News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What alternative transportation is California going to provide then? I agree, cars suck, but you’ve got to give people something realistic and convenient, otherwise you’re just putting a paywall on freedom of movement.
Let's run a rail line up the middle of the 5. We can give up some traffic lanes.
I've thought it'd be pretty nifty to replace the carpool lanes with rail transit, but then Fast track/The Toll Roads wouldn't be able to keep up their Lexus lanes.
The idea was to transition everyone to EVs. The problem is that not everyone can afford to just up and buy a new vehicle, and it's naive to think people can get by without one, especially in much of CA and the rest of the US where public transit absolutely blows. They're putting the cart before the horse and not giving a shit about people who aren't the monopoly man, as is tradition.
That seems to be the case. I’m really surprised how many people are downvoting this thread of comments just for having a realistic discussion about the drawbacks to financially penalizing cars. Nobody here is advocating for big oil, but you’d sure think that from the reaction.
Eh it always turns into a touchy subject. Like yeah we needed to transition away from burning fuel yesterday, but at the same time we still need a viable path forward for people to move themselves and good around, which hasn't really gone far. Yes EVs are a good solution and they're improving at a good pace, but they don't cover every use case yet, which is where we need to focus. At the same time, we also need to be leaning into building out public transit networks that render most personal transport needs unnecessary.
For instance, we need a viable EV for OTR transport, as well solutions for trains and ocean/air shipping. We also need better solutions for contractors and the like, as well as vehicles that can achieve longer range.
You seem to assume price doesn't influence demand. When you assume that, it makes it difficult to figure out what kind of a discussion you are looking for.
If we keep gas prices low, there is little to incentive to switch.
If gas prices are high, it makes alternative transportation investment make more sense.
So ... if you could clarify how you feel this should be approached that eliminates the burning of fossil fuels without some fairly fundamental societal changes that will be felt, that might be helpful.
I know price influences demand, but it doesn’t address need. Most of California is designed in a way that basically requires a car—it isn’t like the northeast with convenient and affordable trains to take you anywhere you need to go.
Yes, this method will likely convince some people to switch, and it will likely reduce car usage as well, but it will also place a huge financial burden on people who need their vehicle to live and who can’t afford an electric vehicle, which not only costs more to buy, but also costs more to maintain and has a shorter lifespan than gas cars.
California has an immense amount of money compared to other states. If you are asking me to come up with a better solution than making gas prohibitively expensive, my solution would probably be to emulate New York City, but statewide.
Make every city extremely walkable. Create subways in those cities for extended travel, ideally with more of an eye towards accessibility than New York has. Create an extensive high speed rail system that goes between cities and towns that is faster and more convenient than a car. Make the carrot of other transportation options absolutely massive, and then incorporate the stick of higher gas prices.
The downside to that approach is that it would likely be a multi-trillion dollar investment. You could potentially lower the cost a little by excluding some smaller towns from this overhaul, but those people should be given something to make that equitable, like giving them a massive discount on buying electric cars somehow.
I’m no politician or expert, I know I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that I am someone who would be driven to poverty if I had to buy a new car right now or pay $8 for gas, especially factoring in the extremely high cost of living in California.
They're already was one, and this might help us get away from that