if you “own” a piece of land in the middle of the planned rail route, the Government will just kick you out.
That's how the interstate system and urban highways were built. But people being displaced were mostly black and/or poor and/or immigrants, so it wasn't seen as a bad thing at the time.
The first public electric tramway used for permanent service was the Gross-Lichterfelde tramway in Lichterfelde near Berlin in Germany, which opened in 1881.
So if your city shut down its streetcars in 1951, like mine did, then what you said is true. If you city had streetcars in 1953 or beyond, its not. Not to be too pedantic about it.
My point is that is less than 1 human lifespan. There are people that rode the streetcars in my city when they were kids that still live here. Its not ancient history, its living memory.
With the current level of train infrastructure and service, I agree with you. That is why domestics flights are a thing. But trains would be a much better choice if rail wasn't actively defunded and sabotaged for the last 70 years or so.
Its this lack of imagination of what could be (and already exists around the world) that makes everyone laugh at Americans.
I think a bigger part of the production emissions come from further up the supply chain than the factory. Such as extraction, refinement and shipping of the lithium and cobalt required for batteries. That is also what makes it hard to estimate.
My point was that switching to EVs will not make transportation emissions disappear.
An EV still produces about 30% of the lifetime CO2 emissions of an equivalent ICE, assuming a 100% clean grid [1]. So unless we change the systems that are putting more and more cars on the road, and increasing vehicle miles traveled each year, emissions will continue to rise.
Cars only really became available to the public in the 20s or 30s. I bet your city was overrun by cars by the 50s. Cities drastically changed over just a few decades. Why should it take significantly longer to go in the reverse direction? Other than a lack of political will.
edit: I'm not against EVs overall. I know there will always be a need for cars/trucks to some extent, and I think they should all be EVs. But don't let that be a distraction from actual meaningful climate action.
I interpreted the meteors/city on fire as short hand for general armageddon because it is probably pretty hard to draw; in a single comic panel: droughts, crop failure, wild fires, floods, severe storms, wars over fresh water, etc. You know, the actual things that will kill people from climate change.
But if you interpret the meteors as literal, then what is the point of the comic? A swarm of meteors is not influenced at all by someones choice to drive an EV or not. So this comic is no longer a critique of that choice.
This comic seems to imply that the outcome of climate change will be dependent on individuals' choice of personal vehicle, and not on the cars themselves or the systems that keep people reliant on them. EVs will not save us from climate change. They are an attempt to prolong the life of the auto industry as we move into a future that must move past motornormativity.
The most recent Intel Core 2 Duo was discontinued in 2008. I doubt Intel would be able to convince anyone that this is a competing product or would cause any customer confusion. No one is going to be looking for a low end processor from over a decade ago and accidentally buy a watch.
Does it use just standard watch bands? It looks like it, but I didn't see it mentioned.
One of the things I find ridiculous about other smart watches is that they use proprietary bands. When I found out that people are paying $60+ for a silicon band for an Apple watch, it blew my mind. Also that people put screen protectors or cases on their Apple watches because their $500+ watch doesn't even have a crystal lens, and is prone to scratching.
Nice straw man, my guy. Clearly I'm not telling people to live somewhere they cannot afford. Some places where it is possible to live car free/car light are super expensive. The reason for that is those are the places with the highest demand, because lots of people realize that is the best way to live.
I'm not saying "just move", I'm saying be a YIMBY. Be the person that writes your city councilor or goes to town hall meetings and says "Yes, please build more transit", or "Yes, please build more bike lanes", or "Yes, please build higher density housing". The more places where it is possible to live car free/car light, the more the demand will be eased and it will become more affordable.
Also, it may already be more affordable than you think, if you consider your housing and transportation as a single item in your budget. The average car owner spends over $1000 per month to own and operate a car. So even if you move to somewhere the rent is 50% higher, you may still come out ahead by giving up your car.
Unless you live in Phoenix, your city was not build around cars. Your city was built around train stations and street cars. Sections of it were bulldozed in the last couple of decades to make room for more cars.
I played so much MK64 that I know can't beat literally anyone, but have found I can beat everyone that makes statements like this. I know how many people I can't beat, and they make up the top thousand or so positions of this list.
I would say that I am not good, but better than the average player at this game. It is the only game I say this about.
Did your paper include the ground speed check story?