undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJohnFen7mo ago0 comments

It would be a disaster without that because it would mean that a ton of people, mostly lower-income people, would essentially no longer be able to have cars at all. They'd still need to get around, thus the public transit.

It has nothing to with urbanism or social engineering, it's just about the need for transportation.

> We have a perfectly acceptable drop in replacement for gas cars in the form of EVs.

No, we don't. Not yet. There are still serious problems around charging that remain showstopper issues for many, mostly lower-income, people.

0 comments

rayiner7mo ago

70% of households even in the bottom income quantile have a car, and it’s 88% in the second to bottom income quantile. There’s no reason with modern battery technology these cars can’t be as cheap as gas cars. And building charging infrastructure is a thousand times easier than building public transit.

Meanwhile, public transit keeps people poor by limiting their ability to move around for better jobs and housing. It’s a huge unnecessary tax on poor people to try to yoke them to public transit in the name of climate change mitigation.

JohnFenOP7mo ago

OK, then let's build a good charging infrastructure first. It just seems to me that getting public transit in a good place is a much easier and cheaper task than putting a good charging infrastructure in place. If I'm wrong about that, I don't mind.

My point is that if we take away people's gas cars before having an alternative that works for everyone, that's bad. And we don't have an alternative that works for everyone yet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rayiner7mo ago

JohnFenOP7mo ago

My point is that if we take away people's gas cars before having an alternative that works for everyone, that's bad. And we don't have an alternative that works for everyone yet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse