Its not the licensing - its the tax write-offs.

This distorted car size situation is also caused by income inequality. Back in the '90s and before when there were wide lines of vehicles from the Big 3 and mostly small cars from the imports people would get out of school and buy a new car. A wide variety of new-car buyers meant a wide variety of cars. Around the early 2000s all of a sudden these people getting out of school found themselves unable to buy a car due to student loans and only coffee-pouring job offers. Get past 2007 especially and the only people with enough money to buy new cars were Karens and Buzz the Overpaid Boomer who bought new crossovers/SUVs and bigass pickup trucks every two years. They bought their kids these things too so add another round of new-car buys for Karen and Buzz.

17 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

 

That's an old picture, if I remember correctly those are custom made vehicles used to give offroad sightseeing tours in Iceland. Notice how they have six doors in the middle and then a covered truck bed. They certainly aren't just a normal, jacked-up pickup. They're that big because they hold 10 people and drive up glaciers.

Those would already be illegal in most states. You can't go over 44" in tire height in almost every state and they also might be too wide.

 

 

 

 

 

The ad worked too well and everyone who wanted a Saturn was convinced to walk instead.

 

I still hate cars. I can't believe people think the future is a 9,000 pound personal vehicle. Just imagine the damage to roads, people, a 3,000 pound's battery impact to the environment....

 

The reason Americans moved towards SUVs and pickup trucks is because CAFE made it tougher for the manufacturers to make bigger cars, but SUVs, vans, and trucks counted differently.   We don't particularly care what the government would like us to do, and when we don't care for it we will find a way around.

Or income inequality hitting hard in the early-mid 2000s made it where only people who liked oversize vehicles such as trucks and SUVs had enough money to buy new cars. Who likes those things... blue collar guys in the skilled trades and suburban females that's who. And the income inequality economy still paid those people. Large sedans still exist -- they just aren't as popular. They get the standard American MPG of 17/24.

 

edit: oops same rant as last fall. Still applies.

Edited February 16, 20223 yr by GCrites80s

 

 

 

We could make streets a lot safer with relatively inexpensive software additions to our cars. But nooo...

 

 

I think it costs half that per year to drive but that's still very expensive 

 

25 minutes ago, KJP said:

I think it costs half that per year to drive but that's still very expensive 

 

I bet it's close to that for a lot of car owners, especially if you are considering multiple car families.

 

I think almost no routine car drivers have a sense of the true 'all-in' cost of car ownership. Here's a youtube channel I like attempting to calculate true cost:

 

 

 

^people are so arrogant in their driving abilities that they think they won't be in a single-vehicle crash, especially not one THEY cause. They only think about being T-boned or rear-ended out of nowhere. They have no idea that an SUV's worse handling and braking and ease of turning over makes them more likely to be in a crash. And going upside down in a crash is very, very bad according to insurance companies.

On 5/17/2022 at 1:52 PM, roman totale XVII said:

 

 

False.   SUVs are marketed to people who desire extra interior space.   Usually because of kids, sometimes because of work or other activities.    They fit close to the same niche as pickup trucks or minivans.

 

Remember station wagons?    They went extinct, along with other large cars, because of federal CAFE requirements designed to push people into smaller cars.   Americans are a contrary people that don't like to be pushed.   The automakers found a way around CAFE by marketing even larger vehicles under a different category, and their American customers jumped all over it.  This went contrary to the spirit of the regulations, but car buyers were either indifferent to this or found that to be a positive.   American politicians are still Americans, and knew better than to push back too hard.

^CAFE happened way after Americans made the switch on their own to much smaller cars in the early '80s. Station wagons became uncool in the '80s (20+ years before CAFE) because they represented an America that we no longer lived in where you could bang out a bunch of kids in your 20s without serious negative financial consequences.

 

Many crossover SUVs fail at the alleged cargo superiority over the hatchback due to their piglet-like rooflines that place the tops of the pillars too close to the center of the vehicle and oversize wheels and tires causing the wheelwells to invade the interior too much.

Traditional body-on-frame SUVs actually sell like crap compared to crossovers now since they are too big. And the traditional SUV demo has seen too many beat-up ones by now. In the '80s and '90s beat-up station wagons were everywhere sort of like how beat-up minivans have been all over the place for the past 20 years.

