468
submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the ... [continued]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago
[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Roads don't really go away with public transit, they might need less maintenance overall, but they still need to exist in some form, and roads lasting 10% longer doesn't seem like a huge savings

Parking is mostly privately owned, so saving money on parking doesn't really make more money available to invest in public transit.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Tram tracks last forever and don't need roads. Also cars and trucks are responsible for like 90% of road damage, for example pedestrian roads last decades with zero maintenance. If cars and trucks got Thanos snapped the budget for road maintenance would be miniscule.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

I guess if you don't include buses in public transit. And pretend that all people live within a 5km walk of existing public transit. You're right.

But otherwise you're just oversimplifiying the situation and vastily underestimating how much it actually costs to build a full team network through rural areas.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I'm saying build trams and trains, both require like no maintenance, are cheap to build and solve the most issues. It's a better investment than EVs.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

You're suggesting that teams and EVs solve the same problems. But they don't.

EVs replace ICE vehicles. Public transit replace cars in areas that are dense enough to make them viable.

The reason public transit isn't everywhere because they are expensive to build and maintain.

Yes build them, but suggesting that teams and trains are a replacement for EVs today is completely false and is only hurting your argument overall.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Of course there are exceptions, there are people who live in the absolute ass end of nowhere and they should have a car but those people are a tiny minority. They are in fact such a minority it makes no difference if they drive an ICE car or an electric one when it comes to climate change.

The vast majority of people live in cities, towns, villages, etc. Hook those up with train tracks and if a city is big enough build trams in the city and you got 99% of the people covered, while reducing road maintenance budget to almost nothing, improving local air quality massively, reduce microplastics from tires to pretty much nothing, make noise pollution a thing of the past and reduce tailpipe emissions to a negligible amount.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

This is where I think you have a skewed picture of reality.

In North America 20% of people live in rural areas.

As much as I wish that was "vast majority" it isn't.

Your simple view of public transit doesn't line up with the realities in North America. I wish it did, but it doesn't. And unfortunately your uninformed arguments are the fuel actual opponents of public transit use to justify their position.

It doesn't help the cause to spread uninformed arguments

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I don't live in the US. Are you saying 20% of all people in the US live outside any settlement?

Even if that's the case that's one country, it's applicable to every other country.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Every country I look up has at least 15% of their population loving in rural areas.

Yes this means that ~20% of most countries live outside low density towns or high density cities.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Rural doesn't mean a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. Small towns and villages should absolutely get a train connection.

[-] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago

Rural does mostly mean farmhouses and houses in the woods. And yes small villages should get a train connection. But remember you're suggesting this is a cheap and easy solution when compared to EVs, what you're suggesting would be very very expensive.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

So you're saying the US has enough farmhouses in the middle of nowhere away from any settlement for about 70 million people? That is definitely not the case for Europe at least.

Also that's still cheaper than maintenance for roads.

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
468 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

58143 readers
4447 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS