land ready to be taken by colonists, because Europeans brought old world diseases that killed 90+% of the native people, often before they'd even seen a European.
Without smallpox et al., it very likely would not have happened at all. The settlers/colonialists would have faced a massively larger existing population, and would almost certainly have lost the violent struggle. There would still be people of European descent in the Americas, but not as part of the dominant culture.
The Aztecs could have picked up tech like gunpowder and horses in a few decades and easily kept the Spanish out of their home turf, if 90% of them hadn't died from Smallpox and Maasles.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, so just to clarify ...
it is absolutely a different claim. The land was not empty at all, though it did have millions less people than it had had a century or two earlier. Ethnic cleansing by violence was absolutely a central part of the expansion of the US (and also New Spain before it). The only difference is the question of whether, in a violent struggle between the American peoples at their pre-smallpox population levels and arriving European settlers, the latter would have won (and with relative ease). My point/claim is that they probably would not.
I remember when I moved to DC many years ago we drove to an art exhibit (in an empty building way away from the metro). There was a guy walking up and down the road saying "$5 to park!" I paid him and in the elevator an older woman smugly told me "It's free to park here!" I told her "I know, I'm paying for him to not break MY window." The look on her face....
Unpopular (?) opinion: don't worry about theft. If you are making developer-money then a $1000-$3000 bike is a trivial amount of money. Just use a cafe-lock with a sturdy chain and go about your life. It gets stolen? Buy a new one. Seems silly to be hesitant on a eBike because of a theoretical concern. Finding an environment where you are reasonably safe from getting murdered by a vehicle should be your primary concern. Everything else is just noise.
I make developer money but that's just stupid. Sorry, no other word for it. $1000-3000 is absolutely not a "trivial amount of money" objectively. If I was going to lose that kind of money, I'd at least want to donate it so it could help someone in need.
The author of this post specifically recommends stretching your budget for the best possible e-bike. By definition, if one stretched their budget for a thing it is nontrivial to replace that thing. Also, people are not robots. Even if you can afford to replace a thing there remains a psychological toll from theft.
Depending on where you live, you can cargo bike with your kids. If you check out the cargo bike forums there are always posts on how to attach baby seats to a bakfiets and such. I've got two kids and my ecargo-bike replaces about 20 car drives a week.
This is the biggest un-addressed problem, IMO. Getting more scientific computing done in the cloud is where we are inevitably trending, but no-one yet has a good answer for completely ad-hoc, low value experimentation and skill building in cloud. I see universities needing to maintain clusters to allow PhDs and postdocs to develop their computing skills for a good while yet.
I agree that this is a big thing to consider here too. I set up a computing cluster in grad school and it was much less costly to make a mistake there than it would have been in a cloud service. Re-running something only wasted wall time and not any money. That said, money is not the only scarce resource here. Researchers can get allocations at university and government HPC systems, but you then have to be quite careful with your allocation of computing time. I remember keeping track of the number of SUs (core-hours) I was burning quite carefully when I used university clusters, since once it is gone, you might not get any more time.
If you make it pleasant to ride a bike - people will do it.
Where I live, there is an off-street bike path that was completed about 10 years ago. Since then many new businesses have opened along the path. The economic impact of pulling people OUT OF A CAR and INTO THEIR environment is perhaps under-appreciated.
> The economic impact of pulling people OUT OF A CAR and INTO THEIR environment is perhaps under-appreciated.
All you have to do is stop and take a look at pictures where you see lots of people riding bikes or walking near businesses and then contrast that with a 4-lane road to get an idea of how much more economic activity is generated locally for a business.
If you don't have an automobile industry (and even if you do) you are pillaging your own economic well-being by taking thousands of dollars from families and forcing them to send it to far away places that make cars and oil and gas when they could be spending it in their own neighborhoods and towns.
It's fucking crazy that we do this. I don't know how much more emphasis I can put on it. Requiring people to drive a car 20 miles, 40 minutes, whatever to just live their lives is so stupid it defies belief. That's not to say you can't have a car (or two). It's to say that we shouldn't design all of our towns and cities around moving cars around instead of people. We're literally making ourselves poor trying to do this.
Think of the median income of a country that you might imagine is a "nice" place to live. I found a source that lists them all (in fictitious "international dollars", not USD). So here's a few:
* USA: $19,300
----
* France: $16,300
* Japan: $14,200
* Israel: $10,800
* UK: $14,800
* Spain: $11,800
Wow, we are so much richer than those guys. Our quality of life must be higher, right? This extra 30% money for everyone(!) must translate to a higher standard of living. Maybe we work more than people in those countries, but it translates to: less air pollution, quieter streets, less time spent commuting, more pleasant built environments, more beautiful cities, better health, more civil services, better parks and public facilities ...
Nope. All that money just goes to cars. We make an extra 30% -- and then turn around and burn it, literally, in cars, making everyone poorer, more atomized, more depressed, more unhealthy. For an unlucky hundreds of thousands of us per year, we are physically hurt; for 35,000 of us, we are killed!
