Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[pecunia]

Does the "market" make mistakes?  I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers.  I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars.  It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell.   It would be a small vehicle.  It wouldn't need a huge range.  It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work.  It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair.  Even the software could be open source.  Maybe it's already out there.  The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea.  The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements.  It just seems kind of dumb.  Thanks for reading this.   Now get back to the smart comments.

I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.

I guess it depends on your personal situation.  It just seems like many families have two vehicles.  It's often a car and a truck.  Certainly, if the existing car has a lot of life left in it, then there's no point in replacing it.  However, when the time comes to replace that car, it could make sense to get an electric model.  As far as parking, if you own a home with a garage, there is a strong possibility it will be a two car garage.  I guess it depends on your personal situation.

[mizzourah2006]

Does the "market" make mistakes?  I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers.  I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars.  It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell.   It would be a small vehicle.  It wouldn't need a huge range.  It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work.  It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair.  Even the software could be open source.  Maybe it's already out there.  The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea.  The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements.  It just seems kind of dumb.  Thanks for reading this.   Now get back to the smart comments.

I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.

I guess it depends on your personal situation.  It just seems like many families have two vehicles.  It's often a car and a truck.  Certainly, if the existing car has a lot of life left in it, then there's no point in replacing it.  However, when the time comes to replace that car, it could make sense to get an electric model.  As far as parking, if you own a home with a garage, there is a strong possibility it will be a two car garage.  I guess it depends on your personal situation.

Ok, you meant that a couple should have a cheap EV and something else. I thought you meant a person should have or a couple should have 3. That's what I meant by where would you put it. If we had a 3rd car one would have to park behind another on the driveway and out of the garage. I just had to replace my truck and I got an EV, but I don't think it often times makes sense to just buy an EV, the cost savings would take years to catch up. I was in a position where mine was totaled by someone else and I had to get a new car.

 It's damn near impossible to be a one car HH with two active kids and two adults that work out of the house. Even going 2 weeks caused some major inconveniences. Two kids having soccer practice at the same time, same day on completely opposite sides of town.

[waltworks]

It's not just gas costs, though, of course. No oil changes, no transmission to fix, no air filters, oil filters, timing belts or chains, No CV joints, etc, etc. Brake pads/rotors will probably last a few hundred thousand miles due to regen braking doing most of the work unless you drive really aggressively. So really other than tires you're probably going to do zero maintenance. Not so for an ICE car.

Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.

For me personally, there's enough free charging scattered around (and it's 10-15 cents per kWh for residential power depending on the time of day) that we're probably only paying 2 cents per mile in electricity on our Bolt in the end. We've unfortunately been driving a lot to shuttle kids to far-flung activities so I'd guess we're at 10,000 miles a year. So $200. If we drove a 35mpg ICE compact car instead we'd have burned 300ish gallons of gas which would be $1200 or so where we live. So $1000 a year saved on gas. Figure a couple of oil changes not DIY'd (I'm not even considering the wasted time sitting around Jiffy Lube) and one minor repair and you can probably bump that up to $1500, which is fairly reasonable given that we paid $15k for the car when all was said and done.

-W

[Just Joe]

And the difference in weight between ICE and EV might not really be that tangible.

Our ancient 1st gen CRV is 3300 lbs.

A Leaf is 3600 lbs. The Chevy Bolt cousins are 3500 and 3600 lbs.

[LennStar]

Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.

If tire wear is a factor for you, you drive too much anyway. So much in fact, that a face punch is not enough, you should plant your face in a street light!

[Paper Chaser]

And the difference in weight between ICE and EV might not really be that tangible.

Our ancient 1st gen CRV is 3300 lbs.

A Leaf is 3600 lbs. The Chevy Bolt cousins are 3500 and 3600 lbs.

A Chevy Bolt is probably more comparable to a modern Chevy Sonic than your old CRV. A Sonic hatch back is within a couple of inches of the Bolt in length, width and height and weighs 2800lbs. If we consider the Bolt to be the EV Sonic, then it's 800lbs (~30%) heavier than it's ICE counterpart.

The Ford Lightning EV truck is only available in a crew cab/short bed body style, and weighs between 6000-6900lbs depending on battery size and options. The comparable ICE F150 crew cab weighs 4500-5500lbs depending on powertrain and options. That's a 1500lb difference between a comparable EV and ICE F150. That's right around 30% weight gain again for the EV.

The BMW 4 series sedan weighs 3600-4000lbs. The i4 EV version of the same vehicle weighs 4700-5100lbs. Once again, the EV version is right around 30% heavier than the ICE.

[mizzourah2006]

It's not just gas costs, though, of course. No oil changes, no transmission to fix, no air filters, oil filters, timing belts or chains, No CV joints, etc, etc. Brake pads/rotors will probably last a few hundred thousand miles due to regen braking doing most of the work unless you drive really aggressively. So really other than tires you're probably going to do zero maintenance. Not so for an ICE car.

Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.

For me personally, there's enough free charging scattered around (and it's 10-15 cents per kWh for residential power depending on the time of day) that we're probably only paying 2 cents per mile in electricity on our Bolt in the end. We've unfortunately been driving a lot to shuttle kids to far-flung activities so I'd guess we're at 10,000 miles a year. So $200. If we drove a 35mpg ICE compact car instead we'd have burned 300ish gallons of gas which would be $1200 or so where we live. So $1000 a year saved on gas. Figure a couple of oil changes not DIY'd (I'm not even considering the wasted time sitting around Jiffy Lube) and one minor repair and you can probably bump that up to $1500, which is fairly reasonable given that we paid $15k for the car when all was said and done.

-W

Yeah, I'd love to find the free charging. We charge at home, but it's ~$0.11/kwh. Maybe I was weird, but in my ICE I averaged about 1.25 oil changes per year and the entire 10 years I owned it I never had one of the issues you mentioned besides changing air filters once a year and getting an oil change. I actually had just bought new tires for the first time too at 55k miles. I'd say outside of gas for the 10 years I owned my truck I probably spent $3k total. $800 in tires and about $2200 in oil changes and tire rotations, batteries, air filters, etc. Now obviously when faced with the option to get something else I went with something more fuel efficient because I'd learned about the impact of poor gas mileage (since getting a truck in my late 20s), but that was also largely because the trucks I wanted had also gotten so expensive. I got the Tesla Model Y with everything I wanted for about $10k less than a downgraded 2 year old version of my truck. Hard to justify paying $55k for a 2 year old truck with 20k miles on it when I can get a brand new Model Y for $45k and a tow hitch (I used my truck for transporting our 4 bikes to the MTB trails).

Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.

If tire wear is a factor for you, you drive too much anyway. So much in fact, that a face punch is not enough, you should plant your face in a street light!

I've seen people saying that the tires can sometimes go at 15k miles. If you drive 10k miles a year that's ~$1.5k every 18 months. I wouldn't consider 10k miles a year a lot of driving. I also think this whole face punching thing is pretty silly because everyone views this through their own lens. A person that is single or without kids that lives in NYC is an idiot if they put 12k miles/yr on their car. A person that lives in the suburbs or rural area that has kids that go to school and engage in extracurriculurs like sports, etc. 12k miles may be extremely reasonable. Hell I'll put about 80 miles a week on my car just from going to and from sports and they aren't even traveling. I bike to work several days most of the year and I'll still put ~8-10k miles on my car/yr and my wife will put another 6-8k miles on hers and I would say we are abnormal on the low range of driving. 4 trips to visit family and friends each year is ~2.5k miles right there for us.

[LennStar]

I've seen people saying that the tires can sometimes go at 15k miles.

My last set of tires went out at about 12K miles. But not because they were driven down, it was because of age. The tire guy said that if it weren't for the 7 years, the tires looked like nearly new.
And those are very small tires compares to other cars, so they hit the asphalt more often per distance.

A person that lives in the suburbs or rural area that has kids that go to school and engage in extracurriculurs like sports, etc. 12k miles may be extremely reasonable.

I admit, the US makes it quite hard, but that's still a choice. If you don't do the choice, I will still facepunch you.
There really are not enough of those things going round here anymore. sigh

[waltworks]

Oh, the facepunches are certainly deserved. I didn't own a car at all until we had kids. We still do a lot of public transit and bike commuting but the bottom line is that if your kids are super passionate about soccer and you're driving 100 miles every weekend for games, it is what it is. We didn't have kids to save money and we're not going to deny them things that they love and are healthy for them. Sure, we could go do calisthenics together in the yard instead, I guess. But that sounds like being cheap rather than frugal to me.

