• 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not really. At all. Like they’re barely even a bandaid.

      The issue is a car weighs a couple of tons and it’s being used to move a person who weighs around 100kg.

      It’s massively inefficient use of energy.

      Even in some fantasy world where the energy used to charge the batteries is all renewable - not even close to reality but let’s pretend - all that lithium and other precious earths are still an environmental disaster.

      The answer is mass transit and lower mass vehicles. A lifestyle change is actually required and the thing is it wouldn’t even make people less happy, just that change is so fucking scary for some reason.

      Walkable cities are a dream lifestyle and an electric scooter in a walkable city is outstanding. Fuck urban sprawl.

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’d call them less a solution, more an attempt at harm reduction.

      And the only things they’ll properly resolve are tailpipe emissions and idling noise. At least one of which is of no concern when dealing with the externalities of car traffic.

      If you really want to solve the environmental impact of transportation, you minimise the need for transportation. Put homes and workplaces close together, offer mass alternatives for the pairs where you really do need motorised mobility solutions, and minimise the number of situations where it’s more convenient to take a car. Ban on-street parking and heavily tax off-street parking. Need to park your car in the city? Hope you can afford to pay an arm and a leg. Oh, you can’t? Looks the Park & Ride at the train station two towns over is the nearest alternative. Don’t worry though, the trains go six times an hour and a day ticket is, like, four quid max.

      • Floon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Quid: you’re British. Great.

        You’re smaller in area than Texas. It’s a little easier for you to stay close to everything, you’re never more than 70 miles away from the sea.

        • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Hello, I’m Albertan. Stop saying this. Our governments maintain roads in between these cities every year, there is no reason they couldn’t have been train lines instead. Roads are far more expensive than many realize.

          Once upon a time, all cities were connected by train, and we ripped it all up to build roads instead. Sure, it’s going to cost money to build these up again – that’s what happens when we make a mistake, we have to pay for it in one way or another. But connecting smaller towns and cities is not the herculean impossible task that people seem to want to pretend it is.

          There ARE major urban areas in North America. People are not evenly spread out across the landmass equally. Connecting these first is obviously the goal, because that will take care of 70% of the problem already. And always remember not to make perfect the enemy of good - even if we stopped there we’d be in infinitely better shape than we were before.

        • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Look mate, if you’re going to shove the “tHe stATeS arE ToO bIG, thus wE cANNot SOlvE The transIt ProbleM” rhetoric on us, please find another place to wallow in your lack of trains while assuming car industry rhetoric as undeniable fact.

          Also, your claim has been debunked and reclarified so often that I’m not going to begin to explain just how wrong you are.