Yes. Well done. You identified the things that cost less than running a road network. Very nice good faith addition to the conversation.

Any second now we’ll catch him doing something illegal. After the successful coup by our oathkeeper buddies, then he’ll never suspect we’re watching!

Roads always lose money, so that’s still a win. Travel speed and coverage may be a limiting factor though.

Yeah, that town 30 miles away I regularly cycle to is in a ten mile radius.

Increase the fines (and scale by income) until they provide sufficient incentive to pay attention and have the tiniest bit of self control. Then the people holding a ticket can beg the engineers to fix the road to remove the need for not being lazy and impatient instead of the people whose kids were just killed.

This just in, millions of deaths a year and billions of tonnes of CO2 aren’t a problem. /s

The bit of the puzzle you are forgetting is the taxpayer-subsidized roads lose half their lobbying funds when electric cars are a thing. Wihtout trillions being spent sabotaging transit and micromobility it starts looking a lot better for cities to buipd a bike path for $1 million thna a highway upgrade for $1 billion

GDPR doesn’t prevent you making a recording as a private citizen of a public space on a local device in the car with a 1 week rolling buffer.

This is an incredibly dumb take.

You can put micromobility devices on a bus or train (or have one at either end). Or travel at 25km/h in a larger vehicle once a month until you get out of the micromobility path network. Or go to a car parked outside the network.

Electric motors are now capable of >90% regen, so the braking energy argument against short stops doesn’t work anymore (and the energy during motion strictly less than a rubber tired vehicle with a worse aspect ratio so long as the trip is no longer).

The amount of rail needed for short distance distribution networks could still be prohibitive in regions designed for road though. Even then one could still argue that the total infrastructure costs are lower by moving the destinations slightly given how much roads cost to maintain.

This is also vastly undercounting car-related deaths and overcounting non-car deaths. They are a major cause of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory disease as well as chronic injuries that cause death later. Irate car drivers are also a significant category of homicides.

A lot of violent crime can also be traced to leaded gasolene.

You forgot the bit where rapidly decreasing their emissions is actually building a new coal plant every day somebow.

If you can walk or use a low speed vehicle to get to your destination and you can walk to the second family down in 5 minutes it’s not a low density settlement just because you can see a single story house.

Villages are missing middle (at least until the commercial center gets gutted and replaced with car yards and parking and 50% of the houses are demolished for highway).

These are the walkable non-suburban communities being talked about. Why are you trying to use examples of the desired outcome as a counter example (and reason to continue destroying said towns)?

If you take both the population and area of greater houston without the urban core, there is one hectare of suburban wasteland per person.

One person per hectare isn’t the rural settlement in your imagined past, it’s a single family and a few farm hands living on an unusually large and high-labor productivity farm way out of town.

No. Humans have lived in walkable villages and towns built at missing middle densities (hundreds to a few thousand people and markets all within walking distance linked by long distance travel corridors you walked to or what you are calling ‘urban’) with local services and a handful of people living on the outskirts.

Endless suburban seas of <500 people per km^2 were invented for the automobile. The past you are counterfactually claiming exists did not have half an acre of roads, car parks, 4-car garages, set backs and car yards per resident, nor did it have all the services in a central gigantic box building 20 miles away through a sea of identical houses, nor did your rural people demand those in higher density regions provode them with infrastructure for heating, cooling, water and sewerage. Nor did they demolish all the houses around the market just in case they wanted to leave a cart there.

That doesn’t fix any of the problems mentioned.

Efficiency, battery price for the cost, power, and charge time/long distance speed are measurably objectively in the top tier (although not uniquely so or not the singular best).

Not worth it for the shoddy construction, abusive customer-exploitative remote control that means you never own it, false advertising, and cultural association (also not uniquely so).

The roadster was released after that happened.

I guess there might be a handful of prototypes around?

Whatever you want to call them, they share at least one wall, are two story, have a deep aspect ratio and side access on the other wall is minimal (if there at all). The only awful features are the set back and the giant garage (which can just be used for indoor space|.