Oil and car companies just sell a product that people want to buy. Toyota didn’t hold a gun to my head to get me to buy an SUV that gets 15 miles a gallon. Attacking them is an out to avoid confronting the real issue, which is that you don’t like the life choices most other Americans are making.
There’s actually some interesting history about how over decades and decades the oil and car companies have done a lot of things beyond just strongly lobbying for planning laws that were extremely good for car drivers and not good for other modes of transport, but even did stuff many years ago like buying up trolly bus and streetcar lines in many cities, ripping up the rails and wires and replacing them with diesel busses. So it’s not quite as consumer-led as you say, the way cities have been designed and have evolved (including in a lot of ways many people now acknowledge is pretty crappy) has actually been affected quite significantly by people who want to sell you cars and gasoline.
> But Bianco points out that this plan wouldn’t have been feasible if the streetcar companies National City Lines purchased weren’t already struggling.
> By the 1930s, LA’s streetcars had become wildly unprofitable and were quickly losing riders. In Transport of Delight, Jonathan Richmond points out that the Pacific Electric company managed to turn a profit in only one year between 1913 and the beginning of World War II.
More importantly, much of the country was developed post-1945, and all followed the same car-dependent model. Atlanta isn't a car-dependent city because of conspiracies. It's because it's unpleasant to do physical activity outside for much of the year between the heat, humidity, and bugs.
Social benefit and profit are different things. Profit is actually private benefit, usually at society's expense, both in subsidies and in externalized costs.
And a for-profit system that's not pulling in enough money will let its service, sanitation, and safety degrade, causing a downward spiral of profitability and ridership.
Public benefit and profit are different, but related. For example, say that it costs Ford $100 make an SUV. They sell it for $200. It generates $10 of negative environmental externalities. And someone buys it for $300.
The benefit generated by the car is $300 - $100 - $10. That amount is split between producer profit and consumer surplus. Note, the more value the buyer gets from the car, the bigger the total surplus, and the greater profit the producer can obtain. Profit and benefit aren’t the same thing, but they generally move in the same direction.
Generally when something is unprofitable, it’s because people don’t value it enough compared to what it costs to produce. Externalities can change that somewhat, but typically not by that much.
Externalized costs for vehicles is extremely well studied: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/18076.... For example, the externalized costs for my Toyota 4Runner are $0.13-0.21 per mile depending on whether you include crash costs or not. That’s at $50 per ton of CO2, which is probably too low. At $100 per ton that goes up to about $0.25/mile. That’s about $10 for the average 40 mile round trip commute. If you raised gas prices enough to fully internalize that cost, that would be like $200/month. Most 4Runner owners would probably just pay that. Some might get a slightly more fuel efficient car, or live a little closer to home. But those externalities aren’t so big that most people would give up the convenience of personal transit to use public transit instead.
> which is that you don’t like the life choices most other Americans are making
I think this is the fundamental problem. I don't have a bone to pick with oil and gas companies. It's a resource, we need to address climate change, w/e, but fossil fuels are useful and should be used within reason.
But I do have a bone to pick with this idea that Americans are making a choice because I think they're not making a choice with complete information, they're incentivized to make certain choices, and they don't have a good feedback loop to see how their choices affect them. This ranges from highway construction which displaces natural habitats and eventually bankrupts towns and cities as initial costs are subsidized by the federal government (inflation anyone?) to obesity, racism, to loss of local businesses and economies and many more.
And why would their choices be so different to their counterparts in Europe? Especially Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, France, UK etc? Their counterparts in China?
If the infrastructure is built for a certain vehicle then it's not really a choice is it?
Is the Netherlands building 4 to 8 lane highways, tearing down buildings in major cities and building overpasses, and expanding streets so that they can easily fit and park Ford F-150 size trucks? Are there multi-acre shopping malls, Wal-Marts, and associated parking lots?
> If the infrastructure is built for a certain vehicle then it's not really a choice is it?
Right... that's why I don't agree that anybody is choosing here.
Culture, history, and wealth. Americans are more individualistic and anti-social than Europeans, and much more so than Chinese. Some have theorized that the exodus of the most disagreeable 1/4 of the Swedish population to the U.S. in the 19th century laid the groundwork for the modern Swedish welfare state: https://slate.com/business/2019/01/scandinavian-socialism-mi....
This is a continuing phenomenon. The fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S. today is Asians. But when polled, only 7-8% of Asians in Asia would migrate if they had the opportunity: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-mi.... The ones that come here are the anti-social ones like my parents, who don't mind leaving behind their kin and ancestral ties to make their home in a foreign country. (They live in a suburb with no sidewalks and drive an SUV, of course.)
