Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs(phys.org)
phys.org
Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-toxicity-fresh-scrutiny-salmon-die.html
171 comments
I'd like to see a weight tax on vehicles. Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution. They also require less energy to move, so less emissions. Plus lighter vehicles would improve pedestrian safety.
Interesting idea. Apparently road damage goes up with the 4th power of the weight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law)
Really trucks are probably not paying their fair share in that regard.
I wonder how it would be implemented in practice given how variable vehicle weights are depending on how they are being used. Weigh stations like they use for trucks?
It might also be a solution for gas taxes being insufficient to maintain roads as vehicles transition to electric. And in concert with the much higher weight of electric vehicles due to batteries still sucking at power density (maybe it would increase interest in things like aluminium-air)
Really trucks are probably not paying their fair share in that regard.
I wonder how it would be implemented in practice given how variable vehicle weights are depending on how they are being used. Weigh stations like they use for trucks?
It might also be a solution for gas taxes being insufficient to maintain roads as vehicles transition to electric. And in concert with the much higher weight of electric vehicles due to batteries still sucking at power density (maybe it would increase interest in things like aluminium-air)
Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.
I love pushing "Tire Taxes".
We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire).
So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to exactly the amount of particles emitted.
No weight^4th power required. The tire wear directly correlates to the pollution we care about. So tax / measure the tires directly, don't do anything else that's more indirect.
We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire).
So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to exactly the amount of particles emitted.
No weight^4th power required. The tire wear directly correlates to the pollution we care about. So tax / measure the tires directly, don't do anything else that's more indirect.
So you want to tax tires separately to whole cars? You don't think your scheme will induce perverse incentives as regards tread patterns, grip in different weather scenarios, etc.?
If I were a tire manufacturer I'd love this because I would:
* make tires that have not very much tread to wear through
* make the outer tread extremely hard so it wears (testably) much more slowly
* blame consumers for driving the tires wrong rather than make safe tires because we can hide behind T&Cs and our army of lawyers when accident rates inevitably increase
* put our fingers in all the tire installation and body shop pies to prpfit off of the new economic conditions that were created as a result of this tax
If I were a tire manufacturer I'd love this because I would:
* make tires that have not very much tread to wear through
* make the outer tread extremely hard so it wears (testably) much more slowly
* blame consumers for driving the tires wrong rather than make safe tires because we can hide behind T&Cs and our army of lawyers when accident rates inevitably increase
* put our fingers in all the tire installation and body shop pies to prpfit off of the new economic conditions that were created as a result of this tax
This feels like a permutation of run flat tires.
- Have half the life of regular tires
- Makes the outer tread extremely hard (and noisy)
- Consumers get the blame because they want safety (without the effort of a spare tire change)
- Increases the price
- Have half the life of regular tires
- Makes the outer tread extremely hard (and noisy)
- Consumers get the blame because they want safety (without the effort of a spare tire change)
- Increases the price
My State isn't very big.
If everyone started making tire taxes across the country, maybe that'd be a problem. But no one gives a care about just one small state making a tax like this.
Michelin isn't going to redesign their tires just to save $50 in tire taxes.
> * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through
That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to make snow-impressions (if its a snow tire).
If everyone started making tire taxes across the country, maybe that'd be a problem. But no one gives a care about just one small state making a tax like this.
Michelin isn't going to redesign their tires just to save $50 in tire taxes.
> * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through
That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to make snow-impressions (if its a snow tire).
> That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to make snow-impressions
Key word here is safely. A large portion of people would care more about saving $100 in tax than about the physics that makes their car less safe.
Key word here is safely. A large portion of people would care more about saving $100 in tax than about the physics that makes their car less safe.
Doesn't account for road wear or pedestrian risk, though.
I have to imagine that if Car X wore out 5kg of rubber, that it would have had half the impact of another Car Y that wore out 10kg of rubber.
Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.
Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.
But rubber does not damage concrete, it's the weight of the vehicle that damages the concrete.
As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.
As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.
I'm not saying "rubber damages concrete" any more than current gas taxes say "gasoline damages concrete".
I'm saying the degregation of rubber is (likely) in direct correlation to the amount of road damage. (Much like gasoline is in direct correlation to miles-traveled, and thus is also an indirect measurement of road damage)
There's no need for causation in this discussion. Correlation is enough to be worthy of a good tax design.
I'm saying the degregation of rubber is (likely) in direct correlation to the amount of road damage. (Much like gasoline is in direct correlation to miles-traveled, and thus is also an indirect measurement of road damage)
There's no need for causation in this discussion. Correlation is enough to be worthy of a good tax design.
Yeah. It's the vehicle weight combined with temperature fluctuations and water, ice, and salt. The worst case scenario is when the road develops tiny cracks that fill up with water and then the temperature drops, causing the water to freeze and expand inside those cracks. The cracks grow larger and then when the water thaws and evaporates it leaves behind those large cracks/voids which heavy vehicles collapse due to their weight, turning cracks into potholes.
Tying a tax to distance travelled requires accurate reporting of distance travelled. How is that not a perverse incentive?
We shouldn't care if you want to buy a 10,000 lb electric truck if you leave it parked in your driveway all year round. If we're not taxing based on distance then the perverse incentive is to drive big trucks until they fall to pieces.
US Federal Gasoline taxes haven't been raised since 1993; meanwhile US interstate systems and bridges are receiving C- rankings. This was the case before the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Model S, much less 5% adoption of new car sales being electric.
There is a ~$186B dollar annual shortfall in federal (road maintenance - excise tax revenues)
There is a ~$186B dollar annual shortfall in federal (road maintenance - excise tax revenues)
a civie engineer told me an overloaded 18 wheeler is about the same as 8,000 passenger vehicles making the same trip on the tar.
My canton in Switzerland uses this formula:
tax = k * P*0.9 / m*0.05
P: power in kW
m: weight in kg
k: currently 7.125
Minimizing tax means a small engine and a heavy car. (Though the tax difference between 1000 kg and 3000 kg is only 6%.) They also don't do subsidies for EVs, with the rationale that EVs affect road maintenance as much as other cars. Given that, the formula is backwards in terms of weight.
https://guide.autoscout24.ch/de/auto-unterhalt/verkehrsabgab...
tax = k * P*0.9 / m*0.05
P: power in kW
m: weight in kg
k: currently 7.125
Minimizing tax means a small engine and a heavy car. (Though the tax difference between 1000 kg and 3000 kg is only 6%.) They also don't do subsidies for EVs, with the rationale that EVs affect road maintenance as much as other cars. Given that, the formula is backwards in terms of weight.
https://guide.autoscout24.ch/de/auto-unterhalt/verkehrsabgab...
