Telling people who aren't rich to just walk to work is a joke right?
Electric cars will come down in price and I'm all for the push. But the timelines seem unrealistic to me.
Legislation (Inflation Reduction Act) passed this month allows the full federal EV tax credit on the Bolt again as of Jan 1 2023, so subtract $7,500.
California EV tax credit of an additional $2000 (income under $135K single, $200K joint)
There are additional regional EV credits in certain California metro areas that can further discount the price by hundreds or thousands.
So, price for any low to mid income Californian will be a maximum of $16,100.
And, there is an additional program for low income folks in California that provides grants toward EV purchases (new and used). This program is severely underfunded and (temporarily) closed to new applicants since March 2022.
Purchase price after incentives is roughly at parity with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
Current lack of charging infrastructure for apartment renters who park on the street seems a bigger hurdle, to me.
If you can't walk or bike to work, your society has failed to build affordable housing relative to low to moderate incomes, or it has failed in urban planning. It's certainly one of those two.
Obviously there exclusings for people such as farmers or if you actively choose to live far away from your job, but in doing so you should directly feel that cost with high purchase prices for a vehicle (which means you'll also repair it, right to repair and all right?), high fuel tax, and extreme inconvenience if you are driving to a city.
Ultimately economic physics will dictate this reality, no new technology will "save us" in time before costs become too extreme for this car-centric lifestyle to continue. I'm just hoping there isn't too much damage done to human civilization via resource conflicts and that we survive our stupidity.
Move to Franklinton and you'll have buses and scooters and no need to own a car. Most of my neighbors have cars but they don't use them most days. I bike to the gym and all of downtown. I do take my car grocery shopping (carry bags on bus or scooter sucks) and to work (when I go) but that's it. I enjoy cars but I avoid driving out of obligation.
The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
I'm not sure how this is ironic. Maybe you mean how poor voters tend to vote against their own self-interest?
> The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
We're moving to GV next month specifically to move away from this lifestyle and we only have one car that we share. Economic freedom dictates what decisions you make at different points in time.
FWIW you can criticize something that you yourself are doing, especially when you are fighting against all societal incentives at the same time. A trivial example is an overweight physician suggesting that you need to lose weight.
If we're still talking Columbus, almost all incentives for housing are geared only toward a car-centric lifestyle. I'm not going to criticize people for choosing that. I am going to raise awareness that continuing to push those incentives is a bad idea and highlight the continued unnecessary costs for doing so.
Reconfiguring the built environment is not only achievable but has been done in the past. You can take a look at Amsterdam as an example. Look at pictures from the 70s or so and then look at it today.
You also don't have to "reconfigure" the environment. We could just stop building new highways and eliminate minimum parking spot requirements. We can change our zoning laws to allow for more medium-density. In Columbus, where I live we have a street called High Street that runs north/south and connects all of the walkable areas of the city and Ohio State University. It's relatively easy to just run a tram right down the road there and displace car traffic. There are low-hanging fruit. It's way cheaper than rebuilding highways which we do all the time, and if we can do that we can reconfigure whatever we want.
There are a lot of things we can do.
Starting from a point of defeatism is not something that's compatible with how I personally operate.
The cheapest new cars I can find (in the US) are $16k for the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 and $20k for the Toyota Corolla. I certainly don't think the Mirage qualifies as "extremely nice". I think Toyota makes fantastic cars and the Corolla is all the vehicle most people could ever really need, but honestly, I still think "extremely nice" might be pushing it.
By the way, what are the consequences for these unrealistic timelines? Some people like to pretend like the sky is falling and we'll have hundreds of thousands of people walking along the side of highways to get to work like some post-apocalyptic wasteland. But the reality is, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Timelines get changed all the time. It's a step. A best effort.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-vehicle-prices-...
Nissan Leaf "Starting MSRP $27,800": https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html
I know because my wife owns one, it gets 40mpg. Like I said, I'm excited for these new offerings. But acting like they are competitive on pricing or will be soon is just not realistic.
You're talking about comparing EVs to ICE on cost when neither are cost effective. They're both the wrong answer.
I'm all for walking and biking. I didn't own a car for 19 years and that's how I got around. Now, having lost my right leg, I can't conceive of walking a couple of miles, which was never an issue. Riding a bike doesn't seem likely, although I haven't ruled it out. A car with modified controls is an option; but, those costs add to the cost of a vehicle.
How is that any different than today?
> And if you can't walk or bike? There are people who don't have that option; but, they can operate a motor vehicle -- do they just stay home?
Sorry you lost a leg, but I think you could understand that I would maintain what I'm advocating for which would be that you using a motor vehicle for legitimate needs doesn't mean everyone should have to use one for their day-to-day needs.
While I don't have any sort of clear statistics here, if you can't walk or bike I'd imagine many also can't or shouldn't be driving. There are solutions here, including mobility services. Leaping toward "well I have a physical condition that mostly requires me to use a car therefore everyone should have to use a car for their needs as well" doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
To add, I think as we're talking about people for whom walking and biking is difficult we also forget people for whom driving is difficult or unrealistic. The elderly in particular, those with other medical conditions, etc. You might say, yes we should solve that problem too. And I agree, but what I'd say is that society right now is 100% car-first everything and does not even attempt to address the concerns of these people either. Should they just stay home too?
On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
Personally I work from home but make a good living. My poor relative has to drive 90 minutes to his minimum wage job in the city. It's really unfortunate.
>On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
Although I've gotten rid of several, I still have four bikes. I would like to ride again; but, I don't know if it's going to happen. If I do, it's for transportation; so, a prosthetic foot that clips in might not be practical if I am riding to the store or running errands. I may need a socket more suitable to riding than walking. More than anything, though, I worry that I won't be able to keel down and change a tire, out on the road. We'll see, it has not been a year yet.
Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis and Sepsis, nothing good can come out of that combo. (Losing my leg was not the worst thing that happened that day.)
No need to apologize, just having a fun discussion :)
I'd say my stance is more so removing the need to have a car for most of your day-to-day activities. Instead of having to drive literally everywhere as many (most?) Americans do, being able to walk, bike, or use another transit option to do 90% or so of your day-to-day routine tasks. Cars aren't going anywhere, but we could design and build cities better such that we don't focus on cars at the expense of everything else. I'm also worried about this because the economic physics of using a 2,000lb vehicle to drive a mile down the road for a loaf of bread (which I am guilty of) simply will not make sense in the future. We might get away with it at a higher cost if we are mostly EV and have substantial cheap nuclear energy (pending a new technology breakthrough), but as things stand today it's incredibly wasteful and won't last.
> Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis
I have recent (last couple of months) personal experience with this with an immediate family member. I am incredibly sorry that you had to experience this disease.
"Well new EVs cost 40-60k"
You've now been presented with information that shows otherwise.
Closer to $50k. The cheapest Tesla for sale these days is the Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive which starts at $46,990 plus a $1,200 delivery fee, so $48,490.
10 years later used one is going to be 4k