History: The American continent has been populated by migration. My wife's family landed on the east coast in the 1700s and kept moving west until they reached Oregon in the 1800s. This has both created a culture of valuing unrestricted mobility, and also as a practical matter meant that most development is greenfield. In Germany even tiny villages have been settled for hundreds of years--there are roads, old churches, etc., that force development into a particular pattern. My town in Maryland was mostly farmland just 50 years ago, and most of the stretch between here and DC is still farmland. The giant freeway connecting the two was built through 20 miles of nothing in the 1950s. But note that greenfield development happens in Europe too, and there's plenty of car-dependent suburbs in parts of Germany.
Wealth: Americans are significantly richer than Europeans, and vastly richer than Chinese. Many, many Chinese people would love to have a house on an acre of land and drive around in an air conditioned car all day. And Americans can afford to actually do that.
Europe has much older cities than the US, and larger amounts of land were already taken up, which has limited the amount of "freeway"-style development.
Arguably if it had NOT been for the interstate highway push in the US we'd have an America that would look more European.
I definitely agree with the latter paragraph. But it’s important to note that places like Amsterdam did invest heavily into car infrastructure as well. It’s not completely true that car dependency was staved off by existing road sizes.
Like you allude to, the US was bulldozed for the automobile. We didn’t develop around it. Amsterdam was following a similar path until mass protests in the 70s about people being slaughtered by cars. (https://inkspire.org/post/amsterdam-was-a-car-loving-city-in...)
And over the past several decades, they have made vast changes and redevelopments that we should have been following as well.
And now Amsterdam isn’t just amazing for cyclists and pedestrians… it’s also great for driving. ( https://youtu.be/d8RRE2rDw4k)
My point is that consumer demand drives car production and fossil fuel use, not the other way around. If your theory is that people's buying choices are uninformed, that just means you need to focus on informing and persuading people. You're not going to get the results you want by attacking oil and car companies, who are simply selling highly commoditized products in enormously competitive industries.
From 2004-17 I lived in NYC and didn't own a car and very rarely rented one.
From 2017-20 I lived in Chapel Hill, NC and (along with my wife) owned two cars.
From 2021-now I've been back in NYC. We sold the cars and have no plans to ever buy new ones.
I've been roughly the same person the whole time. My change in buying behavior wasn't so much personal preference as much as it was the lifestyle that was enforced by the policy choices of the location I was living in.
Your perspective ignores human nature and how easily influenced people are at scale. Toyota did not put a gun to your head but American society long ago evolved to the point where having a car is a necessity for the vast majority of adults. The real issue is that the negative externalities for those design decisions decades ago have resulted in a lot of harm with little benefit.
They sell a product that people have to buy because decisions that were made decades ago make my life incredibly shitty if I don't buy it. And it doesn't have to be that way. We could have made better decisions in the past. We can still make better decisions going forward.
It's one thing if cars were an optional convenience. It's absolutely insane that they are a necessity in so many North American cities.
> Toyota didn’t hold a gun to my head to get me to buy an SUV
No, but lots of things push people to buy those vehicles.
As others buy giant vehicles, you might want to buy a giant vehicle so that you feel safer on the road. If everyone is riding around in a 4,000 pound (1,800 kg) SUV whose bumper is very tall, you don't want to be riding around in a 3,000 pound (1,350 kg) car whose bumper is low.
As we mandate parking minimums, we create stores that you can't walk to (because they have acres of parking separating you from every store) and we create neighborhoods you can't walk around (because we need enough storage space for all those cars and all those drivers want wide roads so they can get places "fast").
As we criminalized crossing the street (except in specified locations), we made walking slower and driving faster. As we changed our codes so that crosswalks were only mandated every half mile, we made it even harder to cross the street without a car. As our courts allowed drivers to strike and kill pedestrians with no repercussion, we made it easier for drivers to drive fast without fear of their actions; we made it easier for drivers to drive distracted without fear of their actions. That also made walking and biking more dangerous prospects.
> you don’t like the life choices most other Americans are making
People don't make life choices in a vacuum. People look at the world and make choices based on the reality that exists. If you lived in a city where parking was taxed at $1,000/mo, I bet you wouldn't make the choice of buying a car. If we changed our laws to say that killing a pedestrian would involve 1 year in prison and a permanent loss of license, you'd be a lot less likely to check your phone while driving.
Ok, you think those are contrived examples. Let's talk about giving Americans actual choice.
1) Remove all parking minimums. If the market will sell houses without parking (if Americans will make that life choice), we should let them, right? Or do we need to have laws propping up the oil and gas industry and not letting Americans make that choice? If stores think they don't need as much parking, let them build other stores on parts of their parking lots. Or do we need to mandate that stores accommodate cars rather than letting Americans make free choices? If Americans don't like that a store doesn't have a lot of parking, they'll vote with their feet/dollars and go elsewhere. If Americans don't like a home without parking, they'll vote with their feet/dollars and buy other housing. This is the easiest one to say to any skeptic because it's the free market. People will build, buy, and patronize what they feel fits their lifestyle.