It's penalizing high power to weight ratio, i.e. sports vehicles.
My local state is adding weight to our vehicle registration fees, but only slightly (ex: capping out at 5000lbs). There are vehicles as high as 8000+lbs commonly used, and I think those should have higher tax than the 5000lb class vehicles.
Having a cap makes absolutely no sense except politically. There’s not a diminishing impact here whatsoever.
There used to be only one weight tax (erm, registration fee). Now we have two weight classes, 3500lbs and 5000lbs.
Its an improvement, but why stop at two classes? Its nearly as bad as our previous law that was only at one weight class. Might as well follow the pattern at every 1500lbs up until no common vehicles are covered anymore. (6500lb and 8000lb are a natural extension of this new law).
Oh well, we can fix it in next year's debate, I guess?
Its an improvement, but why stop at two classes? Its nearly as bad as our previous law that was only at one weight class. Might as well follow the pattern at every 1500lbs up until no common vehicles are covered anymore. (6500lb and 8000lb are a natural extension of this new law).
Oh well, we can fix it in next year's debate, I guess?
This would be a good idea, because weight is the major factor in vehicle safety... if everyone else has a 6,000lb vehicle, you need one as well to be safe when they hit you. If vehicles on average got lighter, this would solve this problem. Unfortunately, EVs and modern crash tech have made cars much heavier. A 1970 small economy car like a VW Rabbit was ~1800lbs, that same car now (VW Golf) is now ~3200lbs.
[deleted]
> Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution.
there are different tire rubber/synthetic formulations, as another independent (of weight) variable
there are different tire rubber/synthetic formulations, as another independent (of weight) variable
I'm tired of viewing taxes as a punishment. Taxes are for funding the government. If you're going to tax someone make sure the money goes to something specific, like keeping tire junk out of waterways.
Some people like to drive, some people like big cars. Fix the tires, grand-daddy in all the existing cars, incentivize cleaner ones, and let everything age out.
They're doing it with heat pumps, why not cars?
Some people like to drive, some people like big cars. Fix the tires, grand-daddy in all the existing cars, incentivize cleaner ones, and let everything age out.
They're doing it with heat pumps, why not cars?
A core economic concept is externalities, positive and negative. Positive externalities are undervalued by the market, negative ones are overvalued by the market, like cigarettes.
There aren't many ways to resolve externalities. If you pay people to quit cigarettes, people start smoking to get paid for quitting.
For negative externalities, sometimes you just really have to make the good more expensive, or we'll end up bearing the much larger societal costs down the road, like we did for lead in gasoline and widespread cigarette smoking.
There aren't many ways to resolve externalities. If you pay people to quit cigarettes, people start smoking to get paid for quitting.
For negative externalities, sometimes you just really have to make the good more expensive, or we'll end up bearing the much larger societal costs down the road, like we did for lead in gasoline and widespread cigarette smoking.
It's not about punishment, its about pricing in externalities
On the level of the US federal government, taxes are absolutely not for funding. They could hardly be more removed from it.
They're a restriction the money supply, but they don't determine what funding is.
They're a restriction the money supply, but they don't determine what funding is.
All taxes are behaviour disincentives. If we tax say income but not pollution, we're discouraging people from working while the price of pollution is not paid by the polluter. If we're subsidising clean cars at the same time, w'ere also having wage earners subsidise cars for the upper-middle class.
This is great if you enjoy polluting and not working, such as if you're a trust fund kid who likes to drive his big car everywhere while the poor and workers suffer the consequences, but is not a societally conducive state of affairs.
With cars, every incentive you can devise has reverse Robin Hood effects since the poor use transit and bicycles, and both incentives and disincentives are being used in practice anyways. It's in fact perfectly fair for people inflicting an unpriced externality on the broader population, through pollution, to pay a fraction of the cost of that externality themselves. If that disincentivizes the behaviour - is that so morally outrageous?
Is it truly fairer to instead bribe this wealthier than average group of polluters into not polluting through taxes on the rest of the population? If anything this creates a moral hazard insofar that it would seem the key to getting the government to subsidise your expenses is simply to pollute relentlessly and inflict costs on the rest of society and say "You can't just TAX us, you need to tax everybody else and pay us off!"
This is great if you enjoy polluting and not working, such as if you're a trust fund kid who likes to drive his big car everywhere while the poor and workers suffer the consequences, but is not a societally conducive state of affairs.
With cars, every incentive you can devise has reverse Robin Hood effects since the poor use transit and bicycles, and both incentives and disincentives are being used in practice anyways. It's in fact perfectly fair for people inflicting an unpriced externality on the broader population, through pollution, to pay a fraction of the cost of that externality themselves. If that disincentivizes the behaviour - is that so morally outrageous?
Is it truly fairer to instead bribe this wealthier than average group of polluters into not polluting through taxes on the rest of the population? If anything this creates a moral hazard insofar that it would seem the key to getting the government to subsidise your expenses is simply to pollute relentlessly and inflict costs on the rest of society and say "You can't just TAX us, you need to tax everybody else and pay us off!"
Even more taxes on semi trucks that deliver the food that's already growing unaffordable that will be passed on to consumers then?
My neighbor on one side maintains their virginal lawn with copious amounts of roundup, the neighbor on the other has a facsimile in astroturf.
We will wallow, willingly, in trash, breathing fumes, particle dust, just because of an imitative, aesthetic fad. It's absolutely incredible to me.
We will wallow, willingly, in trash, breathing fumes, particle dust, just because of an imitative, aesthetic fad. It's absolutely incredible to me.
If you don't mind my asking, how do you maintain your property? It may be illustrative to see what some of the alternatives to the scenarios you described with your neighbors might be.
Mine is slightly different from the other responder. I do mow my front yard (HOA requires it), but in the back I only weedwhack the areas that we actively use and a path to them. The gondola does have a square of cheap Home Depot astroturf under it, mostly so I don't have to weedwhack it every time we want to use it.
My back yard is primarily ~knee high hedge parsley at the moment; the flowers are beautiful! I will have to weedwhack most of it here shortly though. Hedge parsley grows burrs after blooming, and it's a huge pain to pick them off all my clothing and furniture after my dogs roll in them and then come inside.
My dogs love to run in it, and it brings in ton of wildlife. I'm on the edge of urban and suburban and get deer, rabbits, tons of birds, squirrels, raccoons, field mice, and more insects than you can shake a stick at. The mosquito population is surprisingly moderate as well; my suspicion is that the natural plants provide enough food for herbivorous insects that my house has a standing population of carnivorous insects flying around.
