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

[Chris22]

No the main drawback is people don’t want to share walls with their neighbors. Also, in the US, it is uncommon to have townhomes without some sort of homeowners association (HOA) which is known for creating many rules and regulations which are often arbitrary and unnecessary. Lots of people don’t want to live in that type of situation.

AFAIK it is uncommon to have a new suburban development without an HOA. At least with a townhouse the HOA actually does something of value (usually roofing and siding).

It’s geographically specific. In the south, you’re correct. Here in the older parts of IL, or in New England, it’s relatively uncommon to have an HOA.  Here in IL closer to the city we don’t have “new developments”, most of the new construction is in existing neighborhoods. A HOA for anything but condos/townhomes is unusual here.

[Abe]

To the 'safety' perspective, I'm looking at it in terms of how much yard space is afforded to kids with families and pets. If I had to guess, i'd say at least half of the townhouses in our area have no backyards or backyards that are downright unsafe for little kids.

As you can see on videos from - guess whom lol - it's totally normal and safe in the Netherlands to have "micro playgrounds" in the middle of cities, right besides streets, without a fance.

If you put up townhouses instead of SFH, then you can easily have a lot of greenspace and still higher density. The only "drawback" is that it would be "communistic", aka your children would not play alone.

Townhouses aren't necessary for this setup. My neighborhood in God-Fearing Americaland (Texas) has large houses on small lots - the kids generally just run around between the different yards (the front yards are all unfenced, most of the backyards have gates they can open). Also there are a couple of large playgrounds in biking or walking distance.

Granted this is unusual, and we live near downtown, but point being that the neighborhood doesn't have townhouses but still achieves high density without sharing walls. Also there are three grocery stores, many restaurants, a pharmacy, school, gun range (all the daily needs) within a mile radius.

[PDXTabs]

The Guardian: Mapped: historical public transit systems v their modern equivalents

[PDXTabs]

Granted this is unusual, and we live near downtown, but point being that the neighborhood doesn't have townhouses but still achieves high density without sharing walls. Also there are three grocery stores, many restaurants, a pharmacy, school, gun range (all the daily needs) within a mile radius.

What's the average lot size?

[StashingAway]

No the main drawback is people don’t want to share walls with their neighbors. Also, in the US, it is uncommon to have townhomes without some sort of homeowners association (HOA) which is known for creating many rules and regulations which are often arbitrary and unnecessary. Lots of people don’t want to live in that type of situation.

Interestingly, with building codes in many areas, townhomes are more comfortable than compact housing. Some areas allow for areas to use laminated paperboard for exterior sheathing where OSB isn't required for shear resistance. Which means that separating between you and your neighbors are a few layers of cardboard and pink insulation. When your wall is only 5 feet from your neighbors wall, you can hear a significant amount of what is going on. In the same areas, there are codes to limit sound between occupancy zones in multi-family units. You would actually hear less of your neighbors in the latter situation. I know this doesn't account for all of the "issues" people have with multi family units, but it shows that perception is different from reality.

Similarly, both houses must now have insulation on all sides of themselves, making either the units cost significantly more to make or, if cheaped out on, significantly more to heat and cool. I think the comparison should be living in a cookie cutter lot with a builder grade house to the equivalent cost of a more healthy and luxury unit.

Also, keep in mind that with the multi-family unit, consider that you have created open space that could be used to watch the birds and foxes, rather than fenced in turf grass with no viewshed.


Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:

Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.

This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.

[Just Joe]

It’s geographically specific. In the south, you’re correct. Here in the older parts of IL, or in New England, it’s relatively uncommon to have an HOA.  Here in IL closer to the city we don’t have “new developments”, most of the new construction is in existing neighborhoods. A HOA for anything but condos/townhomes is unusual here.

I was just popping in to say that HOAs are not common here in the south until the media property values exceed some arbitrary price. Perhaps it is the difference between big city and small town. In our smallish town it is only the country club folks who have an HOA that I am aware of.

[Paper Chaser]

Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:

Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.

This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.

Or maybe...people just like different things. Humans aren't all wired the same. And there are a vast number of humans in the US that choose to live in a vast number of different locations/geographies with different density, climate, building codes, costs, etc. If there truly is lots of demand for things like zoning changes, and additional dense housing there exist legal ways to make that happen. They just need adequate support from a large enough portion of the populace in a given location. It could be that there are financial or political reasons why what you suggest isn't more widespread. It's also at least possible that your suggestions don't have as much support as you might think.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should reconsider our infrastructure needs, especially for new development. I don't think it's fine to suggest that what you want, should be what everybody wants, or that what works really well in one place would be just as great in another location. We all have different priorities based on our own unique outlook and situations. Our differences make us stronger. It's ok for people to like and prefer different things.

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

[neo von retorch]

Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:

Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.

This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.

Sorry, are you saying enjoying watching nature is an addiction?

[Shane]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.

[PDXTabs]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.

[neo von retorch]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.

Two things:

First, people who have joined this thread are primarily interested in the adoption of EVs in the US. To dilute the thread with other topics means getting notifications and having to wade through comments that don't discuss the primary interest.

Two, the discussion of alternate solutions to solving climate change may be related but it is not the same topic, and it does not answer the question at hand.

I was happy to see some light, related discussion on the thread. A successful forum thread encourages curious, thoughtful discussion. But there's ample potential for a dedicated thread to discussing zoning, population density, etc. And trying to discuss both means a mix of topics sprinkled into the thread, and little room to focus on the original topic.