2) Remove all road subsidies. Right now, drivers pay for around half of their state/local road usage (https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/, it varies by state). That doesn't even include the huge amount the federal government spends subsidizing highways. We should make drivers pay for what they're using - and if it's too high a price, they'll look for other modes of transportation. Instead, by making road usage cheaper than it actually is, we encourage people to use them more than they naturally would.
3) Remove parking subsidies. The US allows you to deduct parking costs from your taxes. If we're talking about letting people make free choices, let's not offer people money for being car-centric.
4) Explicitly allow accident victims to sue drivers due to their choice of dangerous vehicles. Trucks and SUVs have been exploding in size and raising their bumpers a lot - and that is leading to a lot more pedestrian deaths. Drivers of those vehicles should face the liability of their choice - including the negligence of their choice in protecting pedestrian safety. They should face higher insurance premiums to cover that negligence. Again, this is about people making free choices rather than being protected from the consequences of their actions. If you drive a car that's safer for pedestrians, that's a better choice. If you drive a car that's more dangerous for pedestrians, that's a worse choice - but you don't face any consequence for that.
5) Disallow car parking on public property without paying market rate. Many places offer free car parking on public property and many other places offer cheap car parking on public property. Why should we offer public property to drivers for free? Again, this is about making drivers face the real costs of their actions. By giving drivers so much free parking, we're subsidizing people to buy a car rather than giving them a free choice.
6) Make people pay for pollution/emissions. Drivers should have to pay for the pollution/emissions that their vehicles create. Otherwise, we're not giving people a free choice. If everyone else is polluting for free and you're not, then you're paying for and suffering from their pollution. By making drivers pay for their pollution and emissions, we make sure that we give people a free choice of what they want to pay for.
Others are harder to do completely independently. Building more public transit means making a choice that influences others choices. Building more or fewer roads means making a choice that influences other choices. Making roads safer for pedestrians might make cars a tad slower influencing people's choices.
Oil and car companies don't "just sell a product that people want to buy." We've created a whole system that makes it hard to live without that product while insulating drivers from the costs of their driving. Drivers always think "I pay so much" and it's nowhere near the cost of their driving. Would you support the 6 things I outlined above? Or is your freely made life choice only a choice you'd make as long as the government subsidizes a huge amount of the cost and protects you from the consequences of your actions?
> The US allows you to deduct parking costs from your taxes.
Parking costs in furtherance of a business, yes. Same as the US allowing me to deduct the cost of taking the subway to a business meeting or the utility bills required to air condition my office building.
You know I usually try to consider this sort of thing as like, groups of people responding to large-scale constraints and complex incentives rather than an issue of individual moral virtue and "life choices."
But now that you've pushed it yes absolutely I think making that choice in the face of currently happening climate change crisis is wicked. I don't like it or respect it and don't see why I would be expected to.
I fail to see how this is "the real issue" though. At least as big a problem is we've been encouraged to believe our personal choices have no effect on other people and so there is no particular weight, meaning or consequence to them. It's not true though. Your decision affects other people negatively and you suck for not caring about that.
Europe has lots of car companies and oil companies too, so that framing would seem to support the idea that they’re not the cause.
What’s different about Europe is virtually everything else. See my sibling post on this issue. In a nutshell, an immigrant nation with a long tradition of migration for opportunity and to get away from others places a higher value on unrestricted mobility. Culture is extremely sticky.
Additionally, Europe is very old and that affects patterns of development. Even rural Germany is dotted with towns that are hundreds of years old, and mid-sized cities that anchor regions, like Ulm, are over a thousand years old. Meanwhile, the vast majority of America was developed during the railroad age (leading to cities that are far apart) or the car age (leading to low-density residential development).
Then there’s population growth. Germany’s population only grew about 20% since 1939. That means that the housing areas for most of the population were already built up by the car age. The US population has increased by 150% since 1939. That’s 200 million more people that needed residential areas built for them during the car age.
Also, America has other, darker, undercurrents that occurred around the same time - the racial aspect of car culture can't be entirely dismissed (even if race is/was a proxy for "poor") - Europe seems much more comfortable with poor and rich living near each other (where rich is some variation of "middle to upper-middle class +").
(1) Most of Europe had less of a population boom during the time that the auto/highway build-out happened. Part of the reason, ironically, is that there was a lot of migration from Europe to the US. Many descendants of Europeans are stuck in car culture in the US, while their cousins who stayed home are not.
(2) There's a strong correlation between the ability of governments to "spend for the future" on things like transportation and the existence of decent transit infrastructure. It's no accident that Europe's infrastructure is better, Japan's and China's better still, while in hyper-individualist government-hating US it's the worst.
These two factors reinforce each other as well. Most of the "developed" world got out in front on this issue, while we veered off into insanity (thanks lobbyists!) and are now stuck with the near-impossible task of retrofitting The Right Thing onto a well entrenched Wrong Thing.
