Electrification of automobiles is mostly a scam, they're heavy as shit which adds wear & tear to the infrastructure. It's not like electrified rail, where the supply can be anywhere on the grid and transmission runs along the tracks. I was actually looking at Norwegian road maintenance data last year, since they've had such a wide adoption, and yeah sure enough they're spending more on fixing roads.
The US can't downsize vehicles to solve the inherent unsustainability of automobile infrastructure.
Big fuking true, you gotta get rid of the car infrastructure its poison to cities anyone wants to live in. Hopefully we can defeat the great Satan of city design :inshallah-script:
The problem is that the built environment is so focused on car transit in America that many people can't even visualize public transit.
When the residential zone is 10 miles from the nearest commercial zone and the suburbs are built with winding roads (albeit to reduce car speed) they can't picture busses or trains existing in their current space.
This is bolstered by private property and the immense difficulty of re-designing or relocating individuals with private land that the spent their whole working lives paying for.
The system in America is specifically designed to make public transit impossible to implement without complete changes in the built environment that pits the designers against everyone who owns any amount of land.
I believe this is a bad take honestly. I feel people just read literally just the first sentence lol. Electric cars are a scam, yeah perfectly agreeable if we are talking about Tesla.
But then you read the rest and just no, wtf?
Infrastructure needs to be repaired regardless. In an ideal world, we shouldn't view infrastructure as an expense. Arguing that "it costs too much to maintain" approaches the issue from the American neoliberal perspective that government should function like a business, striving for maximum efficiency profitability.
Literally no country in the world is suffering from spending too much on infrastructure. This is not a problem that exists or will ever exist.
Electric cars have other easily identifiable issues. The main problem imo is the reliance on rare earth minerals and the fact that the current electricity grid is far from green. As a result, using dirty energy to power a "clean" car doesn't truly solve much of anything.
Heck some bazing brain might as well say the same thing about the cost of any public transportation system: "Ah yes, more mileage of rail track means more money spent on technicians and repairs." :very-intelligent:
The entire premise of that video is "American towns and specialy suburbs are financialy insolvent due to debt and low tax revenue". He doesn't realy mention anything about efficiency, in fact he even mention expenses like water treatment etc.
This is basicaly the basic neoliberal argument I mentioned in advance. The idea that the government:
1-Has a budget.
2-Budget must be balanced
3- When budget isn't balanced you resort to the capitalist banking sector to "finance" the government functioning.
4- Solutions like deficit spending and/or "raising revenue" are immediately dismissed, like he does in the video. Gee I wonder why anyone would think raising taxes is unsustainable, just assert it is and move on.
I concede that any country being governed under this type of neoliberal policy is going to struggle, it is why I mentioned it right away at the start, but I also maintain this is true with everything not just roads. Whether you decide to build metro, a bus line, an airport, a train station, a new road, if the neoliberal government says the budget isn't sufficient then that is enough to deny every proposition.
Using the "but roads are costly" is just reinforcing the neoliberal argument that we need a budget and it must not be exceeded.
There are other points I could make too, like roads are the one type of infrastructure that already exists and if we are serious about climate change than efficient road transportation is part of the solution even if only temporary, we have 20 or so years to tackle climate change.
Okay but when you're looking at using the social wage, you should be thinking about what forms of spending will make it go further. Like, trains will always be more cost efficient than busses. Spending money to turn roads into rail is an efficient use of money that moves more people and freight. Spending money to repair roads after lithium SUVs is necessary while we have roads, but is a less efficient use of money
Electrification of automobiles is mostly a scam, they're heavy as shit which adds wear & tear to the infrastructure. It's not like electrified rail, where the supply can be anywhere on the grid and transmission runs along the tracks. I was actually looking at Norwegian road maintenance data last year, since they've had such a wide adoption, and yeah sure enough they're spending more on fixing roads.
The US can't downsize vehicles to solve the inherent unsustainability of automobile infrastructure.
Big fuking true, you gotta get rid of the car infrastructure its poison to cities anyone wants to live in. Hopefully we can defeat the great Satan of city design :inshallah-script:
The problem is that the built environment is so focused on car transit in America that many people can't even visualize public transit.
When the residential zone is 10 miles from the nearest commercial zone and the suburbs are built with winding roads (albeit to reduce car speed) they can't picture busses or trains existing in their current space.
This is bolstered by private property and the immense difficulty of re-designing or relocating individuals with private land that the spent their whole working lives paying for.
The system in America is specifically designed to make public transit impossible to implement without complete changes in the built environment that pits the designers against everyone who owns any amount of land.
not to mention that they still create noise and air pollution directly from their tires
I believe this is a bad take honestly. I feel people just read literally just the first sentence lol. Electric cars are a scam, yeah perfectly agreeable if we are talking about Tesla.
But then you read the rest and just no, wtf?
Infrastructure needs to be repaired regardless. In an ideal world, we shouldn't view infrastructure as an expense. Arguing that "it costs too much to maintain" approaches the issue from the American neoliberal perspective that government should function like a business, striving for maximum
efficiencyprofitability.Literally no country in the world is suffering from spending too much on infrastructure. This is not a problem that exists or will ever exist.
Electric cars have other easily identifiable issues. The main problem imo is the reliance on rare earth minerals and the fact that the current electricity grid is far from green. As a result, using dirty energy to power a "clean" car doesn't truly solve much of anything.
Heck some bazing brain might as well say the same thing about the cost of any public transportation system: "Ah yes, more mileage of rail track means more money spent on technicians and repairs." :very-intelligent:
no, roads are not cost efficient and in fact handicap local governments through expensive maintenance and overbuilding
Watched all of it.
The entire premise of that video is "American towns and specialy suburbs are financialy insolvent due to debt and low tax revenue". He doesn't realy mention anything about efficiency, in fact he even mention expenses like water treatment etc.
This is basicaly the basic neoliberal argument I mentioned in advance. The idea that the government:
1-Has a budget.
2-Budget must be balanced
3- When budget isn't balanced you resort to the capitalist banking sector to "finance" the government functioning.
4- Solutions like deficit spending and/or "raising revenue" are immediately dismissed, like he does in the video. Gee I wonder why anyone would think raising taxes is unsustainable, just assert it is and move on.
I concede that any country being governed under this type of neoliberal policy is going to struggle, it is why I mentioned it right away at the start, but I also maintain this is true with everything not just roads. Whether you decide to build metro, a bus line, an airport, a train station, a new road, if the neoliberal government says the budget isn't sufficient then that is enough to deny every proposition.
Using the "but roads are costly" is just reinforcing the neoliberal argument that we need a budget and it must not be exceeded.
There are other points I could make too, like roads are the one type of infrastructure that already exists and if we are serious about climate change than efficient road transportation is part of the solution even if only temporary, we have 20 or so years to tackle climate change.
You're aware electric busses exist right? Is this bad too? The City with 16,000 Electric Buses & 22,000 Electric Taxis | 100% Independent, 100% Electric
You wont believe which country. :xigma-male:
Okay but when you're looking at using the social wage, you should be thinking about what forms of spending will make it go further. Like, trains will always be more cost efficient than busses. Spending money to turn roads into rail is an efficient use of money that moves more people and freight. Spending money to repair roads after lithium SUVs is necessary while we have roads, but is a less efficient use of money