I think it’s possible to accept that, while a city without cars obviously preferable, the electrification of vehicles is still a net positive given the enormous inertia of car culture.
It embeds the existing dominant individual, resource-wasting mode of transport even deeper into the culture (and urban planning). That makes it a negative for urban environments. Bit different story in very sparsely populated areas.
Is it? I think if you include opportunity cost and “well i switched to an electric car now i falsely believe the problem is solved”, not so much.
It’s just easier, in some ways, because it’s a smaller change.
Net positives mean something, though. We want a 10/10 solution, but saying an achievable 6/10 is the same as no change at all is exactly what the people who oppose us want us to think. That if we can’t get rid of every car on the road, we might as well have done nothing. That’s terrible! Of course we can make things incrementally better!
We all want cars to generally go away from what should be walkable areas. Replace them with public transit and bikes and just walking. That kind of culture shift is going to take generations. Less smog and carbon dioxide being spewed into the air is a good thing. (Provided the trend towards solar and wind power continues.)
Assuming people get electric vehicles when their combustion cars reach end of life and not just trading in a four year old SUV for its electric variant, the I think it is.
Ignoring the ideal wherein privately owned vehicles decrease over time, of course. Continued development of EVs will be a benefit in terms of battery technology and motor efficiency, among other things.
The efficiency of an EV SUV will never be anywhere near the efficiency of an (electric) bicycle. Motor and battery efficiency also improves for bicycles. The bicycle will always need only a fraction of the resources, in materials, electricity and occupied space.
I call fake, no smog anywhere in the first panel
Okay, but point of order. Are there any poor people on that train? Cause if there’s poors on the train, I’ll take the $2B bumper-to-bumper concrete blasphemy instead.
…sarcasm? Or asshole? I can’t tell.
Pretty sure it’s sarcasm.
Asshole, sometimes confused as sarcasm
Electric bicycles are EVs. I dislike it when people say EV and they mean EC. It’s mostly carbrains who do it.
I like the comparison between the two car dependent panels being the ‘same picture’ meme, though the electric one should have a few extra columns to support the weight.
Otherwise, 15/15 comic.
Electric car weight is trivial in comparison to heavy trucks, which roads are already constructed for. Electric trucks are another conversation, but currently are still restricted by the same gross weight limits that non electric trucks are, so there really isn’t any reason that there would be extra columns.
I agree, though there are buses and trucks in those panels, and I’d hazard a guess that if the national fleet of vehicles went electric, the gross weight limits might get bumped up a touch.
If I’m remembering right the United States federal limit is 80,000 gross, but there’s also a per axle specification. If electric long haulers started becoming more common, I could see the limits being bumped for the whole vehicle, while adding an extra axle or some such.
Looks more like an illustration of gentrification.
You realise the goal is that everyone in a city should have access to public transport and nice communities? Including poor neighbourhoods?