> taking thousands of dollars from families and forcing them to send it to far away places
Not sure if it's what you meant, but that phrasing reverses cause and effect. The arrangement of homes, offices, and retail precedes most individual housing choices. In other words, people chose to live in places, already knowing what the transport implications would be. They weren't yanked out of their car-free utopia and forced to live a car-centric lifestyle.
I agree that the car-centric way we do transit and urban planning is absolutely disastrous and needs to change, but part of making that happen is not simply dismissing people's revealed preferences as something imposed from above. It's the solution that's likely to be imposed from above, and I'm OK with that personally, but in the political real world it pits a whole bunch of noble principles against the hyper-individualist anti-government attitudes prevalent especially in the US. That's how you end up with "ban all cars" on one side and "rolling coal" on the other. The trick is to understand and accommodate the reasons why people choose to live as they do, while still moving toward a better future.
This is one of the things that is so annoying about US public policy; mass transit needs to be built to where people are not yet so that it can support growth in those areas, trying to only shoehorn it in where "there's enough riders already" results in silly systems that don't do anything very effectively.
> only shoehorn it in where "there's enough riders already" results in silly system
"Understand and accommodate" can cover a much broader and more ambitious range of actions than that. Look at the plain words. What I'm saying is that we should understand why people have made the decisions they have, what capabilities or benefits they expect, and trying to preserve those capabilities or benefits even if it's with a completely different kind of infrastructure. It's just basic requirements analysis.
You know what's truly silly, since you used the word? Ignoring others' knowledge, judgment, and agency. Pretending those things don't exist. "You're a dummy who has been duped, screw your feelings, ban cars tomorrow" is both un-empathetic and absolutely useless as a way to formulate policy, but I see it again and again and again from the extremists in these discussions.
> Requiring people to drive a car 20 miles, 40 minutes, whatever to just live their lives is so stupid it defies belief.
That's pretty misleading and tendentious framing. There's no law requiring people to drive that much: even in the most suburbanly zoned suburb, if you pick someplace close to your job, you have to drive far less than "20 miles, 40 minutes." If you have a more of a commute, it's probably due to optimizing for other priorities.
It'd be great if I could walk around the corner to the a coffee shop and a grocery store, but those businesses just wouldn't be viable at the density I also want to live in.
> if you pick someplace close to your job, you have to drive far less than "20 miles, 40 minutes."
I’d make a good wager that “living their lives”, did not mean going to work. It’s going to the park or the “nice, bustling area” of town a.k.a. the walkable area like the farmers market.
> but those businesses just wouldn't be viable at the density I also want to live in.
The density you want to live in doesn’t sound like it promotes social interactions, drives economic inequality, and takes money from the community.
Also in Texas, California, and Seattle this is a real thing for white collar work. This is a very real thing for blue collar work in almost any state.
> I’d make a good wager that “living their lives”, did not mean going to work. It’s going to the park or the “nice, bustling area” of town a.k.a. the walkable area like the farmers market.
Did you know that suburbs also have parks, shopping, etc. right?
> The density you want to live in doesn’t sound like it promotes social interactions,
FYI, "promoting social interactions" does not require density.
Honestly, it seems you have the strange idea that a particular kind of urban living (that you probably prefer or idealize) is the only kind of good living, and therefore feel the need to take a piss on every other type.
> Honestly, it seems you have the strange idea that a particular kind of urban living (that you probably prefer or idealize) is the only kind of good living, and therefore feel the need to take a piss on every other type.
Then you're projecting. I never said urban living was bad or inferior, just that it's not for me and that a lot of the negative characterizations being thrown around about it are incorrect. If you want to live in an apartment block downtown and bike everywhere, more power to you. Just don't put down suburbanites as anti-social people who are "forced" to drive 20 miles to experience "parks" and the "'nice, bustling area' of town" (because I guess there's nothing good in wasteland suburbia).
getting rid of the car doesn't get rid of the commute. Plently of countries in the world where most people commute by train/bus/subway but it's still 40 minutes or more on average to commute.
There's a massive difference between a 40 minute commute by public transit and one where you're driving. If your commute is by car, you can't do anything else while commuting. If you are on a bus, you don't have to be focused on your commute the whole time.
> It's fucking crazy that we do this. I don't know how much more emphasis I can put on it.
I usually jump on a soapbox whenever I see so much support for getting rid of cars on HN, so here goes:
Not everyone lives in a city.
I’m 100% in agreement for all of these arguments, with the precondition that you live in the city.
But many prefer and enjoy distance from neighbors, commerce/industry, and enjoy being surrounded by a more natural environment.
And many of these comments seem to completely ignore folks that prefer a quieter lifestyle over being surrounded by everything.
This is especially true as we move more towards remote work — if people are able to work out of their home, a percentage of those will want their home -- where they spend a large majority of their life -- to have some privacy and pleasant surroundings. Which means distance. Which means cars.