I vastly prefer it from an aesthetic standpoint, though I grew up rural and prefer the organized chaos of nature over the unsettling uniformity of manicured outdoor spaces generally. It's also much less work than routine weed-eating and what not. Some people may have allergies and hate it.
My only major concern is with attracting dangerous wildlife, primarily snakes given my geography. There's nowhere particularly warm for them to bask, but hiding spots are innumerable. Humans would likely be okay (the hiding spots are not close to where we hang out), but I do worry for my dogs. They really like sticking their snouts places where snakes would like to hang out.
My back yard is primarily ~knee high hedge parsley at the moment; the flowers are beautiful! I will have to weedwhack most of it here shortly though. Hedge parsley grows burrs after blooming, and it's a huge pain to pick them off all my clothing and furniture after my dogs roll in them and then come inside.
My dogs love to run in it, and it brings in ton of wildlife. I'm on the edge of urban and suburban and get deer, rabbits, tons of birds, squirrels, raccoons, field mice, and more insects than you can shake a stick at. The mosquito population is surprisingly moderate as well; my suspicion is that the natural plants provide enough food for herbivorous insects that my house has a standing population of carnivorous insects flying around.
I vastly prefer it from an aesthetic standpoint, though I grew up rural and prefer the organized chaos of nature over the unsettling uniformity of manicured outdoor spaces generally. It's also much less work than routine weed-eating and what not. Some people may have allergies and hate it.
My only major concern is with attracting dangerous wildlife, primarily snakes given my geography. There's nowhere particularly warm for them to bask, but hiding spots are innumerable. Humans would likely be okay (the hiding spots are not close to where we hang out), but I do worry for my dogs. They really like sticking their snouts places where snakes would like to hang out.
I mow and weed wack. Looks tidy, but lawn is mix of weeds and grass.
Weeds are just unwanted grasses, flowers and hedges. Sounds like you like all of your lawn plants, so you don't actually have any "weeds."
That's how I do it too. It's the right thing for our planet.
That's how I do it too. It's the right thing for our planet.
I'd mostly agree, although it's worth mentioning that there are certain invasive species and harmful plants that are best to get rid of however you can. It might be worth taking a look at what's growing even for people who aren't interested in pulling weeds.
"Weed" is in the eye of the beholder. If it's not a harmful invasive plant then really the only reason to not want it is aesthetics or because it impacts what you want to do with a space.
some links from Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=jenn...
" a Ph.D. student, Haoqi Nina Zhao, suggested a new way to separate out chemicals that led to a prime suspect. But they couldn’t test it, because they didn’t know what it was. “It’s almost like you have a fingerprint,” Dr. Tian said. “But you really don’t know who this is, because in your database, this fingerprint doesn’t exist.”
Dr. Tian’s “aha!” moment came one morning. Guessing that the mystery chemical had transformed from a substance originally added to the tire, he looked for a compound whose carbon and nitrogen molecules matched, ignoring the oxygen and hydrogen, since the latter are more likely to be altered when a chemical transforms. In an Environmental Protection Agency report on tire rubber, he found a match: an antioxidant called 6PPD.
The researchers ordered the smallest amount they could, about a pound of purple pellets. When they oxidized the substance, the resulting chemical looked just like the one they had worked so hard to isolate from the tire water. It was time to test this version, 6PPD-quinone, on the salmon. “I find it incredibly sad to watch fish die,” Dr. Kolodziej said. “You’re just watching these fish struggle. And yet you’re happy you understand why.”
The killer was the 6PPD-quinone from the tires in the roadway runoff. “The analysis that they did is really amazing,” said Nancy Denslow, a professor and director of aquatic toxicology at the University of Florida who was not affiliated with the study. She also praised the large number of authors. “It’s wonderful to see big groups of people coming together to solve problems,” she said. “Group science is fantastic.”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=jenn...
" a Ph.D. student, Haoqi Nina Zhao, suggested a new way to separate out chemicals that led to a prime suspect. But they couldn’t test it, because they didn’t know what it was. “It’s almost like you have a fingerprint,” Dr. Tian said. “But you really don’t know who this is, because in your database, this fingerprint doesn’t exist.”
Dr. Tian’s “aha!” moment came one morning. Guessing that the mystery chemical had transformed from a substance originally added to the tire, he looked for a compound whose carbon and nitrogen molecules matched, ignoring the oxygen and hydrogen, since the latter are more likely to be altered when a chemical transforms. In an Environmental Protection Agency report on tire rubber, he found a match: an antioxidant called 6PPD.
The researchers ordered the smallest amount they could, about a pound of purple pellets. When they oxidized the substance, the resulting chemical looked just like the one they had worked so hard to isolate from the tire water. It was time to test this version, 6PPD-quinone, on the salmon. “I find it incredibly sad to watch fish die,” Dr. Kolodziej said. “You’re just watching these fish struggle. And yet you’re happy you understand why.”
The killer was the 6PPD-quinone from the tires in the roadway runoff. “The analysis that they did is really amazing,” said Nancy Denslow, a professor and director of aquatic toxicology at the University of Florida who was not affiliated with the study. She also praised the large number of authors. “It’s wonderful to see big groups of people coming together to solve problems,” she said. “Group science is fantastic.”
-- How Scientists Tracked Down a Mass Killer (of Salmon)
I don't understand how testing toxicity of chemicals, and their oxides, is not a standard part of allowing them in manufacture?..
There are hundreds of distinct chemical compounds in tires. This one in particular is very harmful to salmon. It's it harmful to bison? What about cicadas? It's a problem of scale, greed, perverse incentives, and capitalism.
I'm sure there's some amount of testing involved, and I'm also sure that Dow Chemical has made many lobbyists very wealthy in order to keep that testing as cheap and as minimal as possible.
I'm sure there's some amount of testing involved, and I'm also sure that Dow Chemical has made many lobbyists very wealthy in order to keep that testing as cheap and as minimal as possible.
Putting EV subsidies instead into electrifying and enhancing train transit seems like a better approach to combat this. A lot of mass transit trains are still diesel powered and pollute heavily (although on a per person basis might be much better than driving cars).
I am wondering if a bus is better or worse for tire pollution per capita?
I am wondering if a bus is better or worse for tire pollution per capita?
well bus will pollute something like 10,000x more over EV. If you tax them accordingly you might as well take taxi.
I'm similarly concerned about the horrible tiny rubber pellets used in latest-generation astroturf pitches. IIRC they used to be made from used tyres but now aren't - does that just mean they're processed? Where does the rubber come from and where does it go afterwards?
I'm kind of stunned that we're just now getting a handle on problems with tire particulates. It's been roughly a century.