-W

[mizzourah2006]

Oh, the facepunches are certainly deserved. I didn't own a car at all until we had kids. We still do a lot of public transit and bike commuting but the bottom line is that if your kids are super passionate about soccer and you're driving 100 miles every weekend for games, it is what it is. We didn't have kids to save money and we're not going to deny them things that they love and are healthy for them. Sure, we could go do calisthenics together in the yard instead, I guess. But that sounds like being cheap rather than frugal to me.

-W

Same to the bolded. But I think there's probably a large group of people that think even having kids deserves a facepunch. Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

I feel like we could twist this to ensure every single person should get punched in the face. Did you go on vacation last year? Use a plane? Facepunch! Your vacation should only be to the local library via biking or walking or else you deserve a facepunch. I mean if taking your kids to soccer via a car deserves a facepunch surely going on vacation is about as selfish as one can be.

[LennStar]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

[mizzourah2006]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

Because I strongly dislike living in an urban environment. There are only a few US cities where you can get away with never needing a car and I don't enjoy any of those cities. Different strokes for different folks. Plus in many of those cities where you don't need a car you end up spending countless hours commuting via public transit. Everybody I know that lives in the DC and NYC area spends countless hours each week commuting to work via public transportation once they want their own house to start a family.

It seems like you live in a very simple world, congrats for you. Most people aren't willing to move to a city and try to find a job just so they don't have to drive a car. Good on you for making that sacrifice.

[lemonlyman]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

Can't choose where we were born. Going through work visa process, leaving friends and family, and upending all our lives is a bit much just to not have to drive. There's face punching consumption and then there's straight up wrong priorities for the human condition.

[waltworks]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

See, the thing is, this quickly just becomes a race to the bottom. Are you a tiny apartment city-dwelling childless vegan who sews your own clothes from roadkill pelts and has never traveled more than walking distance from where you were born? If not, facepunch!

Cars are a dumb way to get around, but in some places and cases they're the only realistic option. I'd love to live in a society where a really sophisticated mass transit system made it cheap and convenient and environmentally friendly for me to get my kids to soccer games, but in the meantime, I'm going to spend a little less money driving by driving an EV than I would by driving an ICE.

-W

[pecunia]

My face hurts.

[tj]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

You might broaden your horizons if you get on an airplane sometime.

[LennStar]

Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.

No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.

btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)

You might broaden your horizons if you get on an airplane sometime.

But I prefer to see the world e.g. from a train window. A horizon is just something so far away that you can't recognize anything and experience whatever is there.

[AlanStache]

LennStars train options according to google:
Berlin to Cape Town - 320 euro
Berlin to Bangkok - 430 euro
Travel times looked not that much slower than flying but with bigger seats and the ability to get up and walk around.

But hay an all you can drink package in a gated resort complex after flying to the Bahamas might also open some horizons too, cant say for sure.

[GuitarStv]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

[lemonlyman]

I got disgusted with buffets after spending time in Europe and adjusting to non-American plate sizes. I also got less sympathetic so *some* complaints in the US about struggles after spending time in India and seeing people doing so much with so little. Not totally life changing or anything, but those are my experiences.

[Tyson]

So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables.  At that point is it OK to fly?

[GuitarStv]

So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables.  At that point is it OK to fly?

If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure.  Absolutely.  Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.

[Tyson]

So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables.  At that point is it OK to fly?

If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure.  Absolutely.  Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.

What would be the environmental costs, under this scenario?

[pecunia]

So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables.  At that point is it OK to fly?

If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure.  Absolutely.  Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.

What would be the environmental costs, under this scenario?

No matter what you do there will be people complaining.  They will complain about the energy used in the aluminum manufacture, the mining of the bauxite, the rubber for the tires, the copper and nickel used for the electric motors, the plastic used for the seats and trim of the airplane.  Then there is the land taken for the airport, the material used for airport lighting, the energy used for the lights.  You may not always be charging the batteries with sunshine.  These people can NEVER be satisfied.

I tell you what though.  In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals.  But not once have I seen a carbon footprint.  Just something to consider.

[lemonlyman]

So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables.  At that point is it OK to fly?

If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure.  Absolutely.  Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.

What would be the environmental costs, under this scenario?