Plus really weird tangents appearing, like having interests and wanting to live a life where you spend time enjoying your interests... is actually an addiction to be remedied.

There's no reason why someone passionate about the topic of zoning and population density cannot open such a thread, and attract interested parties to it, where it can be discussed ad nauseam.

[PDXTabs]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.

Two things:

First, people who have joined this thread are primarily interested in the adoption of EVs in the US. To dilute the thread with other topics means getting notifications and having to wade through comments that don't discuss the primary interest.

Two, the discussion of alternate solutions to solving climate change may be related but it is not the same topic, and it does not answer the question at hand.

I fundamentally disagree. I would like to either live in a dense walkable neighborhood where I have access to good car sharing and ride hailing (which could easily be EVs) or I want to live #vanlife in which case I will be ICE for a long time. Figuring out which transportation problem you are trying to solve is fundamental.

Or perhaps it would be more to your liking if I said that I'm incredibly bullish on Waymo, but I'm not sure that's the EV popularity that this thread was looking for.

[Paper Chaser]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.

I can see how zoning can impact car use. But it has nothing at all to do with what's powering those cars (EV vs ICE). This thread is more about what's powering cars than how much cars should be emphasized by a society in the first place.

[Paper Chaser]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.

Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.

[StashingAway]

Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:

Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.

This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.

Or maybe...people just like different things. Humans aren't all wired the same. And there are a vast number of humans in the US that choose to live in a vast number of different locations/geographies with different density, climate, building codes, costs, etc. If there truly is lots of demand for things like zoning changes, and additional dense housing there exist legal ways to make that happen. They just need adequate support from a large enough portion of the populace in a given location. It could be that there are financial or political reasons why what you suggest isn't more widespread. It's also at least possible that your suggestions don't have as much support as you might think.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should reconsider our infrastructure needs, especially for new development. I don't think it's fine to suggest that what you want, should be what everybody wants, or that what works really well in one place would be just as great in another location. We all have different priorities based on our own unique outlook and situations. Our differences make us stronger. It's ok for people to like and prefer different things.

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

I like living on the moon but I don't get to have it. The point is to not force the world to your desires, but make your desires compatible with the world.

Mind you, I'm not perfect or anything near, and I am absolutely not suggesting that we all live the same way (I thought I made this clear in the thread earlier?) I've repeated the notion several times. I like the mountains and not the beach, that doesn't mean I think everyone should live in the mountains (far from it!)
 
I also don't think that this is relevant to public policy. It was more of a personal aside.

Carry on with electric cars, I will let it rest.

[neo von retorch]

I like living on the moon but I don't get to have it.

This is what I mean by a contradiction. There are many things I want in my life. I want a (reliable, capable) $30k USD AWD EV truck with leather and climate control. In the year 2035, it might be possible to buy one... used :) Hard to say just yet.

I also want an acre to myself. If everyone on the planet wanted that, like really badly, kind of the top priority in their life... well that probably wouldn't work out too well. Certainly not for reduction of energy for transporting people and the stuff they want.

But I really don't want my government to push too hard on making everyone live in high density areas. I mean, yes, zone it for new projects, let local governments discuss these things and decide on it, and if we're realistic, something bigger than local government is needed for things to affect climate change or societal norms.

In fact this last point might be relevant to EVs after all - we are seeing cases of regulations attempting to push the U.S. forward a wee bit faster toward adopting EVs, because so far the manufacturers have mostly been calling it in, at least in regards for the U.S. style of automobile preferences. Variety, personalization... excessive capability.

[PDXTabs]

Marketplace recently mentioned that the war in Ukraine is pushing out the unsubsidized break even date for EVs. It was going to be ~2026 but the war is hurting the EV supply chain:
NYT: How the War in Ukraine Could Slow the Sales of Electric Cars
electrive: War in Ukraine halts electric car supply chains

I can see how zoning can impact car use. But it has nothing at all to do with what's powering those cars (EV vs ICE). This thread is more about what's powering cars than how much cars should be emphasized by a society in the first place.

I disagree. Families with two cars who replace one of them with an EV aren't going to feel the same range anxiety as a one car family would.

[PDXTabs]

But I really don't want my government to push too hard on making everyone live in high density areas. I mean, yes, zone it for new projects, let local governments discuss these things and decide on it, and if we're realistic, something bigger than local government is needed for things to affect climate change or societal norms.

Me either. I just want them to get out of the way and let me build whatever I want like Adam Smith would have wanted.

[LennStar]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.

Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.

No, its not. It's about the question if Electric cars will become popular in the US.
If you take away the need for cars through a human-centric transportation paradigma for example, they won't.

Me either. I just want them to get out of the way and let me build whatever I want like Adam Smith would have wanted.

Let me guess: You never actually read his books?

[PDXTabs]

Me either. I just want them to get out of the way and let me build whatever I want like Adam Smith would have wanted.

Let me guess: You never actually read his books?

Not front to back, but he was covered in my European Intellectual History class at uni. But my post was meant quasi tongue in cheek.*

EDITed to add - The right in the USA is all about "freedom" until you talk about letting me build a five over one or eliminating minimum parking requirements, then they become all Gosplan and want a centrally managed car economy.

[PDXTabs]

Along the lines of the free market, can we get rid of CAFE in this country? Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big?

Seriously, I know that I'm a weird kind of liberal in the USA but can we just tax the negative externalities of ICE and then remove the EV subsidies and let the market sort it out? You want EVs? Great, just ratchet up the ICE taxes until the EV is cheaper.

