I did not address environmentalism in my comment. I agree this is worse for the environment, at least, on it's own.
However, I am somebody who rides a bike 20x as much as I use a car, when in Europe. That's what happens when your commute, supermarket, gym are all enroute. I mean that's more the vision I care about than this device. But I know just as this device is disliked for greenwashing, car users in the US admonish that I cycle and dare to try so in the US.
I just do believe it is possible. The reason people in europe do not let go of cars, is in a major part because of the need for journeys of 50-150 miles, like this vechile would do. You see, under 50, you can just about afford an uber. Over 50, not really. Without a car you are limited to cities with trains for the most part in most of europe. Maybe this could displace that. Those 50-150 mile journeys are very rare. But because of them, people own cars and use them for shorter journeys.
I flat out disagree with your argument on transportation. I think you imagine several spots in distant disconnected areas of Arizona or Nevada - that's not what I mean. I mean more the east and west coast, the northern states. Transportation does not increase with more equal distribution of people at different locations, because they would become hubs as people moved to them and decreasing (car) populations of current cities could actually decrease transport times there alongside with pollution. Yes it would potentially be bad for the biosphere and natural diversity. But for the human experience. For Quality of life. To create more self-sustaining locations, with their own beauty spots. To be healthier most of the time we use transport. I know the argument can be made as you have that concentration is an economy of scale, well it is to a point, but such level off before 100k people don't they?(besides arguably economic capital reasons). And that's what I'm advocating for, more places with 100k people, less with 10 million.
I don't know. I've lived in a tight small city with insane rent and people there were not happy. Great if you are college age or to get into the corporate world. Horrible for people. Nearby Attractions 3x as busy as they were 10 years ago, while others, as beautiful, remain largely unknown. More pollution and cars.
Then I have lived in small european cities where everybody cycles and uses trains for distance by and large. It seemed a lot happier. It seemed a lot cleaner.
However, I am somebody who rides a bike 20x as much as I use a car, when in Europe. That's what happens when your commute, supermarket, gym are all enroute. I mean that's more the vision I care about than this device. But I know just as this device is disliked for greenwashing, car users in the US admonish that I cycle and dare to try so in the US.
I just do believe it is possible. The reason people in europe do not let go of cars, is in a major part because of the need for journeys of 50-150 miles, like this vechile would do. You see, under 50, you can just about afford an uber. Over 50, not really. Without a car you are limited to cities with trains for the most part in most of europe. Maybe this could displace that. Those 50-150 mile journeys are very rare. But because of them, people own cars and use them for shorter journeys.
I flat out disagree with your argument on transportation. I think you imagine several spots in distant disconnected areas of Arizona or Nevada - that's not what I mean. I mean more the east and west coast, the northern states. Transportation does not increase with more equal distribution of people at different locations, because they would become hubs as people moved to them and decreasing (car) populations of current cities could actually decrease transport times there alongside with pollution. Yes it would potentially be bad for the biosphere and natural diversity. But for the human experience. For Quality of life. To create more self-sustaining locations, with their own beauty spots. To be healthier most of the time we use transport. I know the argument can be made as you have that concentration is an economy of scale, well it is to a point, but such level off before 100k people don't they?(besides arguably economic capital reasons). And that's what I'm advocating for, more places with 100k people, less with 10 million.
I don't know. I've lived in a tight small city with insane rent and people there were not happy. Great if you are college age or to get into the corporate world. Horrible for people. Nearby Attractions 3x as busy as they were 10 years ago, while others, as beautiful, remain largely unknown. More pollution and cars.
Then I have lived in small european cities where everybody cycles and uses trains for distance by and large. It seemed a lot happier. It seemed a lot cleaner.