No matter what you do there will be people complaining.  They will complain about the energy used in the aluminum manufacture, the mining of the bauxite, the rubber for the tires, the copper and nickel used for the electric motors, the plastic used for the seats and trim of the airplane.  Then there is the land taken for the airport, the material used for airport lighting, the energy used for the lights.  You may not always be charging the batteries with sunshine.  These people can NEVER be satisfied.

Amen

[bacchi]

I tell you what though.  In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals.  But not once have I seen a carbon footprint.  Just something to consider.

I have. It put its foot down on Phoenix this year and left over 50 days of 110+ temperatures. The nights, in the low to mid 90s, weren't much better.

[GuitarStv]

I tell you what though.  In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals.  But not once have I seen a carbon footprint.  Just something to consider.

I have. It put its foot down on Phoenix this year and left over 50 days of 110+ temperatures. The nights, in the low to mid 90s, weren't much better.

You ain't seen nothin' yet . . . we're racing towards far, far worse outcomes and jetting around the world at a greater pace because we want to see all the sights that the problem caused by jetting around the world will destroy.

[GilesMM]

I tell you what though.  In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals.  But not once have I seen a carbon footprint.  Just something to consider.

I have. It put its foot down on Phoenix this year and left over 50 days of 110+ temperatures. The nights, in the low to mid 90s, weren't much better.

You ain't seen nothin' yet . . . we're racing towards far, far worse outcomes and jetting around the world at a greater pace because we want to see all the sights that the problem caused by jetting around the world will destroy.

Gonna be hot and stormy.  AC usage will soar.

[catccc]

Carbon footprint, which I’ve understood to be real for a long time now, showed up big in the last year.  I’m in the east coast of the US, and the outside air being inhospitable during wildfire smoke in the early summer was extremely concerning.  My sister lives in the Bay Area, so I’ve heard stories, but putting on a mask to go outside was a new level for me. 

I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations.  We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage.  We eat very little meat.  Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner.  We live in a walkable/bikable small town.

If you care about how our environment is changing, and there is probably some part of it you care about, talk to people about it, including dropping notes to your elected officials.  Deniers are only 7% of the population, according to a recent read.  93% understand change is happening and are on a spectrum of what they think we can do about it.  I think we can do something, and it is more up to corporations/capitalism than individuals to make big changes, so if you do one thing, I would suggest telling your elected officials this is a existential crisis they need to work to resolve.  Here’s to future generations, beaches, snow towns, and fresh air.  Cheers!

[StashingAway]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

[waltworks]

I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations.  We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage.  We eat very little meat.  Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner.  We live in a walkable/billable small town.

Unfortunately, one cross country round trip plane flight pretty much negates a full year of not driving a car at all (obviously this depends a bit on the exact car/flight, etc, etc). Planes are pretty bad. So a more efficient car and less meat and such are great, but they're small potatoes compared to flying around, when it comes to your personal carbon footprint.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

[nereo]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

My experiences differ here to some degree.  Ever since high school my preferred method for getting around has been on a bike or walking, and I was always cognizant of being one of the 'fringe' people in the various cities/towns I have lived in throughout the US and Canada.  Often it took considerable effort to find suitable, safe cycling routes every time I moved.

It was traveling and working in Europe that brought a head-smacking "a-ha!" moment to me about how modern cities could and should be designed to promote pedestrian transportation and mass transit.  Previously I had often daydreamed while riding, thinking "oh, if they could just add a bike-lane to this stretch of road it would solve so many problems with bike traffic!"  Working for a few weeks in Copenhagen made me realize that I was still stuck in this N.A mentality that roads are for cars, and cars rule city planning, and "other uses" must be carved out from that blueprint.  i had always heard about bike-centric modern cities but until I experienced one first hand I still didn't get it, despite using a bike myself almost daily.

It also threw into stark contrast a lot of the false assumptions people made whenever I sat on town council meetings about why we couldn't have better cycling infrastructure (examples:  "people won't bike when it's cold" or "the city was designed for cars, there's no way it can be converted" or "cycling won't work here because its too dense/hilly/hot/cold".

Sometimes the best way of seeing the flaws in your own world is to travel to a new one and realize how things can be different and still work very well (or better).

Granted - the likelihood of that happening is much less when you are on a resort or cruise ship experience where your bona-fide experiences are limited. Which is why I prefer to experience other countries by working there for a period of several weeks to several months.