Almost no one is actually surrounded by a natural environment. The suburbia that pervades in America is surrounded by deeply un-natural roadway, parking, gas stations, strip malls, and big box stores. For most people, any time you're outside your home you're in a thoroughly human-crafted world. The question is to what ends that craft is directed. Too many places are optimized for the convenient operation of cars above all other concerns. In an increasingly remote world, we should be less willing to sacrifice other goods on the altar of transportation.
Even supposing that your surroundings are already very pleasant to you, wouldn't you be better able to revel in their pleasantness without the enclosure of a car or the urgency of a highway?
>> But many prefer and enjoy distance from neighbors, commerce/industry, and enjoy being surrounded by a more natural environment.
> Almost no one is actually surrounded by a natural environment.
He didn't say "a natural environment." He said a "more natural environment," which I hazard to guess means stuff like more grass and trees and less concrete outside the window.
Oh, and BTW: I live in surburbia and actually have a patch of legitimate forest in my backyard.
I would challenge the degree to which contemporary suburban sprawl developments actually deliver on this promise: wander around any of them, your field of view is going to be dominated by a wide road making a sweeping curve, huge driveways, imposing garage doors, and (maybe, if any houses are visible behind the garages) giant masses of vinyl siding. There's at least as much inorganic material in the vista as in any Manhattan streetscape, it's just the ugly and utilitarian kind, designed to facilitate efficient through-travel and car storage instead of something designed to be pleasant or inviting to people in itself.
You can have a nice patch of nature privately in your backyard, and perhaps in dedicated parks and preserves, but the connective tissue between all that stuff is remarkably hostile to any mode of engagement besides passing through at speed.
In a rural setting, you surroundings would normally be working farmland. Nothing particularly natural about vast rectangles of genetically engineered crops dotted with heavy equipment and industrial buildings. Better to look at landscaping designed for one's aesthetic enjoyment than for economic production.
As we figure out how to live sustainably with ten billion people (or wherever the population will cap out) with higher and higher standards, perhaps certain people’s preferences isn’t what we should optimize for. Maybe if you want to live far away from others, you’ll have to bear the true cost of the externalities associated with that. So yes, you can live in the sticks, but running that car of yours is going to cost you. If you won’t or can’t pay for that, stay in the city with everyone else and live efficiently.
Where did you get this insane idea that subsidizing actual farming and agriculture is a bad idea? Do you not like eating or being alive? I agree the subsidies are probably not 100% efficient but the intent is to keep you alive in times of famine or worldwide catastrophe.
We don't live in a planned society and many many people have made mistakes about where to farm / raise livestock in the US. The good news is they usually eventually give up if the place is unsuitable, sometimes there are outsize subsidies that allow bad practices to go on forever, but in general it does correct itself. That land eventually (especially in non desert areas) returns back to its norm, where badly planned cities will take a much longer timescale to return back to nature.
I think most people, including the person you replied to would agree with this. The key is that people shouldn’t be required to have a car to go everywhere.
By increasing density in some places, we would decrease density in other places, allowing people to have a choice in how they want to live. But in huge swaths of America, there is basically no diversity in density. You literally can’t live somewhere that’s walkable or bike-able to grocery stores and restaurants, and you can’t live somewhere that’s more rural than a suburb (because it’s all suburbs).
Even in non-cities I’ve lived in places where it’s perfectly fine to walk or bike to do my daily chores, but to have a car for longer trips. But if the only options are a Walmart 10 miles away, and a Home Depot 15 miles away from the Walmart, it’s just not possible.
I really wonder what people mean by "rural" but I suspect what most people are saying is "suburbs are where I want to live, but I want everything as close as it is in the city.
Because in my "town" which is something like 10k, we're 30 miles from the nearest "bigger town" and 45 from the nearest international airport, but I can walk to Walmart in 30m or walk to Ace Hardware in about the same (though in a different direction).
So they do exist, they just don't exist where people want them to.
To me "rural" is mile long dirt driveway at the end of a gravel road that is ten miles from the nearest paved road, let alone the nearest services.
Nobody is suggesting we prevent people from living away from cities. People are talking about making North American cities human-friendly instead of car-centric. Also, the more people live in cities, the more the countryside is left wide open - for people who want to live there.
If you want to see how you can have your cake and eat it too, watch some of this guys videos:
Large networks of large roads are not financially sustainable [1]. I can only assume this is more the case the more rural you get. Asking for more of the current American style of car infrastructure may not even work, depending on the specifics.
Rural areas are actually cheaper because they do NOT have paved roads every 500 feet or so. The local county pays for all of the rural roads (maintenance, plowing, etc) and the little town pays for the roads in town; federal funds are only used for the interstate and some connecting ramps, etc.
What may not be sustainable is city-like road patterns with suburban densities.