I'm not.
Default assumption in the West is if it's not medicine and it doesn't kill immediately it's good to go. Some time later, usually quite a lot, a tiny group of independent scientists end up being interested enough to scientifically prove that bloody obvious scaling problem is a problem. But by that time usually much money and politics is tied up in it. To that mix, then add in legislatures that even when they are independent have processes and bandwidth largely optimised for the pace of change from the age of sail and we end up with an endless stream of doh moments.
One glimmer of hope here is at least it looks like getting it sorted might take slightly less time than lead pipes.
Default assumption in the West is if it's not medicine and it doesn't kill immediately it's good to go. Some time later, usually quite a lot, a tiny group of independent scientists end up being interested enough to scientifically prove that bloody obvious scaling problem is a problem. But by that time usually much money and politics is tied up in it. To that mix, then add in legislatures that even when they are independent have processes and bandwidth largely optimised for the pace of change from the age of sail and we end up with an endless stream of doh moments.
One glimmer of hope here is at least it looks like getting it sorted might take slightly less time than lead pipes.
There's been a ton of analysis on the safety of automobiles in the US. Does it really make sense that we got to leaded gasoline being a problem decades before tire particles?
How long did it take to become consensus that smoking is in fact not healthy?
It'd didn't take nearly that long for us to start to identify that there was a problem there. Making the case that it required a regulatory response definitely took really long, which I expect will happen again this time.
I've been trying to fish for coho salmon for a while in the bay area, but I just never found one :(
Could increased street sweeping help?
If performed correctly, maybe. I'm not convinced that street sweeping in most cities much but a low-level scam so the city can cash in on parking violations. In LA, I've seen street sweepers my whole life going around and mostly kicking around dry material and moving so fast that they barely pick up anything, often followed by a parking enforcer some kind of golf cart type vehicle. Street sweeping makes more sense when the debris is big and wet enough to be swept up, which may not be the case for most tire debris. If it's tire particulate, street sweeping might make things worse by making it more airborne.
I’d almost guarantee the bristles on a street sweeper are also leaching insane amounts of toxic crap into the environment. I bet they’re plastic…
They’re metal. Plastic would not stand up to the task.
Actually some good news then :)
They're actually steel, and if you keep an eye out you can find them all over the place.
... and allowing as many people who can realistically work from home do so would go a long way toward alleviating this. But managers don't believe you're working unless they see your face in person, so keep on commuting...
Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less.
WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.
WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.
Same here, been WFH since 2015, however I did do a lot of driving for other reasons previously. Since 2022 however I drive less than 7000 miles a year, and that includes a family road trip each year for the holidays that is ~2500 miles round-trip. One thing that bothers me is that insurance is getting extremely expensive where I live, even though I hardly drive and my car is garaged year-round due to the greatly increasing amounts of vehicle theft. I've considered a few times just not having a car and renting a car regularly, but services like ZipCar have pretty much died out and I don't live in a city center where they still sometimes exist. I drive on average just once per week, if I could that for a fully-laden cost of less than $500/mo it would be cheaper to rent than buy, but it doesn't seem like there's anyone that's captured this market.
I can call my insurance agent and take a vehicle (seldom-used winter beater truck in the summer, or seldom-used summer car in the winter) on or off the road at a whim, prorating my premium appropriately.
That sucks for usability, but I wonder if there exists a market for 'smart insurance' where I can log into a webpage or use an app to put it on or off a car.
But the real answer, I think, is getting a quote for your actual mileage. You're driving 7000 miles a year and being lumped into a risk group with people who are driving two or three times as much:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
Unfortunately, I've found that mileage doesn't have a big impact on my premiums.
That sucks for usability, but I wonder if there exists a market for 'smart insurance' where I can log into a webpage or use an app to put it on or off a car.
But the real answer, I think, is getting a quote for your actual mileage. You're driving 7000 miles a year and being lumped into a risk group with people who are driving two or three times as much:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
Unfortunately, I've found that mileage doesn't have a big impact on my premiums.
Do you have full coverage on your car? You should consider dropping that. Vehicle theft should not be increasing liability costs that much.
I am required to carry full coverage because my car is financed. Even when I've paid a car off, I still carry full coverage, because liability-only policies tend to not help in my past experiences mostly due to the absolute epidemic of uninsured/unregistered cars on American roadways.
Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?
One of the biggest environmental impacts is driving, so the real key is to have mixed uses near by.
If you have a family and still need to drive your kids to school everyday, because schools are too far away to walk and there's no bus (typical in California), if you need to drive to go to the grocery store, if you need to drive to do everything in your life, then working from home in a less dense area might still involve a very similar amount of driving.
Once vehicle miles travelled is subtracted out, the biggest impact from living in less dense areas is deforestation, reduction of large fauna in ecosystems, etc. A classic example of that is the Santa Cruz Mountains, highly populated by low-density living, but getting in and out is so arduous that most people do not commute much, or even leave their houses for much. A good life for hermits, but it's not for everyone.
If you have a family and still need to drive your kids to school everyday, because schools are too far away to walk and there's no bus (typical in California), if you need to drive to go to the grocery store, if you need to drive to do everything in your life, then working from home in a less dense area might still involve a very similar amount of driving.
Once vehicle miles travelled is subtracted out, the biggest impact from living in less dense areas is deforestation, reduction of large fauna in ecosystems, etc. A classic example of that is the Santa Cruz Mountains, highly populated by low-density living, but getting in and out is so arduous that most people do not commute much, or even leave their houses for much. A good life for hermits, but it's not for everyone.
I think it would still involve less driving. You don't get groceries every day if you drive to get them. You buy a few days or a week's worth of supplies at a time.
School may be hard to avoid driving if there's no bus or good walking/biking routes, but maybe you can carpool with neighbors who have kids in the same school.
But I think fundamentally a lot of people are just not accustomed to sitting at home. They feel cooped up, and bored. That's not me -- I'd rarely leave the house if I could get away with it. But I know a lot of people feel that way, if they didn't have to go to work they'd go drive somewhere just to be somewhere different for a while.
School may be hard to avoid driving if there's no bus or good walking/biking routes, but maybe you can carpool with neighbors who have kids in the same school.
But I think fundamentally a lot of people are just not accustomed to sitting at home. They feel cooped up, and bored. That's not me -- I'd rarely leave the house if I could get away with it. But I know a lot of people feel that way, if they didn't have to go to work they'd go drive somewhere just to be somewhere different for a while.
I totally understand that, and we need to account for people with different desires and needs. I would go crazy in no time in an isolated setting, I really really crave having a lot of density and people around me. But despise driving to do anything unless it's purely recreational driving, which would be fun maybe once or twice a month.