[StashingAway]

In fact this last point might be relevant to EVs after all - we are seeing cases of regulations attempting to push the U.S. forward a wee bit faster toward adopting EVs,

Yes! This is exactly where I'm going with this!

Ultimately, we are subsidizing ICE vehicles (as noted, by not charging for their pollution and by subsidizing oil). We are also subsidizing suburban developments (and therefore both ICE and EVs)  offloading their maintenance onto future generations and denser populations. If you want an acre in the country, you certainly can have it! It may cost a bit more without the subsidies, but it's worth it to you! It's about looking at the playing field and making sure we know what we are incentivizing. Most people don't know about all of this, they just know that to navigate comfortably, they need two cars. Most people don't bother to try to figure out why because daily decision fatigue doesn't allow for it. They are just trying to live their lives. We can't say they chose this; the majority of people are on autopilot, just chasing dopamine hits thinking that they are one or two steps away from attaining happiness.

If we are asking the question "Can EV's be popular", a very natural follow up question is "why are you asking?". That's where this whole conversation is still relevant.

[StashingAway]

Along the lines of the free market, can we get rid of CAFE in this country? Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big?

Seriously, I know that I'm a weird kind of liberal in the USA but can we just tax the negative externalities of ICE and then remove the EV subsidies and let the market sort it out? You want EVs? Great, just ratchet up the ICE taxes until the EV is cheaper.

Get rid of Cafe and green incentive programs (green new deal- bleah!) and just do a carbon tax ladder (with dividend). This is how a significant portion of the world's economists have placed their reputations on effectively reducing our carbon footprint.

[Shane]

Along the lines of the free market, can we get rid of CAFE in this country? Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big?

Seriously, I know that I'm a weird kind of liberal in the USA but can we just tax the negative externalities of ICE and then remove the EV subsidies and let the market sort it out? You want EVs? Great, just ratchet up the ICE taxes until the EV is cheaper.

Get rid of Cafe and green incentive programs (green new deal- bleah!) and just do a carbon tax ladder (with dividend). This is how a significant portion of the world's economists have placed their reputations on effectively reducing our carbon footprint.

A carbon tax with dividend sounds great to me. Then, just let the market sort things out.

[Shane]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.

Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.

Why not just start posting the kinds of comments you want to see? I really don't get the urge to police other people's comments. If you were posting interesting things about whatever you believe is the 'main topic' of this thread, then the rest of us could respond to your comments, and maybe the conversation would go in a different direction you might be more happy with.

As for OP's question, I think the answer is definitely: Yes, electric cars can finally become popular in the US. Twenty years from now, most vehicles on the roads in the US are going to be EVs. It's not a question of if, just how long it's going to take.

It's not that I'm not interested in discussing EVs. My teenage daughter would tell you that I'm 'obsessed' with EVs, especially Teslas, because she thinks I 'talk about them all the time.' To me, Elon's a fucking genius, and his Model S is like a work of art. I've spent a good bit of time perusing the Tesla website, hours talking with friends who own Teslas about their cars, watched countless videos and even read a biography of Elon. If we really wanted to, we could easily afford a Tesla. Hell, we could buy three Teslas, without it affecting our FIRE status, at all. Then, my wife, daughter and I could 'save the environment' by driving everywhere in our shiny, new EVs. Wooohoooo!

Thing is, though, we don't need 3 cars. We don't even really need one car. When I tell people that, the response is usually, "Well, it must be nice to not have to work at a job and, yeah, where you guys live it might be possible for you to get by without a car, but where we live, blah, blah, blah." I get it. Many people's current reality is such that it wouldn't be practical or even possible for them to not own a car. BTDT. Totally understand.

What seems relevant to OP's question, to me, is the bigger picture. Not just, "Can EVs become popular in the US?" But, should we just copy and paste from ICE to EVs, or should we take this opportunity to make some changes? As Mustachians, who are presumably all here because we are either already FIRE or striving to reach FIRE, we have the luxury of being able to freely choose where and how we live. I'm really grateful to be able to make those choices, without having to worry about a job.

It wasn't just by chance that my family and I ended up living in our current location. Out of all of the places in the world we could've settled, we chose this small, LCOL city, where we've been since 2019, partly because it seemed like, maybe, we wouldn't have to use our car very much. After two and a half years of our shiny, new car mostly just sitting parked on the street in front of our house, we finally pulled the plug and sold it to CarMax in early December, 2021. Friends all told us we were crazy. "You can't sell your car. It's winter!" So far, we're fine, though. We're healthy, so able to walk and bike most places we need/want to go. For longer trips, or if the weather is bad, we regularly use Uber/Lyft. Also hoping the developer building a new 150 unit apartment building a couple of blocks from our house follows through on his promise to negotiate a Zipcar node in their parking lot.

The question all Mustachians should be asking ourselves isn't just, "Should we get an M3 or an ID4?" The bigger question ought to be, "Can we live a good life with just one car and an e-bike, instead of two cars, or could we, maybe, not own a car, at all?"

Just my 2 cents.

[Cranky]

I live in a small city where there are kind of a lot of electric cars. There’s a Tesla charging station at the grocery store less than a mile from my house, and a regular charging station at the grocery store in the other direction. Frankly, I think the deciding factor is a young population, a lot of tech people, and a high average income.

But I live in a suburby kind of neighborhood with a half acre lot, and there’s tons of stuff I can walk to (including at least 4 playgrounds LOL), bike paths, and a reasonable number of buses

[Paper Chaser]

Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?