[AlanStache]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I get your point in theory but the latest CityNerd is a sort of counter point.  Lots of rich people (who presumably have been to Europe) in a big-ish tourist town trying to sell it self in part on being historic-old world but everywhere has on street parking and being car dependent.  I am guessing it is some deeply ingrained American feeling that we need cars here, maybe they in Europe can make it work without them but that would never work here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHTla7K1CTE

Wonder what would happen if American walkability/non-car dependencies advocates put up signs in walkable tourist areas in Europe like "your home town could have a pedestrian mall and be more pleasant with "people first" areas" then a QR code to Strong Towns etc. 

I just dont know that American tourists can make the connection that such things are possible in the US.

[catccc]

I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations.  We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage.  We eat very little meat.  Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner.  We live in a walkable/bikable small town.

Unfortunately, one cross country round trip plane flight pretty much negates a full year of not driving a car at all (obviously this depends a bit on the exact car/flight, etc, etc). Planes are pretty bad. So a more efficient car and less meat and such are great, but they're small potatoes compared to flying around, when it comes to your personal carbon footprint.

-W

Yup, I’m fully aware that the biggest impact I have is flying.  It’s just not something I’m willing to compromise on right now, but I do try to limit it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what we are willing to reduce our impact, but the big wins will be at systemic levels.

[pecunia]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

My experiences differ here to some degree.  Ever since high school my preferred method for getting around has been on a bike or walking, and I was always cognizant of being one of the 'fringe' people in the various cities/towns I have lived in throughout the US and Canada.  Often it took considerable effort to find suitable, safe cycling routes every time I moved.

It was traveling and working in Europe that brought a head-smacking "a-ha!" moment to me about how modern cities could and should be designed to promote pedestrian transportation and mass transit.  Previously I had often daydreamed while riding, thinking "oh, if they could just add a bike-lane to this stretch of road it would solve so many problems with bike traffic!"  Working for a few weeks in Copenhagen made me realize that I was still stuck in this N.A mentality that roads are for cars, and cars rule city planning, and "other uses" must be carved out from that blueprint.  i had always heard about bike-centric modern cities but until I experienced one first hand I still didn't get it, despite using a bike myself almost daily.

It also threw into stark contrast a lot of the false assumptions people made whenever I sat on town council meetings about why we couldn't have better cycling infrastructure (examples:  "people won't bike when it's cold" or "the city was designed for cars, there's no way it can be converted" or "cycling won't work here because its too dense/hilly/hot/cold".

Sometimes the best way of seeing the flaws in your own world is to travel to a new one and realize how things can be different and still work very well (or better).

Granted - the likelihood of that happening is much less when you are on a resort or cruise ship experience where your bona-fide experiences are limited. Which is why I prefer to experience other countries by working there for a period of several weeks to several months.

One point has been missed that has been pointed out to me by the operators of fine automobiles.  I have been accosted by the questions, "Who pays for these roads?  Did your bicycle pay for these roads?  I and my fellow drivers have paid for these roads through gas taxes.  It is only through our benevolence that we allow you to share this road with us."   

[AlanStache]

pecunia - are you saying that gas taxes fund roads or saying that drivers say that?  If the former please cite the funding level, as the gas tax has remained nearly unchanged for a long time and probably not kept up with inflation over the years.  Go find numbers for streets not highways - places bikes could travel on. 

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

[LennStar]

"Who pays for these roads?  Did your bicycle pay for these roads?  I and my fellow drivers have paid for these roads through gas taxes.  It is only through our benevolence that we allow you to share this road with us."   

So, how is this in the US?
How much of the gas taxes goes to the feds, how much to the state level, to the county level, to the city level?
How much do all those entities pay for road building and maintenance? What about the poisened water from all those sealed areas, how much does the transport and cleaning of that cost?

And going to less direct costs:
How much for police, firefighters, ambulance, who have to travel more often and farer because of the cars (and such are needed in a higher number)?

And what about indirect costs, such as emissions of deadly fumes, microplastic from tires, health cost of sedentiary life or noise? Not to mention that thing with the climate.

[nereo]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

[pecunia]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon.  Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.

It also told me:

On average, state motor fuel tax accounts for about 40% of revenue for the State Transportation Fund. The federal government also charges a fuel tax of $0.18 per gallon on gasoline and $0.24 per gallon on diesel. In March 2019

A bit more elaboration.