"We're literally making ourselves poor trying to do this." I guess you'd need to explain why we've had this infrastructure for the entire history of our country, and it didn't "make us poor" before. You're implying it so obviously doesn't work, yet it's been the default setup for every city in the country for a long time now. It very obviously has worked in the past.
This series from Strong Towns does a good job of explaining the idea (with case studies). The gist is that the specific pattern of infrastructure design we've been using since WWII (car-dependent sprawl) isn't financially sustainable without relying on future growth. We got away with it for a while due to the rapid growth seen in the 2nd half of the 20th century, but as growth has slowed, we're finding ourselves falling behind.
It has been making us poor the whole time, but city budgets are good at hiding the burden we carry. Every municipality you stepped foot in today is probably one that carries significant debt because the rate of return on development of the current style (sprawl-oriented) is terrible. Compare this to higher-density options where people are pedestrians who are free to walk into shops along a boulevard, with no need for parking spaces and drive-thrus, which are shown to be more prosperous for cities and foster more productive and sustainable sources of tax revenue in downtowns and public centers more generally.
The Strong Town series by Not Just Bikes on YouTube is often linked on HN but the third video[0] in the series covers your question. Take a look if you are curious about where the "making ourselves poor" point of view is hatched.
The belief that the opposite is true is so entrenched that business owners in Manhattan vehemently opposed banning cars on 14th St for fear that it would devastate their businesses. Of course, nothing of the sort happened. The cars were banned and nothing happened except that the street got a lot quieter and safer.
Based on feedback from local businesses in early 2020 (pre-Covid), ~40% of food and beverage businesses reported that business had become either "worse" or "much worse" since the changes. Reports from "dry retail" businesses are slightly better and service businesses slightly worse.
This is compared with <20% of businesses that reported any kind of improvement in business conditions.
Traffic also increased substantially on some of the nearby streets, as expected.
A reasonable discussion on the impact of these kinds of changes can be had; but not if we're going to make up statements about what the impact of the changes was.
We're at a bit of an impasse here because I simply don't find those self-reports credible. These folks are salty about the changes. They're not going to tell people that it's going swimmingly. Does it pass any kind of smell test that most of the traffic in these shops arrived by automobile? We don't need to ask them, anyway. I feel like it'd be pretty easy to set up a test to simply observe how people arrive at shops on neighboring streets.
It would be very interesting to see more comparisons between merchant's perceptions of mobility and reality, but this[1] Toronto study is the only one I'm aware of. As expected, merchants were proven to not be credible sources.
> • 72% of visitors to the Study Area usually arrive by active transportation (by bicycle or walking). Only 4% report that driving is their usual mode of transportation.
> • Merchants overestimated the number of their customers who arrived by car. 42% of merchants estimated that more than 25% of their customers usually arrived by car.
Similarly, Toronto compared credit card transaction volume by mode in evaluating the Bloor bike lane. The area with the new bike lane saw increased card transaction volume, by slightly more than the control areas [2]. Merchants did report an increase in customers at this time.
Doesn't that study say that the merchants properly reported an increase in customers? So applying that to the NYC example, it's a reason to doubt the expectations before the change, but not necessarily the reports after.
Agreed. This is one of the most transit dense areas of ny and the country. The amount of available street parking was minuscule compared to the amount of people walking/biking/transiting on 14th.
It's not just about street parking; it's also about e.g. ability to get a taxi - taxis can't ply for hire on 14th St - and also about being able to pick-up goods from out the front of stores.
This reads as "I don't believe it's a problem and I don't believe it when people tell me it's a problem". Why exactly do you think these merchants are salty about the changes? What reason do they have to misreport on this stuff?
1. They drive to work and erroneously assume their customers also arrive by car
2. They're more likely to be old and dedicated to a car-centric society
3. They're more likely to live in outer boroughs and don't care much about neighborhood walkability
4. They heavily protested the changes and are invested in the idea that it wouldn't work
5. The minority of their customers who do drive are very loud. They hear them complain whenever they come in and so erroneously assume they're representative.
6. Self-reports are generally unreliable and inferior to actual measurement
I think I could probably think of more, if I had to.
Way WAY too many "studies" are done this way - the famous "50% can't afford a $500 unexpected expense" study for example is a survey asking people if they could spend $500 without worry.
It's cheaper, but it's not better. True investigations watch results over time and compare actual items (that still have to be determined to be significant).
That depends on one's perspective. Certainly the businesses seem to have suffered, but who in NYC really cares about street-level businesses? NYC is all about high-end residential real estate. Emptying that street of makes all those apartments slightly more desirable, slightly more expensive. That in turn has a net benefit to the city's bottom line. And I would not be surprised if there were more people employed in constructing new high-end apartment buildings that there are working street-level retail.
