“If we’re serious about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, we have to be serious about reducing transportation emissions, and in order to do that we have to address the main source of those emissions, which come from cars and trucks on highways."
“And to that extent, we need to rethink how much we want to expand highways.”
@davidzipper Specifically, it's GAS-powered cars and trucks that increase carbon emissions. EVs, when charged from renewable energy sources, do not. Blaming all cars and trucks for the sins of some is less than ideal, just as it is with people.
@cra1g@davidzipper EVs are not without emissions problems, besides the standard problems of geometry and safety that makes cars ruin cities. There are enough gas cars on the road that decisions about roads are about gas cars for the next decade or two. Electric cars will be great for car companies and not much use toward reducing emissions.
@enobacon That is objectively incorrect. China's transportation sector has greatly reduced its carbon emissions over the past 5 years largely because of the shift to EVs. And Norway has reduced theirs even more. Being an "urbanist" doesn't mean you have to hate all cars without exception, and acknowledging the benefits of EVs over fossil fuel-powered vehicles doesn't threaten your cred as a progressive.
@HayiWena@atthenius@davidzipper it carries $28bn of goods per year. But $400bn to replace. If they charged each truck $300 per crossing, it'd take 100 years to make the cost back. Doesn't sound like there's a good business case.
@atthenius@guigsy@davidzipper It's two orders of magnitude off on the cost to replace the bridge, and then maybe still a factor of five. More like $800m to $4bn range. E.g. $1.5bn for the new Goethals Bridge.
@HayiWena@atthenius@guigsy@davidzipper even $15-30 per truck for a hundred years is still higher than any politician would ever set tolls (that's without inflation adjustment or interest.) I love the idea of highways trying to break even though 😂 wish we would try harder.
Add comment