Good idea. Will do.

I agree. Do you feel this proposal doesn’t address that? My hope is that sibling communities would allow us to keep redundancy and diversity while still enjoying some of the benefits of sometimes coming together.

This is an incredible project. This channel has made me realize that the plain angular modernist aesthetic is really limiting.

It always drives me crazy that, in Canada and the US, there’s a “charming part of the city” and we all lament that there’s not more of them. We could, at any time, decide to build more, but instead we make it illegal, mostly for the sake of cars.

But, like you said, the foreign makers are also making big cars to comply with our corrupt pro-corporate regulations.

EVs are looking to be both more expensive and more dangerous. I have zero hope that they will be an improvement in any way except emissions.

We need weight and size based taxation to discourage big cars. More than that, we need to move away from car dependence.

Consumer preference is part of it, but car manufacturers have also intentionally stopped competing for the low end and small vehicle market. It’s textbook tacit cooperation.

During the pandemic, there was a chip shortage that led makers to prioritize high margin cars like trucks and luxury SUVs. Many makers decided that they liked being a low volume high price seller and just cut their lower priced cars altogether. If everyone does it at the same time, there’s no market mechanism to punish them. Many people can’t buy smaller cars even if they wanted. It doesn’t help that all of our car regulations in the US and Canada encourage this by having much weaker regulations for bigger vehicles. The whole market is a mess.

Americans support a lot of things they don’t vote for. Most Americans want universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, more government services, etc. But many famously “vote against their interests”. Abortion is turning out to be the surprising exception.

What are the controversies with DuckDuckGo? I’ve never heard of anything.

ah yes, the 0.3 meters difference in car length makes this completely “dishonest”. Throw the whole thing out because they used 4.5 instead of 4.2.

I don’t even get your point about car following distance. A line of totally immobile cars bumper to bumper is illustrative of nothing. Using the ideal scenario for car storage is hardly “more honest”. I have no idea what is motivating all this weird nitpicking.

> Trains are generally at their fullest when cars are at their emptiest, during commuter hours.

If that’s true, then we are obviously comparing like-for-like: busy train commute time, busy car commute time. Which makes it a completely fair and representative comparison. “This isn’t fair because what about when no one is commuting?” is a weird complaint.

That said, I’m skeptical that for most of the day trains are “near empty” and that for most of the day cars are “likely full of groups of workmen”. Do you have a source for that?

The comparison is completely honest. It is dishonest to pretend that trains aren’t generally full and a line up of cars ever are.

I wonder if this is more effective than just narrowing the streets.

I think there needs to be some disambiguation.

Richard Branson’s Virgin Hyperloop One is literally a train. They themselves call it a train. I guess the idea is that they’re small individual cars (called pods) instead of a chain of train cars connected together, which seems really energy inefficient.

Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is a train for automobiles, which has all the inefficient downsides of a personal car, with none of the energy benefits of a train. It is the worst of both worlds. And it relies on car infrastructure at both ends, so it will bottleneck just like a highway on/off ramp. Completely nonsensical.