You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.

Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.

Why not just start posting the kinds of comments you want to see? I really don't get the urge to police other people's comments. If you were posting interesting things about whatever you believe is the 'main topic' of this thread, then the rest of us could respond to your comments, and maybe the conversation would go in a different direction you might be more happy with.

I've probably got a hundred posts about EVs in this thread. I posted 2 separate relevant posts earlier today to try and steer the discussion back toward the main subject, but they were lost in the sea of posts about zoning, HOAs, and car free lifestyles. The first of my two posts linked a new battery design that uses less rare minerals and also increases range. That potentially leads to wider EV adoption, and could alleviate the range anxiety for a family that's looking to go down to a single car. The second post gave new details about the EV version of the US's best selling vehicle. If that market can transition to EVs, it will be a huge step toward mainstream EV adoption, and simultaneously replace a bunch of trucks that get 20mpg with EVs that get 70MPGe and have no tailpipe emissions. It's not as perfect as not driving, but it's still a potentially massive improvement in pretty much everything, and that impact occurs much sooner than totally altering our infrastructure, or over coming 90+ years of established car infrastructure to see widespread change in society at large. Those are great long term goals. But we also very badly need short term impact, and PHEvs and EVs are most likely to achieve that.

What seems relevant to OP's question, to me, is the bigger picture. Not just, "Can EVs become popular in the US?" But, should we just copy and paste from ICE to EVs, or should we take this opportunity to make some changes? As Mustachians, who are presumably all here because we are either already FIRE or striving to reach FIRE, we have the luxury of being able to freely choose where and how we live. I'm really grateful to be able to make those choices, without having to worry about a job.

It wasn't just by chance that my family and I ended up living in our current location. Out of all of the places in the world we could've settled, we chose this small, LCOL city, where we've been since 2019, partly because it seemed like, maybe, we wouldn't have to use our car very much. After two and a half years of our shiny, new car mostly just sitting parked on the street in front of our house, we finally pulled the plug and sold it to CarMax in early December, 2021. Friends all told us we were crazy. "You can't sell your car. It's winter!" So far, we're fine, though. We're healthy, so able to walk and bike most places we need/want to go. For longer trips, or if the weather is bad, we regularly use Uber/Lyft. Also hoping the developer building a new 150 unit apartment building a couple of blocks from our house follows through on his promise to negotiate a Zipcar node in their parking lot.

The question all Mustachians should be asking ourselves isn't just, "Should we get an M3 or an ID4?" The bigger question ought to be, "Can we live a good life with just one car and an e-bike, instead of two cars, or could we, maybe, not own a car, at all?"

Just my 2 cents.

You seem like you're living your best life, and that's awesome. Legitimately happy for you. If anybody else wants to pursue a similar lifestyle, I hope that they can do it as easily as possible. If that means zoning changes are needed, or infrastructure needs to be added, or we need to rethink new development then I hope that there's enough political/financial support in their local populace to make the changes necessary. But I think suggesting that all Mustachians need to think the way that you do, or come to the same conclusions that you have is crazy and frankly stepping over a line. There's no "One True Mustachian lifestyle". We've got people here that live on boats, HCOL, LCOL, vanlife, and rural homesteading etc. Mustachianism is not about all of us collectively trending toward "The One True MMM Lifestyle", it's about determining what's actually important to you, and eliminating as much of the other stuff as possible, so that you can focus on the things that are important to you. We're all trying to live our best life, as you are. But we all like different things, and have almost infinitely unique situations that impact our decision making. So your best life and my best life may be very different.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

[Shane]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

The Chinese government has mandated that, by 2030, 40% of vehicles sold in China be EVs. In 2017, visiting cities in southern China, it seemed to us like almost all vehicles were already EVs. Several European countries have pledged to only allow sales of EVs by 2025-2030. Individual European countries have been banning short-haul plane flights for several years, and the EU is considering doing the same, region wide, on routes where less-polluting train travel is a viable option. In the US, politicians have been scrambling to outdo each other at proposing tax cuts and other ways to try to make gasoline cheaper, so that Americans can burn MORE of it, so they can get reelected. While rich Americans sit around discussing important questions like, Gee, "Can EVs finally become popular in the US?"

You want to make this out to be all just a matter of choice, like, you prefer vanilla and I like chocolate. I totally disagree. When future generations look back at this time in history, they're going to be, rightfully, harsh on Americans' gluttonous lifestyles and failure to treat the current ecological crisis as a hair on fire emergency. I'm totally cool with each of us pursuing his own version of happiness, as long as there's a level playing field. Let's take away all the subsidies for suburbia and enact a carbon tax with a dividend, so that rugged American individualists who want to live in the suburbs or on acreages in the countryside and drive everywhere in big, fat, gas guzzling 4WD SUVs and trucks, can pay more of the costs of their lifestyle choices. Then, those of us who are actively trying to minimize our energy and materials usage and their effects on the planet can sit back and collect a check from the energy hogs, every month. Sounds like a plan to me.

Oh, and I looked at both of the links you posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, didn't have anything constructive to add, so I didn't comment. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. Please keep posting things about EVs that you find interesting. I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's funny. You say you're all about each of us being free to live his own life, maximizing individual happiness. Recently, several of us have been enjoying discussing the question in the OP from a different perspective but, apparently, that's a bridge too far.

[chemistk]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.

I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.

Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.

Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.

Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.

But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).

Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.

Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.

Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller,  vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.

*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.
 

[LennStar]

Not millions.
Billions.
Suburbs get subventionized by dense spaces by billions each year.

For the money that costs, you could also put a fast charger at every corner. Every year a new one.
Probably would have an effect on popularity.

[Paper Chaser]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

The Chinese government has mandated that, by 2030, 40% of vehicles sold in China be EVs. In 2017, visiting cities in southern China, it seemed to us like almost all vehicles were already EVs. Several European countries have pledged to only allow sales of EVs by 2025-2030. Individual European countries have been banning short-haul plane flights for several years, and the EU is considering doing the same, region wide, on routes where less-polluting train travel is a viable option. In the US, politicians have been scrambling to outdo each other at proposing tax cuts and other ways to try to make gasoline cheaper, so that Americans can burn MORE of it, so they can get reelected. While rich Americans sit around discussing important questions like, Gee, "Can EVs finally become popular in the US?"

You want to make this out to be all just a matter of choice, like, you prefer vanilla and I like chocolate. I totally disagree. When future generations look back at this time in history, they're going to be, rightfully, harsh on Americans' gluttonous lifestyles and failure to treat the current ecological crisis as a hair on fire emergency. I'm totally cool with each of us pursuing his own version of happiness, as long as there's a level playing field. Let's take away all the subsidies for suburbia and enact a carbon tax with a dividend, so that rugged American individualists who want to live in the suburbs or on acreages in the countryside and drive everywhere in big, fat, gas guzzling 4WD SUVs and trucks, can pay more of the costs of their lifestyle choices. Then, those of us who are actively trying to minimize our energy and materials usage and their effects on the planet can sit back and collect a check from the energy hogs, every month. Sounds like a plan to me.

Oh, and I looked at both of the links you posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, didn't have anything constructive to add, so I didn't comment. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. Please keep posting things about EVs that you find interesting. I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's funny. You say you're all about each of us being free to live his own life, maximizing individual happiness. Recently, several of us have been enjoying discussing the question in the OP from a different perspective but, apparently, that's a bridge too far.

The Chinese government, and many others care very little about climate change. They have other motivations for heavily supporting EVs. They're currently dependent on fossil fuels from other countries for their energy. This is a big point in the current Russia/Ukraine situation. If China and the EU were fully energy independent, that situation might be playing out much differently. The US has the capacity to be energy independent if they wanted to (and I'd strongly encourage it). That gives them political leverage that other nations lack, so other nations are racing to try and relevel the geopolitical playing field.
In China, all EVs are centrally monitored by the government as well. They can even shut them down remotely per government officials. So in addition to helping them achieve energy independence and gain politically, it also allows their government an easy way to track and control the movement of their citizens. They don't give a shit about climate change, it's about control:

https://futurism.com/tesla-china-ev-track-citizens
https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-29-china-tracks-ev-data-drivers-locations.html
https://qz.com/1522309/how-chinas-electric-car-surveillance-system-works/


I'm very supportive of green energy efforts, EVs, etc. I want to see things like solar, wind, and hydro used wisely in places where they make sense. Same goes for the proposed zoning changes, etc. Where they make sense and are wanted by the public, then have at it. I'd love to see more widespread adoption of green energy. I'd love to see people consuming less. I'd love to see fossil fuel subsidies taken away. I'm fully supportive of more thoughtful infrastructure design and planning. I'm not saying that pointing out the advantages of reducing car dependency is a bad thing, or a bridge too far. I just think that it's become a dominant, off topic part of this thread over the last few days that might be better off as a stand alone topic (and there's now a carbon tax thread that seems like an ideal place for it).

[LennStar]

Shutting down cars is no reason to push EVs, since you can do that with a gas car, as they are all computerized today, too.

[Paper Chaser]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.

I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.

Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.

Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.

Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.

But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).

Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.

Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.

Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller,  vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.

*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.

I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.

We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.

[nereo]

Not millions.
Billions.
Suburbs get subventionized by dense spaces by billions each year.

Subventionized.  Had to look that word up.  Nice to learn new things

[GuitarStv]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.

I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.

Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.

Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.

Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.

But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).

Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.

Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.

Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller,  vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.

*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.

I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.

We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.

I'd also be interested to know how rural vs urban footprints compare when everything is taken into account.

I visit my dad's farm in a very rural area it's always something that I wonder about.

There are certain undeniably higher costs - road building per capita is astronomically more expensive in rural areas than in the city.  Same with maintenance (like clearing roads of snow in the winter).  Building and maintaining electrical transmission lines is much more costly.  Same with telephone/internet lines - which is probably why his internet service sucks.  Providing health care, police, and fire services in a small rural community is much less efficient than in a larger city (need more people and equipment to cover fewer people).  Sheer distance to go anywhere or get anything is a problem - there's nothing at all within an hour's walk of Dad's farm . . . and that means you need gas to see a movie, go to the grocery store, go to the farmer's market, get to a restaurant, visit the library, buy tools at the hardware store, etc.  There is no public transit to speak of.

That said, my dad grows a decent amount of the food he eats each year.  He is also able to locally buy a lot of food, which must reduce transportation costs.

I'm unclear if the costs (parts, machinery, chemicals, electricity) associated with running his own well are higher than using city water or not.  That's a battle between economies of scale (advantage city water) and cost of transport (advantage local well).


To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.

[Just Joe]

EDITed to add - The right in the USA is all about "freedom" until you talk about letting me build a five over one or eliminating minimum parking requirements, then they become all Gosplan and want a centrally managed car economy.