I would love nothing more than to live in a walkable neighborhood, with very few cars, that lets kids roam free without fear of them getting killed by drivers. But that's really hard to come by anywhere in the US.
I would love nothing more than to live in a walkable neighborhood, with very few cars, that lets kids roam free without fear of them getting killed by drivers. But that's really hard to come by anywhere in the US.
My theory is that WFH will mostly contribute to creating secondary markets for more industries. Professionals will still want the services a city affords you but not want to pay SF or even Seattle prices. So they’ll end up somewhere under two hours from the nearest metropolis.
But if you get enough people in one place, you’ll get entrepreneurship.
But if you get enough people in one place, you’ll get entrepreneurship.
If you get enough people in one place what you really get is a city.
From a business standpoint that’s not sufficient though. You need a critical mass of people interested in your narrow little niche.
At some point one has to consider costs, scale and political expediency.
WFH and H-WFH would be broadly popular among the electorate and could probably take off with just some changes to the tax code.
Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not), building housing and infrastructure is expensive and at the end of the day it has to be profitable to build. We don't really have the framework to zone municipalities at the Federal level. So now you are talking about leaving it to the individual states... and I think you can see where that goes.
Given all that, yes, fewer miles driven in aggregate is a good and easy win for the environment. Less gasoline consumed, fewer tires and brake pads consumed, less work clothes bought, less meals purchased at lunch, etc.
WFH and H-WFH would be broadly popular among the electorate and could probably take off with just some changes to the tax code.
Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not), building housing and infrastructure is expensive and at the end of the day it has to be profitable to build. We don't really have the framework to zone municipalities at the Federal level. So now you are talking about leaving it to the individual states... and I think you can see where that goes.
Given all that, yes, fewer miles driven in aggregate is a good and easy win for the environment. Less gasoline consumed, fewer tires and brake pads consumed, less work clothes bought, less meals purchased at lunch, etc.
> Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not)
I wish we stopped subsidizing wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas. It is intrinsically regressive that poorer people living in sustainable denser areas are subsidizing the infrastructure of the low density suburbs where richer people live. Low density suburbs do not raise enough taxes to support their own infrastructure, from roads, to water management, to electricity, etc.
Want to live in a single family home? Great! But don't expect people poorer than you to bear the cost.
I wish we stopped subsidizing wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas. It is intrinsically regressive that poorer people living in sustainable denser areas are subsidizing the infrastructure of the low density suburbs where richer people live. Low density suburbs do not raise enough taxes to support their own infrastructure, from roads, to water management, to electricity, etc.
Want to live in a single family home? Great! But don't expect people poorer than you to bear the cost.
> wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas
There's no way you're saying this with a straight face, right? People move out of the city because it's significantly cheaper. Rent in a nice two bedroom "downtown" is $3500. You move 15 minutes out of there and you can get 3 bedroom house for an $1800 mortgage that'll never go up.
Source: I did that. I got tired of paying such a huge chunk of my income for living.
There's no way you're saying this with a straight face, right? People move out of the city because it's significantly cheaper. Rent in a nice two bedroom "downtown" is $3500. You move 15 minutes out of there and you can get 3 bedroom house for an $1800 mortgage that'll never go up.
Source: I did that. I got tired of paying such a huge chunk of my income for living.
It’s cheaper because not enough city housing is built and there are other costs associated with suburban living. IMO, property taxes should increase as density decreases because those less dense areas will cost a lot more to maintain roads, utilities, etc. down the road.
Higher property taxes for less dense areas might make sense for suburbs of big cities, but not beyond that. In the countryside road and other infrastructure is required for agriculture, if some people also choose to live there (and that way reduce prices in cities) it's a win-win.
Look, where I live isn't SF or Vancouver that has the "NIMBYs oppose all new building" problem. If you wanted to build super dense high-rise apartments or skyscrapers both the city and state would throw money at you and give you tax breaks. It's still ludicrously expensive compared to even the closest suburb.
We've gotten more traction building apartment complexes on the edges of the burbs than in the metro area in recent years.
We've gotten more traction building apartment complexes on the edges of the burbs than in the metro area in recent years.
I live in a SFH. It's very unpleasant outside of my home. It's inconvenient, sometime outright dangerous to walk to my local grocery store. There's also constant noise from the cars and the ever present possibility of a car driving off the road. I see a bicycle tribute or two to small children in my local area.
I wouldn't even considering cycling given the speed of cars around there. The local road is used for through traffic despite being one lane in each direction. So it's very frustrating if I want to get somewhere during rush hour, and this is just cars!
If you want to walk to the local gas station, you might have to deal with muddy ground because of the ground being the bottom of a hill in order to get there, although the owner of said muddy ground have filled it in with dirt lately. The sidewalks if they exist, are discontinuous.
Yes, wealthier people live in SFH and the surburb, but it's a questionable in term of quality of life.
I visited the city. In some way, they are more convenient such as access to rideshare scooters and bikes, but also dangerous and automotive centric if less so.
I wouldn't even considering cycling given the speed of cars around there. The local road is used for through traffic despite being one lane in each direction. So it's very frustrating if I want to get somewhere during rush hour, and this is just cars!
If you want to walk to the local gas station, you might have to deal with muddy ground because of the ground being the bottom of a hill in order to get there, although the owner of said muddy ground have filled it in with dirt lately. The sidewalks if they exist, are discontinuous.
Yes, wealthier people live in SFH and the surburb, but it's a questionable in term of quality of life.
I visited the city. In some way, they are more convenient such as access to rideshare scooters and bikes, but also dangerous and automotive centric if less so.
My neighborhood and for miles around me is lower to middle-middle class. All people that wouldn't be able to afford to 1) move and leave their equity behind 2) afford the rents in the denser part of town.
You are painting with too broad of strokes.
You are painting with too broad of strokes.
No way there should be incentives for living outside dense areas. Utility, road, and service maintenance costs increase per capita as density goes down, and currently that cost is not borne by people in those areas.
Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not), building housing and infrastructure is expensive and at the end of the day it has to be profitable to build. We don't really have the framework to zone municipalities at the Federal level. So now you are talking about leaving it to the individual states... and I think you can see where that goes.
It's impossible to build if there are restriction on permitting and construction. Also, I would expect land cost to be a significant factor in high density area due to high demand.
It's impossible to build if there are restriction on permitting and construction. Also, I would expect land cost to be a significant factor in high density area due to high demand.
I don't really see how any of this (aside from the brief mention of commuting again) has any bearing on the question of whether it's better for the environment.
