• xlash123@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It likely depends. From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best. If money is the bottleneck, then it’s probably best to find more money (tax the rich please?) or make budget adjustments so that time is the bottleneck instead (it is a climate emergency after all). I’ve heard that it is cheaper to maintain compact and mixed-use zoning areas over the classic strip mall with parking lots common across North America, and that could be enough for cities to see reorganizing the infrastructure as an investment over paying increasing maintenance costs. Of course that’s a big up front cost, but it over time it would be cheaper.

    It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have, which could help in deciding the priority. I don’t have any data to prove either side on this one, but if you know of any sources on that, I would love to see it.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If money is the bottleneck, then it’s probably best to find more money

      Well I mean if you were the King of America, sure. But the money constraints are there because of political opposition, if we (democrats) could override that we would.

      From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best.

      I think this is where we disagree. Public transit projects are notoriously expensive and take a long time. Electrifying the existing infrastructure (roads and cars) is much easier.

      I think we might be coming at this differently. In my view, the environment is the primary goal, and efficient transportation is a secondary goal. I think you’re seeing them both as equal goals.

      It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have

      It seems like you’re talking in good faith here, so I’d be willing to find data. But before I do, I want to suggest a simple thought exercise to you: if all vehicles are electric, isn’t that essentially a 100% impact? An equivalent would be 100% electrified public transit. The former scenario involves keeping the existing systems, just swapping to electric. The latter involves redesign of a majority of our infrastructure, AND electrifying. Doesn’t it sound like the latter option will be more difficult?