I felt the same way about cars in general after my time in Europe. When I left the USA on the roads were those awful 1980s cars with huge engines, poor MPG and low power. In Europe they had cars with half the engine, plenty of power, twice the fuel economy and better design. Ford Fairmont vs Chevy Citation vs all those interesting European cars... 

I could license and drive anything since the beginning of American automotive history but I couldn't import a VW Polo or a Renaulti Clio 16V... Because safety or pollution standards. But an aircooled VW Beetle was okay. I could license and ride a motorcycle, even custom motorcycle - in the USA but not an Opel.

[lemonlyman]

Electric cars are cool. We should start a thread about those.

[Paper Chaser]

I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.

We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.

I'd also be interested to know how rural vs urban footprints compare when everything is taken into account.

I visit my dad's farm in a very rural area it's always something that I wonder about.

There are certain undeniably higher costs - road building per capita is astronomically more expensive in rural areas than in the city.  Same with maintenance (like clearing roads of snow in the winter).  Building and maintaining electrical transmission lines is much more costly.  Same with telephone/internet lines - which is probably why his internet service sucks.  Providing health care, police, and fire services in a small rural community is much less efficient than in a larger city (need more people and equipment to cover fewer people).  Sheer distance to go anywhere or get anything is a problem - there's nothing at all within an hour's walk of Dad's farm . . . and that means you need gas to see a movie, go to the grocery store, go to the farmer's market, get to a restaurant, visit the library, buy tools at the hardware store, etc.  There is no public transit to speak of.

That said, my dad grows a decent amount of the food he eats each year.  He is also able to locally buy a lot of food, which must reduce transportation costs.

I'm unclear if the costs (parts, machinery, chemicals, electricity) associated with running his own well are higher than using city water or not.  That's a battle between economies of scale (advantage city water) and cost of transport (advantage local well).


To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.

It wouldn't exactly surprise me to see rural living have a larger footprint per capita, but I think it might be closer than many think. As you point out with the internet example, the level of supporting infrastructure is much lower in rural locations, and that infrastructure comes with it's own environmental footprint that is easy to overlook. There are no public utility water pipes to be installed or maintained. There is no sewer leading to a water treatment plant. It does take a lot of work to put roads in rural places, but they see less use, which means they should need less repair and replacement timeframes are probably longer than urban roads. My road has no markings (paint that can stand up to years of fulltime exposure and traffic is pretty toxic). There are no streetlights that need to be manufactured, installed, maintained, and powered for 12hrs each night. Intersections are more likely to be simple stop signs compared to stop lights in urban areas (again they need to be manufactured, installed, maintained, and powered). There are no sidewalks made of CO2 intensive concrete that would again require some amount of maintenance and replacement. Roads that do exist here are far more likely to be fewer lanes than urban roads (1 mile of 4 lane rd = 2 miles of 2 lane rd).

There are tons of factors that would have to be included in any comparison like that. I think that a walkable, urban environment might indeed lower an individual's environmental footprint, but it would also include a ton of hidden costs related to having more infrastructure that we might not think about as individuals, but are definitely present.

Ultimately, I think the Mustachian approach of trying to reduce consumption within our preferred lifestyle is probably going to be more impactful on our footprint than where we live is.

[StashingAway]

I'm unclear if the costs (parts, machinery, chemicals, electricity) associated with running his own well are higher than using city water or not.  That's a battle between economies of scale (advantage city water) and cost of transport (advantage local well).

There's also lifestyle adjustments. I grew up in a rural area that was 30 minutes to the closest grocery store. We typically had three in-town trips during the week when we would get *everything*. No food delivery, no eating out regularly, no three trips to the hardware store for a plumbing repair. Plus, we were on limited water availability in our neighborhood so we were ultra conservative with it. Greywater reuse, not flushing yellow water, timed showers. All for economic reasons, not environmental ones.

Granted, shower heads back then were 3.5gpm and a laundry machines use 40 gallons per load.

Back on track,

I did a calculation the other week on how quickly I could get a newer PHEV minivan to pay for itself vs a used one with ~100k miles on it and the math still just doesn't work for me to get a charging vehicle. It would be about a 7-10 year payback period based on my usage of the Chrystler Pacifica or Toyota Sienna compared to a 2015 Sienna or Odyssey (and $6 gallon). With how quickly the market is changing, I think it'll be another vehicle cycle before my family makes the switch. We just don't drive enough to justify the up front cost, and I am extremely hesitant to adapt to the buttonless interfaces. I like my switches and dials and hoping to keep them as long as I can. For people commuting, especially long distances, I can see the appeal. For intermittent trips they still seem to have a fairly large upfront cost.

[PDXTabs]

EDITed to add - The right in the USA is all about "freedom" until you talk about letting me build a five over one or eliminating minimum parking requirements, then they become all Gosplan and want a centrally managed car economy.

I felt the same way about cars in general after my time in Europe. When I left the USA on the roads were those awful 1980s cars with huge engines, poor MPG and low power. In Europe they had cars with half the engine, plenty of power, twice the fuel economy and better design. Ford Fairmont vs Chevy Citation vs all those interesting European cars... 

I could license and drive anything since the beginning of American automotive history but I couldn't import a VW Polo or a Renaulti Clio 16V... Because safety or pollution standards. But an aircooled VW Beetle was okay. I could license and ride a motorcycle, even custom motorcycle - in the USA but not an Opel.