State road construction is funded by a patchwork of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, license and registration fees.

I guess now  I can tell the next big mean looking truck driver that tells me about taxes and why he owns the road, "Yes sir."  Then I will pedal my bike to safety.

You see - Sometimes facts don't matter.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon.  Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.

It also told me:

On average, state motor fuel tax accounts for about 40% of revenue for the State Transportation Fund. The federal government also charges a fuel tax of $0.18 per gallon on gasoline and $0.24 per gallon on diesel. In March 2019

A bit more elaboration.

State road construction is funded by a patchwork of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, license and registration fees.

I guess now  I can tell the next big mean looking truck driver that tells me about taxes and why he owns the road, "Yes sir."  Then I will pedal my bike to safety.

You see - Sometimes facts don't matter.

If he's just yelling shit at you rather than throwing stuff out his window or actively running you off the road, I think you're coming out ahead of the game.  :P

[StashingAway]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

[/quote]

That's why I brought it up- I have traveled to Europe, with the same inclinations and tenancies and access to the internet as you (I bike to work, etc). Granted, my last trip was before I dove far into StrongTowns, NJB, etc, but still the lifestyle contrast was almost hard to cope with mentally. I stayed with a friend in a five story building from the 19th century, and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"- this was akin to staying in a BnB on vacation, but it was his everyday life in a standard German city. If I had been staying in a hotel I would have chalked it up to just a vacation thing, but this was just his normal apartment lifestyle.

My suspicion is that until it is experienced it is difficult to convey- I'd wager you would have your own revelations on such a trip. In a more extreme analogy: I can convincingly describe a psilocybin mushroom trip from all that I've read and heard of it, even to those who partake, but without actually experiencing it I cannot say that I know what I would get from eating the mushrooms.

[GuitarStv]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

That's why I brought it up- I have traveled to Europe, with the same inclinations and tenancies and access to the internet as you (I bike to work, etc). Granted, my last trip was before I dove far into StrongTowns, NJB, etc, but still the lifestyle contrast was almost hard to cope with mentally. I stayed with a friend in a five story building from the 19th century, and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"- this was akin to staying in a BnB on vacation, but it was his everyday life in a standard German city. If I had been staying in a hotel I would have chalked it up to just a vacation thing, but this was just his normal apartment lifestyle.

My suspicion is that until it is experienced it is difficult to convey- I'd wager you would have your own revelations on such a trip. In a more extreme analogy: I can convincingly describe a psilocybin mushroom trip from all that I've read and heard of it, even to those who partake, but without actually experiencing it I cannot say that I know what I would get from eating the mushrooms.

You gotta be more careful with the food you eat on vacation if it's comparable to a magic mushroom trip.  :P

[LennStar]

and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"

LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.

But yes, having a baker in less than 1km is usual in all but small villages. And back in the good ol' socialist day, I lived in the middle of 3 of them about 500m away each.

You gotta be more careful with the food you eat on vacation if it's comparable to a magic mushroom trip.  :P

You never eat bread from a good, traditional artisan baker, with a nice sausage from a small 3rd generation butcher, did you?

btw. a German saying goes: In a pinch the sausage also tastes good without bread.
Not my opinion, but in a pinch bread definitely also tastes good without sausage.

[AlanStache]

and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"

LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.

Europe is so much better, I have to walk almost 400m to my bagel place :-(  and if I want fresh bread I might have to ride my bike further down the road.  The horror!  Granted the chain grocery store is closer but at that point I might as well drive to Walmart. /s

[Just Joe]

My nearest bakery is about 10 miles. I bike there but mostly try to combine my trips or do a lunchtime bike ride to visit the bakery.

[Tyson]

Here in Denver, gentrification has resulted in a lot more mixed use neighborhoods.  Still not as walkable as some cities in Europe, but a lot better than it was 10 years ago.

[nereo]

Here in Denver, gentrification has resulted in a lot more mixed use neighborhoods.  Still not as walkable as some cities in Europe, but a lot better than it was 10 years ago.

It’s hard for me to overemphasize just how much better many US cities are now in terms of walking and cycling infrastructure than they were in the early 2000s. Even still, even in cities that have made huge strides they tend to lag behind the more cycling-friendly European cities by a wide margin.