Does it follow if you don’t commute you’ll live rurally or in the suburbs? If you live urban you can just rid yourself of a vehicle altogether.
As in does working from home require someone to move to the suburbs? No. But many people do choose to move into larger housing in cheaper, less dense areas once they start spending more time at home and aren't tied down by a daily commute.
A house can be approximately net zero from solar panels. Much denser housing can't be.
Denser housing can easily be net zero from nearby solar panels. Additionally, denser housing is much more energy efficient, requiring less overall energy, but this is kind of a minor impact. Once we get to solar + batteries powering most of our energy needs, cutting space heating energy needs by 20%-50% doesn't matter much.
The denser the housing the more efficient in almost every way. Even if we had the money the world already doesn't have enough resources for everyone to get a single family home with solar panels, batteries, a tesla and a well, most will have to live in dense cities to survive.
> It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level.
It's absurd that tech people seem to think that WFH is applicable to everyone. I'm in a shop right now and have to touch machinery on a daily basis. So do the rest of the workers.
It's absurd that tech people seem to think that WFH is applicable to everyone. I'm in a shop right now and have to touch machinery on a daily basis. So do the rest of the workers.
Surely the OP's point is that a significant proportion of the workforce can WFH, and that this would have a significant environmental impact...
Jealousy politics are indeed an obstacle but the societal insistence that everybody needs to pollute the environment because some people have to pollute the environment is nonsense.
As long as aggressively promoting WFH doesn't penalise people for whom this is not an option.
OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?
A lot of people simply can't work from home due to lack of space, noise and interruptions, etc.
It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford.
Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.
It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford.
Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.
There are lots of ways to adapt to that. For example, you can have localized telework centers or subsidize co-working spaces.
The current situation is far worse. People are literally trapped in a cycle of poverty or bad work experience because they cannot get to a suburban office park for want of a car.
WFH has lots of limitations. Distribute work geographically and you can lower costs and improve outcomes. Why have accounts payable reps in New Jersey in a giant office when I could rent a small office in Maine or Kentucky for 80% less and pay the workers 30% less, without the complexities of offshoring.
The current situation is far worse. People are literally trapped in a cycle of poverty or bad work experience because they cannot get to a suburban office park for want of a car.
WFH has lots of limitations. Distribute work geographically and you can lower costs and improve outcomes. Why have accounts payable reps in New Jersey in a giant office when I could rent a small office in Maine or Kentucky for 80% less and pay the workers 30% less, without the complexities of offshoring.
> subsidize co-working spaces
These are called offices.
Look, I WFH and I love it. But in the process I probably quintupled my emissions. I might be able to get that down to quadrupling with an EV and full solar array. But the realities of suburban/rural living are simply much harsher on the environment.
These are called offices.
Look, I WFH and I love it. But in the process I probably quintupled my emissions. I might be able to get that down to quadrupling with an EV and full solar array. But the realities of suburban/rural living are simply much harsher on the environment.
It's not the realities, but people's choices. One can live in rural area and limit driving to the absolute minimum necessary, and build a small house heated using renewables rather than a big house heated with fossil fuels. Similarly, lots of city people increase their carbon footprint through excess consumption and travel.
I guess ecological rural living may not be easy if you enjoy lots of social activities. For an introvert like me it wouldn't be a problem.
I guess ecological rural living may not be easy if you enjoy lots of social activities. For an introvert like me it wouldn't be a problem.
> One can live in rural area and limit driving to the absolute minimum necessary, and build a small house heated using renewables rather than a big house heated with fossil fuels
You’re still consuming massive resources in transporting materials to a low-density location. Unless you’re living completely off the land, de-densifying is far more impactful. (Consider how much land alone would be converted from nature to human use by spreading out the populations of New York and Los Angeles.)
You’re still consuming massive resources in transporting materials to a low-density location. Unless you’re living completely off the land, de-densifying is far more impactful. (Consider how much land alone would be converted from nature to human use by spreading out the populations of New York and Los Angeles.)
The stated problem is some people can’t effectively work from home.
My goal is to get the best candidates. My reasons are selfish - I can get great people cheap if they have circumstances problematic for other employers.
So I got a 5 desks in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and about 15 people in that region utilize it.
Everyone wins: i spend almost nothing. The employee has a great job, doesn’t have to drive 90 minutes, and doesn’t have to disrupt the family life.
My goal is to get the best candidates. My reasons are selfish - I can get great people cheap if they have circumstances problematic for other employers.
So I got a 5 desks in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and about 15 people in that region utilize it.
Everyone wins: i spend almost nothing. The employee has a great job, doesn’t have to drive 90 minutes, and doesn’t have to disrupt the family life.
Co-working spaces are distinct from traditional offices because they mix workers of so many different employers. Sometimes as granular as to the desk. This can significantly reduce or eliminate commutes.
> But in the process I probably quintupled my emissions.
What process ? WFH doesn't mean you have to move out of the city and build a huge house with all the modern bells and whistles
What process ? WFH doesn't mean you have to move out of the city and build a huge house with all the modern bells and whistles
> WFH doesn't mean you have to move out of the city
It doesn’t, but within the context of this discussion (“distribute geographically”), it does. The logistics of groceries—even exempting my driving to the grocery store versus walking down the street, and despite being physically closer to farms than I was in New York City—practically doubled my emissions alone. Suburban living is massively more impactful than most people realise. There is a reason most of the world lives in either cities or rural destitution.
It doesn’t, but within the context of this discussion (“distribute geographically”), it does. The logistics of groceries—even exempting my driving to the grocery store versus walking down the street, and despite being physically closer to farms than I was in New York City—practically doubled my emissions alone. Suburban living is massively more impactful than most people realise. There is a reason most of the world lives in either cities or rural destitution.
You’re taking a pretty dogmatic position that the essentially that only sustainable options for life is NYC or a straw hut.
The misguided vision of late 20th century life and de-industrialization of the US made sustainable communities unsustainable.
Modern governance has created strong incentives for massive, centralized industries. Thats why if you step into a Walmart near my home in upstate New York in October, the shelves are full of apples from Washington picked a year ago.
New York City is a great example of fake sustainability. The financial engineering required to build an operate unnecessary and overbuilt real property has priced out the smaller scale public infrastructure like retail and diners. The landlords can lower rents without their loans being called, and a ton of the older big buildings are vacant and declining.
If people can work and make a living in Binghamton, NY or Scranton, PA, sustainable communities will emerge. Sucking the wealth of the nation to the top 10 metros is to everyone’s disadvantage, as modern society aptly demonstrates.
The misguided vision of late 20th century life and de-industrialization of the US made sustainable communities unsustainable.
Modern governance has created strong incentives for massive, centralized industries. Thats why if you step into a Walmart near my home in upstate New York in October, the shelves are full of apples from Washington picked a year ago.
New York City is a great example of fake sustainability. The financial engineering required to build an operate unnecessary and overbuilt real property has priced out the smaller scale public infrastructure like retail and diners. The landlords can lower rents without their loans being called, and a ton of the older big buildings are vacant and declining.
If people can work and make a living in Binghamton, NY or Scranton, PA, sustainable communities will emerge. Sucking the wealth of the nation to the top 10 metros is to everyone’s disadvantage, as modern society aptly demonstrates.
Before covid I went to the office everyday, by bike, or public transport, owning a car where I live is a more of an annoyance than anything.
If we cared we could solve the bulk of problem somewhat easily, the 80/20 rule still applies but you could drastically reduce the number of cars on the road. Of course if all you care about is short term personal convenience and individualism then we're doomed, but if you care just a tiny bit about optimisation, pollution, long term sustainability, well being, the solutions are painfully obvious
If we cared we could solve the bulk of problem somewhat easily, the 80/20 rule still applies but you could drastically reduce the number of cars on the road. Of course if all you care about is short term personal convenience and individualism then we're doomed, but if you care just a tiny bit about optimisation, pollution, long term sustainability, well being, the solutions are painfully obvious
Blue collar jobs usually cannot be done from home...
How about a place closer to home than a daily two hour commute? WFH and remotely logging hours doesn't mean working from your home in the strict sense, just a place that works for you with a shorter commute (whether that's your attic, local library or other type of workspace).
I also wonder whether owning a car just 'for groceries' is that commonplace?
I also wonder whether owning a car just 'for groceries' is that commonplace?
I'd say the same for the reverse. Except that has been the history of office work for generations except we have the technology and economy where that isn't required.
It not only already does, it always will.
Yeah, the big focus on exhausts from cars has hidden lots of other problems they lead to.
EVs don't solve most of these problems. The cars are heavier, hence their tires spread even more micro plastic.
EVs don't solve most of these problems. The cars are heavier, hence their tires spread even more micro plastic.
While micro plastics are a problem climate change is the train coming down the tracks at civilization as a whole.
I agree the EVs don't fix everything they are in theory buying us time to make the choices that get rid of cars in the long term.
I agree the EVs don't fix everything they are in theory buying us time to make the choices that get rid of cars in the long term.
I just wish the 4 billion we subsidize EVs with every year here in Norway were put to other use instead. Could habe built a new metro line every year for that amount of money. Which would have had a much larger long term effect.
That's the dream here in the states too. Our issue is that we have built our cities as enormous suburbs with such a low density that rail/transit isn't viable from a cost/person perspective. We tend to think of public transit a a business rather than as a service and our tax payers don't want to spend billions on not driving especially as our cost per mile is insane[0]. So, for the states EVs are basically the only way for us to ease out of 4000+sqft home on 4 acres and a 40 mile car commute and back into an built environment that does not require a car for all trips
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-g...
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-g...
They should be buying EVs for those who needs them such as rural area. For the rest of us, our quality of life would improve if we get rid of cars and densify areas.
That's 3000 miles too many. Consider cutting that down to zero. I suggest an e-bike, a normal bike, or just walking. Think about how many tire particles you put into the environment, especially if you didn't just stick to controlled city environments and went to the woods. Our plant and animal life will thank you.
Consider all of the shoe tread debris you create by walking or riding bicycles. Consider only walking barefoot, or just stay in one place and stop moving your body around. Judgemental strangers on the internet will thank you.
Indeed, we need personal aircars!
"we need to prioritize driving less."
I doubt the majority of the world population wants to be included in your "we".
I doubt the majority of the world population wants to be included in your "we".
I’m not so convinced that people are so foolish. Maybe they don’t want to be the first ones to stop driving but I think most people recognize the problems we face as a society.
India, Africa and China are just waking up economically. Hundreds of millions of people waiting to buy cars to improve their quality of life by being more mobile.
[deleted]
I say we let adults make their own decisions on how much they want to drive.
As long as they're willing to pay the actual costs borne by the rest of us for their decisions, sure, why not? The problem is they're generally not, and when you suggest that they need to, they have a very not adult-like temper tantrum.
Let’s not control others. If people want to use lead paint, let them.
Let’s not control others. If people want to use leaded gasoline, let them.
Let’s not control others. If people want to build with asbestos, let them.
Let’s not control others. If people want to cook with trans fats, let them.
Let’s not control others. If people want to do fentanyl, let them.
the entire basis of society and progress is controlling others for the prosperity of the human race.
the entire basis of society and progress is controlling others for the prosperity of the human race.
The world would be a sad place when we we need to apply for a permit to visit family. That’s where all this ends up.
Good intentions and all that.
Good intentions and all that.
That is one hell of a leap. That slope must be very slippery indeed.
Does your libertarian attitude extend to your neighbors burning tires in their backyards?
Individual actions can incur communal costs. “Freedom” doesn’t mean “freedom from the consequence of your actions.”
Individual actions can incur communal costs. “Freedom” doesn’t mean “freedom from the consequence of your actions.”
This, (and/)or start charging for the true costs (externalities).
We could replace all the synthetic rubber with home grown natural rubber right now. It would last longer and be of much higher quality but it would double prices or more, so instead we burn oil and dump pulverized plastics into our waterways, because its a little cheaper.
Unfortunately there are all sorts of other material properties to worry about beyond raw durability/'quality'. Natural rubber tires react quite poorly to hydrocarbons and greases, let alone traction issues. And that is putting aside the logistical issues with getting sufficient natural rubber.
There may be some sort of "compromise" material that could be developed that would lack the toxicity or microplastics issues without compromising safety, but I'm going to defer to experts in that field.
There may be some sort of "compromise" material that could be developed that would lack the toxicity or microplastics issues without compromising safety, but I'm going to defer to experts in that field.
Then the obvious answer is to price those externalities into the cost of the synthetic rubber tires.
Of course then you'll have a lot of lower-income folks driving around on dangerously worn-out tires because they can't afford new ones.
By the way I thought it was the synthetic rubber tires that lasted longer, but certainly possible that I'm mistaken.
Of course then you'll have a lot of lower-income folks driving around on dangerously worn-out tires because they can't afford new ones.
By the way I thought it was the synthetic rubber tires that lasted longer, but certainly possible that I'm mistaken.
Yes, synthetic should be more durable than natural rubber.
Once the petrochemical supply is exhausted, or what is left is extremely expensive to extract, they won't be able to afford new tires either. (Tires, and personal passenger vehicles, could be some of the least important of the "missing" consumption from the loss of petrochemicals.)
