• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    141·
    6 months ago

    They really aren’t that much better for the planet compared to ICE and when compared to transit or active transport they really are the least effecient “green” option.

    Its not just about reducing carbon, we should be trying to reduce overall energy usage and focus on effecient systems.

    Everyone driving their electric SUV to park in a sea of pavement is not effecient land or energy use.

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      82·
      6 months ago

      There are select instances where they are a greener option than transit. If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there. But I’m really just splitting hairs here.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        21·
        6 months ago

        You mean using same road cars would use for buses, while optionally removing extra lanes, is less green and cheap than building and maintaining 18-lane monstrosities in the middle of nowhere?

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          21·
          6 months ago

          18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs. We’re talking two lane highways here, nobody builds an 18 lane freeway to a town with 50 people in the middle of nowhere. At best they will build a freeway THROUGH the middle of nowhere but the nowhere wasn’t the purpose of the freeway, the connection to another major city was.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            11·
            6 months ago

            18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs.

            All those 18 lanes are built ONLY because of cars.

            • Tak@lemmy.ml
              11·
              6 months ago

              And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas. Do you think the dirt owns cars?

              • uis@lemm.ee
                11·
                6 months ago

                What? Cars per length? What is this unit of? Some wierd linear density? I’m saying that that 18-lane abominations are built only for no other reason than driving cars. You say that car infrastructure is cheap, especially in rural areas, but you seem to ignore(intentionally or not) most expensive and destructive part of it. Which happens to go through rural areas. Or you can name abomination that is purely within city limits?

                And public transit just doesn’t need this abomination. Public transit works fine even with one lane per direction. Or track if we are talking about trains.

                • Tak@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  That’s not even what I said. Why talk to people if you have no intent of actually listening? Talk about an unpleasant person to talk to.

                  • uis@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    6 months ago

                    And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas.

                    You said sentence that has no clear meaning. Per km of what? Per average distance between houses? Per average distance those cars travel? Or you want to say rural areas require more car infrastructure per car? If so, then this is close to what I was trying to say.

                    I reread entire convo. This started from

                    If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there.

                    And if you are not the only person living in that area, then public transport WILL be greener. One car for two people is more efficient than two cars for two people, one car for four people is more efficient and one minivan for eight people is more efficient than two cars for four people. And minivan is just few steps awa from bus.

                    And again, less total amount of cars means less car infrastructure needs to be built and maintained, which means less money spent.