This is still relevant today. I can't just import whatever EV I want, I can only import the ones that the govmn't tells me I can. Beyond that, there is currently a tiff about USMCA rules and EV tax rebates. The Hill: Mexico compares Biden electric car tax credits to Trump's tariff threat

[soulpatchmike]

I have 3 ICE and 1 BEV vehicles.  I am an avg vehicle user from a suburban setting and drive about 12k miles/year/vehicle with 4 drivers in our home.

Imagine not having to go to a fill station ever.  It is a great time saver.  Everyone talks about how long it takes to charge an EV.  I will happily take a little longer to fill my vehicle at a Level 3 charge station vs. gas station if it means I only have to do it once every few months.  For me, I have used a level 3 charger away from home 11 times in the past 3 years.  I wake up with a full battery every day.

My suburban to pull a travel trailer will be the last vehicle to convert to EV, but I expect in the next 10 years there will the right vehicle to change it to for towing.  No one will be forcing me to convert my suburban to EV, but I certainly will do it when possible.  By using the BEV in place of the suburban, at a cost of $9500 used, my BEV has effectively cost me zero dollars over the first 4 years of owners over the savings of gas not used in the suburban for daily driving.

To those that are not ready for BEVs, there will be ICE vehicles on the road for 50+ more years.  While they might not be making new ones anymore by then, there will still be gas stations.  You wont be forced to get rid of your ICE vehicles. Just like with iPhone/Android, no one will force you into a smartphone but nearly everyone has gotten one willingly.

Society cannot innovate for the outliers, they innovate for the masses.  This is mainly why and how I see EVs becoming popular.  Farmer Joe will buy an EV and farmer Ray will laugh at him because they drive 30k miles per year living in the corn land of Iowa.  In a couple years when Ray asks Joe about his EV that he unexplainably is still using, he explains how much he is saving on time(no gas stops), Fuel(electricity cheaper than fuel) and maintenance(waaay less moving parts and no fluid changes required).  Ray might never buy an EV, but most of his neighbors will and his kids will happily.

No amount of arguments, lobbying or government intervention will keep the EV train from derailing now.  It is now too late to stop it.  We are starting year three of near 100% YOY growth in number of BEVs on the road with >50% compound projected growth for at least the next 5 years.  This is not because anyone is being forced into EVs.  They are happily paying a premium for them!

Lastly, this may not be the common view but it matters not to me whether BEVs save the environment or not. I am doing it simply because it makes my life easier. Anything to make my life easier I will do and I think many others will too.  Smartphone, check...mobile ordering fast food, check...pay at the pump, errr dont have to do that anymore charging at home...no oil changes, check.

[BDWW]

To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.

I think the main thing to consider is whether it's economically productive or not.  An actual farm or ranch that is producing food vs a hobby farm or exurb.   In fact that's a significant complaint about suburbs.  They often pave and develop over land that was previously used for productive agriculture.

[PDXTabs]

To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.

I think the main thing to consider is whether it's economically productive or not.  An actual farm or ranch that is producing food vs a hobby farm or exurb.   In fact that's a significant complaint about suburbs.  They often pave and develop over land that was previously used for productive agriculture.

It obviously depends a ton on your behavior. Eg, Martijn Doolaard lives on an Italian farmstead with no utilities (that I'm aware of), no paved road, and no car.

[LennStar]

Since someone(tm) wanted more on-topic talk: What do you think about this "car"?

https://www.heise.de/news/Elektromobil-Hopper-Zwiegestalt-aus-Fahrrad-und-Auto-vorbestellbar-6630387.html?hg=1&hgi=5&hgf=false

Legally it's a bicycle (well, actually tricycle since it has 3 wheels lol). No license required, but you have to pedal and get electric help. (What we call a pedelec). Max. electric suported speed 25km/h (legal limit on pedelcs). Space enough for groceries or a second person. Range 100km, 5km/h through power from the roof.

I won't state my opinion about it because I want to hear yours. I only want to point out for consideration that this might be especially useful for old folks, who no longer have the body to safely use a normal bike (the fast pedelecs have lead to a spike in serious accidents in the high ages) but also for the same reason should not drive a car anymore.

[Frugal Lizard]

@LennStar so cute. i'd buy one. 

FYI update:  we are now a one car four driver household.  Our 2004 acura is a write off after a minor collision. We shall see how we do with just one set of four wheels ('22 leaf) one ebike and four other bikes.  It will be character building as we wait for delivery of the ev6 we ordered the day before my son was side swiped driving back from national quidditch team practice.   (So my opinion on a covered trike should be viewed with qualifications...my spawn has achieved peak nerdness driving 3.5 hours each way to run around with a broom between his legs playing dodge ball / field basketball/ rugby)

[Shane]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

The Chinese government has mandated that, by 2030, 40% of vehicles sold in China be EVs. In 2017, visiting cities in southern China, it seemed to us like almost all vehicles were already EVs. Several European countries have pledged to only allow sales of EVs by 2025-2030. Individual European countries have been banning short-haul plane flights for several years, and the EU is considering doing the same, region wide, on routes where less-polluting train travel is a viable option. In the US, politicians have been scrambling to outdo each other at proposing tax cuts and other ways to try to make gasoline cheaper, so that Americans can burn MORE of it, so they can get reelected. While rich Americans sit around discussing important questions like, Gee, "Can EVs finally become popular in the US?"