There is an old saying that nobody who "works" in NYC can afford to live in NYC. You need passive family/investment income to support living there. The new saying might be that nobody who lives in new your can afford to live there. It is a place for people rich enough to maintain residences in multiple cities, a place for luxury crashpads servicing weekend benders. Nobody rich enough to owns a NYC apartment actually spends much time in NYC.
sort of kind of, I think you arbitrarily mix renting with owning and that changes a lot
I've lived in all of the expensive cities in the US, never interested in saving for a downpayment so its a much larger budget that worked okay with whatever job I was doing
This attitude is common in my city as well. So many people seem to think that if you cannot park directly in front of a business then that business will fail.
The list of businesses directly affected by proximity to traffic consists of:
1. Gas stations
Everything else does better when the storefront is nearer the road, assuming all things else are equal (ie., rear parking vs front parking). However, to do this right you often need two entrances for the business, which can complicate things.
Well, maybe if I can't park my bike directly in front of it. But there's never enough space for all the cars of all the customers; car drivers are used to having to walk the last bit.
Considering the number of food-delivery cars constantly double parked along the restaurant-dense streets of my area, the restaurants would probably lose a fair bit of business if cars couldn't access them.
Yeah Denver turned one of the residential roads in my neighborhood into an official bike road two years ago. They replaced stop signs with roundabouts, put up tons of signage, and where there are lights at major crossings they put sensors that are triggered by bikes.
Even though it’s still shared with cars, it’s so much more pleasant and safe because they are more aware and polite.
Went from biking being just a thing I do to get around to taking my son to and from school on his bike every day.
They did this in a few places in caphill during covid, 16th and 11th being big examples. The cars have since been allowed back on those roads, though. Someone went tearing down 11th in their jeep at easily 50mph the other day, made me really really miss those days.
The problem is excessive deference by local authorities to incumbent business operators. Often the businesses have no idea how their customers get to their store. They assume everyone drives, but careful observational surveys often disprove this idea. This was shown conclusively in Toronto and Oakland by before/after studies. Governments shouldn't revere the input of local business operators. They should study the evidence and act rationally.
Yeah pretty simple. I've lived in places where I biked almost everywhere and placed where I've been scared to even get on a bike. Biking is my preferred way of getting around a city but some cities invite bikers and others dont.
This is a great and underrated point: high-speed traffic avenues are terrible for business.
As a retail business, you want to be in a place where actual humans are there and moving slowly enough to lay eyes on your storefront.
The only way it works for stroad big box developments are giant ugly signs designed to be visible for miles. Even then, someone might just decide to drive on by rather than dealing with a two-way center left turn lane against two lanes of oncoming traffic.
The other thing to remember is that cars can drive around, parking can be in the rear, etc - there's no reason to dedicate the prime real-estate to parking of all things.
And when buildings face the road and are closer to it, it becomes more walkable and rideable. You're more likely to slip into a store if it's up against the sidewalk than if you have to cross an acre of parking to get to it.
> If you make it pleasant to ride a bike - people will do it.
Just to put this context < 100 more people "did it". 138 -> 211 isn't significant at all. Also 138 was on day with 55 deg weather and 211 was on 75 deg weather. more people ride bikes on a perfect 75deg day.
I don't know if that's a lot of return on investment over six years. I love being able to bike in protected bike lanes but the numbers, I would say, are dismal:
>"While the growth rate change during each year was modest, the accumulated impact over the study period was more substantial – a growth rate in bicycle counts of 69% over the 6-year study period. Locations with an on-street bike lane, also showed growth though at a lower rate than protected bikeways. On average, these on-street bike lane locations saw 99 more cyclists on average during the peak period and a similar rate of increase in ridership over time compared to locations without facilities (26% increase over 6 years)."
It is also much more intersiting for the biker.
On many occasions I met people or interesting art / shops etc. while biking, I would have missing those travling by car or bus.
You are much more connected to your environment. You do not need an artificial entertainment system, the world itself is your entertainment, as it should be.
Slow travel is like going to a bookstore to get the latest O'Reilly book. If you walk or ride your bike to your destination, you're traveling slow enough to notice what you're passing, and you may notice something you've never seen before, or stop in at a store you've always passed on by, just like walking to the tech section in the bookstore would take you past all the other rows of books, which have a chance of catching your eye.
If you drive, you're going to your destination and are unlikely to be derailed or sidetracked, just like ordering a book from Amazon doesn't get much visibility into anything else, even with all their AI.
a documentary i saw recently about biking in germany reported exactly this observation about i think copenhagen, where it was noticed that bike riders shop more impulsively because when they see something, they can just stop and get it, whereas car drivers have to find a place to park, and then walk to the shop, which means they will mostly focus on their original destination, and won't allow themselves to be sidetracked. the faster speed and need to focus on traffic also makes it less likely to even pay attention to the shops they are passing.
Yep, and cars also cause "false economy" where you'll spend a good dollar's worth of gas and wear-and-tear to go a bit further to the store where you can save fifty cents.
Walking or biking suddenly makes that a matter of time savings and more noticeable.
EV charging infrastructure is at about 10 years.