Once the petrochemical supply is exhausted, or what is left is extremely expensive to extract, they won't be able to afford new tires either. (Tires, and personal passenger vehicles, could be some of the least important of the "missing" consumption from the loss of petrochemicals.)
Interesting, but wouldn't using only natural rubber result in a huge amount of land clearing and then a monoculture, similar to the environmental issues of palm oil?
We have a lot of already-cleared farmland that sits vacant or could be used more profitably. I don't know if it's suitable for growing rubber trees, but I doubt we'd have to do a lot of clearing.
It’s not. We use synthetic rubber because natural rubber is expensive and can’t be cultivated easily in the US.
Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.
That's basically how driving was sold to the American public in the 1950s. The reality is that transportation is a network, and driving is only efficient for the individual driver at a relatively low level of density. The bigger the population and the more people who drive, the less efficient the network. If you try to keep the network efficient, then driving acts as a constraint on the rest of societal development and you end up with sprawl and long transit times. Driving doesn't scale beyond a certain point (as you know, by suggesting expensive tunnels).
As for the freedom aspect, to get anywhere in an American suburb-styled society you are required to own and maintain a car, a major personal expense. When you travel somewhere, you have to find a place to safely park your car, and your person is tethered to where you park your car, usually needing to return there in a reasonable amount of time the same day, or else paying for long-term parking. You have to have a license from the government to use the only practical source of transportation, and if you don't have that license, you are effectively shut off from any autonomy. Cars certainly do increase the freedom to move and experience the world in some ways, but that is at the cost of other freedoms.
As for the freedom aspect, to get anywhere in an American suburb-styled society you are required to own and maintain a car, a major personal expense. When you travel somewhere, you have to find a place to safely park your car, and your person is tethered to where you park your car, usually needing to return there in a reasonable amount of time the same day, or else paying for long-term parking. You have to have a license from the government to use the only practical source of transportation, and if you don't have that license, you are effectively shut off from any autonomy. Cars certainly do increase the freedom to move and experience the world in some ways, but that is at the cost of other freedoms.
> freedom
It's also stupidly expensive for most people, and made us develop a car centric approach to a lot of things, a lot of problems it solves are problems we wouldn't have if we designed our cities in other ways
Replacing the current 2b vehicles on earth by electric vehicles will buy us a few years at best but it won't solve the deeper issues
It's also stupidly expensive for most people, and made us develop a car centric approach to a lot of things, a lot of problems it solves are problems we wouldn't have if we designed our cities in other ways
Replacing the current 2b vehicles on earth by electric vehicles will buy us a few years at best but it won't solve the deeper issues
> freedom
Including the freedom to spend the equivalent of weeks every year stuck in traffic:
https://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/bogota-tops-tomtoms-gl...
Including the freedom to spend the equivalent of weeks every year stuck in traffic:
https://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/bogota-tops-tomtoms-gl...
Travel time is travel time, you would have a similar tally on the train/bus/walking. This isn't really the best argument against cars because people buy cars because it's a massive improvement on "waiting for the bus time."
I don't really understand this statement. Do you genuinely think that there is no difference in QOL between a 30 minute drive on a packed freeway vs a 40 minute walk on pleasant streets? Personally, I'd leave 10 minutes earlier and choose the latter every time. Even better, walking time is remarkably consistent. On foot, I essentially never have to worry about my travel being disrupted by road conditions which means I know when I arrive based on when I leave which is not the case at all with driving which has a much higher variance.
Time on the bike or walking is time spent improving health and well being. Time on the train can be productive, relaxing or entertaining. There is an enormous difference between these and the stress of driving.
It's really not. You can actually do stuff waiting for the bus, or riding the bus. You can't really do much while driving. Walking is incredibly good for you, unlike driving.
> Driving is an amazing.
As long as everyone isn't forced to do it at the same place at the same time.
Driving less goes a long way into making it more amazing.
As long as everyone isn't forced to do it at the same place at the same time.
Driving less goes a long way into making it more amazing.
Driving is great for the one-offs and other people aren't doing it. It's awful anytime else.
> keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has
We've had the answer for longer than we've had cars. Put on the helmet and pedal away!
We've had the answer for longer than we've had cars. Put on the helmet and pedal away!
Driving is an amazing.
Your car brain got so excited about driving that it forgot basic grammar.
(It's okay, it happens to me too sometimes).
Your car brain got so excited about driving that it forgot basic grammar.
(It's okay, it happens to me too sometimes).
Yes, please may I have some more of the unmitigated freedom to pay a ballooning portion of household income toward a depreciating asset; the absolute pleasure of having to buy government-mandated insurance; the utter relief of participating in one of the most dangerous daily activities; the free choice of being able to salt the earth with CO2 emissions and tire particulate matter; and who can forget the ~socialized~ capitalist federal- and state-built roadways that cities are going bankrupt trying to keep up with funding.
Not to mention the sheer joy of listening to the roar of traffic pretty much everywhere, the cost of sound insulation so that I can sleep at night, the increased medical costs (pollution/obesity/stress), drive through litter, being bullied off the road if you're not in a car, and having to either give way to metal box owners or cross roads at locations intended purely to enable them to move freely. All the while watching endless ads that'd make the Marlboro man blush - endless empty roads and vehicles that wouldn't harm a fluffy bunny. Yep, freedumb.
> Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom
Your definition of "everyone" excludes children, many seniors, people who can't afford a personal vehicle, and those who can't drive due to disabilities or health conditions. You're also naively ignoring that just the infrastructure needed to support cars on its own often greatly impinges on these groups' freedom of movement.
Your definition of "everyone" excludes children, many seniors, people who can't afford a personal vehicle, and those who can't drive due to disabilities or health conditions. You're also naively ignoring that just the infrastructure needed to support cars on its own often greatly impinges on these groups' freedom of movement.
It is definitely and/and.
Cars are best for the stuff they show on the commercials; driving to the weekend cabin, hauling a thing, impressing a date, going on the family trip.
So yeah, keep the driving, but for the one-off things where they are great at. That's really the only time when a car represents freedom. They are not freedom when it's the only option to get a loaf of bread or get to your office.
Cars are best for the stuff they show on the commercials; driving to the weekend cabin, hauling a thing, impressing a date, going on the family trip.
So yeah, keep the driving, but for the one-off things where they are great at. That's really the only time when a car represents freedom. They are not freedom when it's the only option to get a loaf of bread or get to your office.
Cars are our worst invention, second only to agriculture.
did you forget gunpowder and religion?
trvs(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]