You want to make this out to be all just a matter of choice, like, you prefer vanilla and I like chocolate. I totally disagree. When future generations look back at this time in history, they're going to be, rightfully, harsh on Americans' gluttonous lifestyles and failure to treat the current ecological crisis as a hair on fire emergency. I'm totally cool with each of us pursuing his own version of happiness, as long as there's a level playing field. Let's take away all the subsidies for suburbia and enact a carbon tax with a dividend, so that rugged American individualists who want to live in the suburbs or on acreages in the countryside and drive everywhere in big, fat, gas guzzling 4WD SUVs and trucks, can pay more of the costs of their lifestyle choices. Then, those of us who are actively trying to minimize our energy and materials usage and their effects on the planet can sit back and collect a check from the energy hogs, every month. Sounds like a plan to me.

Oh, and I looked at both of the links you posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, didn't have anything constructive to add, so I didn't comment. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. Please keep posting things about EVs that you find interesting. I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's funny. You say you're all about each of us being free to live his own life, maximizing individual happiness. Recently, several of us have been enjoying discussing the question in the OP from a different perspective but, apparently, that's a bridge too far.

The Chinese government, and many others care very little about climate change. They have other motivations for heavily supporting EVs. They're currently dependent on fossil fuels from other countries for their energy. This is a big point in the current Russia/Ukraine situation. If China and the EU were fully energy independent, that situation might be playing out much differently. The US has the capacity to be energy independent if they wanted to (and I'd strongly encourage it). That gives them political leverage that other nations lack, so other nations are racing to try and relevel the geopolitical playing field.
In China, all EVs are centrally monitored by the government as well. They can even shut them down remotely per government officials. So in addition to helping them achieve energy independence and gain politically, it also allows their government an easy way to track and control the movement of their citizens. They don't give a shit about climate change, it's about control:

https://futurism.com/tesla-china-ev-track-citizens
https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-29-china-tracks-ev-data-drivers-locations.html
https://qz.com/1522309/how-chinas-electric-car-surveillance-system-works/


I'm very supportive of green energy efforts, EVs, etc. I want to see things like solar, wind, and hydro used wisely in places where they make sense. Same goes for the proposed zoning changes, etc. Where they make sense and are wanted by the public, then have at it. I'd love to see more widespread adoption of green energy. I'd love to see people consuming less. I'd love to see fossil fuel subsidies taken away. I'm fully supportive of more thoughtful infrastructure design and planning. I'm not saying that pointing out the advantages of reducing car dependency is a bad thing, or a bridge too far. I just think that it's become a dominant, off topic part of this thread over the last few days that might be better off as a stand alone topic (and there's now a carbon tax thread that seems like an ideal place for it).

Thanks for the links on how the Chinese government is using EVs to track drivers. That's not surprising to me, at all. When we're in China, we have to use a VPN to do just about anything. Our Chinese friends all use VPNs, too. I always wonder how much productivity is lost, because of the CCP's obsession with controlling everything. I mean, they're not actually stopping anyone from accessing FB or Google, learning about Falun Gong, or whatever, just slowing everything down.

Sounds like we don't really disagree on that much. I'll try to keep future comments more confined to the main topic at hand.

[Shane]

I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.

We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.

You're right that my family and I are guilty of spending the first almost two years of FIRE slow-traveling around the world. From 2016-2018, every 1-3 months, we took an international flight, some short, some longer. Guaranteed, all those flights during that two year period caused us to FAR exceed most 'normal' Americans' carbon footprint. Wouldn't trade those family experiences for anything, though. Since 2019, partly due to covid, we've been stationary. Most of the trips we've taken recently have all been by Amtrak, which is new and kind of exciting for us. Recently watched an interesting video about, Why Electric Planes Are Inevitably Coming. Obviously, any extensive discussion of electric planes would be most appropriate in its own separate thread. :)

[Shane]

Since someone(tm) wanted more on-topic talk: What do you think about this "car"?

https://www.heise.de/news/Elektromobil-Hopper-Zwiegestalt-aus-Fahrrad-und-Auto-vorbestellbar-6630387.html?hg=1&hgi=5&hgf=false

Legally it's a bicycle (well, actually tricycle since it has 3 wheels lol). No license required, but you have to pedal and get electric help. (What we call a pedelec). Max. electric suported speed 25km/h (legal limit on pedelcs). Space enough for groceries or a second person. Range 100km, 5km/h through power from the roof.

I won't state my opinion about it because I want to hear yours. I only want to point out for consideration that this might be especially useful for old folks, who no longer have the body to safely use a normal bike (the fast pedelecs have lead to a spike in serious accidents in the high ages) but also for the same reason should not drive a car anymore.

Der Hopper schaut gut aus, LennStar! I want one!

[nereo]

Spent half a day calling and visiting several dealerships to try to find one of a half-dozen EVs that we have on our “list”.  Except for a single Leaf (the S) there wasn’t a single one on the lot. Wait lists seem to be on the order of several months for most models.
Seems supply is very tight, and demand has grown considerably.

[Cranky]

Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.

With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.

I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.

Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.

Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.

Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.

But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).

Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.

Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.

Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller,  vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.

*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.

I agree. Almost everyone I know with an EV uses it as a second car for those reasons.

I live in a household of 5 adults + 1 kid, and we have 2 cars. Most of the time we don’t drive more than 10 miles/day. But several times/year we go camping, and we don’t see an EV as practical for that.

Meanwhile, we plan to buy two bikes this summer, but honestly- they are going to be largely recreational, so kind of expensive toys. I feel some guilt about them.