 

Most people haven't even seen a beat-up, rusted out, noisy crossover driven by some druggie with no teeth yet since the popularity of crossovers hasn't been for very long. Once that happens crossovers are doomed on the primary market too. I did see a trashed late 2000s Jeep Compass driving around and was actually surprised. Though the amount of time crossovers and SUVs spend driving around trashed may be reduced since once they get under $2500 they get killed in Tuff Truck races at county fairgrounds all across the land.

Unfortunately part of the reason for the rise of the crossover is the tendency of people to associate what they grew up with as parent-mobiles. Kids who grew up in station wagons embraced the minivan, kids who grew up in minivans embraced the crossover. An aging population also loves the seat height in crossovers, no need to plop down or climb up.

 

The current popularity of larger vehicles with aggressive styling can also make it a bit intimidating driving anything small or low. Despite the added risk of rollover in a taller vehicle, it's hard not feeling a bit more secure when you are no longer at eye level with a pickup truck's bumper. Small cars also feel smaller than they used to, pillars are thick and belt lines high to meet modern safety standards.

 

I personally prefer the smallest vehicle I can get away with, but that is challenging when a kid is involved. The Fiesta SFE we had before my son was born was great (3-cyl, 1L turbo hatch that got hybrid-like MPG), but modern car seats are huge and there was no way one was fitting in there with enough room for me to drive. I traded it in for a Focus ST thinking it had just enough extra space (we'd use my wife's Forester for long trips), but it still was a bit tight rear-facing, and then recommendations changed to keep kids rear facing as long as possible. Room for the car seat was never a second though in the Forester, and it was a lot easier getting him in and out.

 

When used car prices started to spike last summer, we realized we never drove the Focus because it was too small to be comfortable for anything beyond around town, and the Forester was getting a bit old for long trips. So I took advantage of the crazy trade-in prices on the Focus for a Toyota Venza hybrid crossover. The kid seat fits great along with other people in the back, as does his stuff, and we get 40 MPG. The roofline is a little lower than I'd like, but it does everything we need and since I don't prioritize "fun" like I used to there is little downside versus a car (especially since it's a hybrid). 

 

I work from home exclusively, my wife occasionally goes in but is mostly home as well. We live right in town, have flexible schedules, and we can walk or bike to most everything we need (daycare is a little sketchy with gaps in the sidewalks). Three months ago today, we realized we were never driving the Forester and sold it outright to one of the national chains for more than half of what we paid for it. 

 

As of now, unless we move or my wife changes jobs I don't see us getting another car anytime soon. It's been an occasional minor inconvenience, but so far there hasn't been anything we couldn't plan around with minimal effort. The savings aren't massive since the other car was paid off, but lack of insurance and maintenance aren't nothing. We are lucky to be able to accomplish a lot without driving because of where we live, and that's the value of living in a proper walkable community with a healthy mix of residential and business - even a small town like Granville. If we had some actual public transit here (might be happening if COTA takes over for Licking County as recently announced) this will only get easier.

 

16 hours ago, mrCharlie said:

The current popularity of larger vehicles with aggressive styling can also make it a bit intimidating driving anything small or low. Despite the added risk of rollover in a taller vehicle, it's hard not feeling a bit more secure when you are no longer at eye level with a pickup truck's bumper. Small cars also feel smaller than they used to, pillars are thick and belt lines high to meet modern safety standards.

I strongly agree with this. It feels like it's an arms race. Everyone else gets taller and bigger cars so it seems to force everyone else to as well, otherwise they won't have as much visibility on the road, especially highways.

I bought a Fiat 500 in 2014 and sold it in 2016 when I moved to NYC. I feel this. I'd be turning right and trying to see if anyone was coming, and some enormous SUV turning left would pull all the way up, usually beyond the stop line, and completely block my view. Then the other SUV behind me starts honking like crazy. It was pretty miserable.

 

Then you get the SUVs parked in the first spot directly adjacent to an intersection making it impossible to see anyone coming. I worked on a side road that utilized a stop sign to get onto a very busy road that had multiple lanes and it was literally impossible for me to see what's coming from the left. I gave up trying to turn left and would just do the bigger loop by turning right because it at least allowed me to only have to focus on cars from one direction at a time.

That's  another problem with SUVs -- they are mostly "long hood" cars so they have to pull way up to see what's coming.

 

"Great visibility" if you like blind spots everywhere. 

20 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

^CAFE happened way after Americans made the switch on their own to much smaller cars in the early '80s. Station wagons became uncool in the '80s (20+ years before CAFE) because they represented an America that we no longer lived in where you could bang out a bunch of kids in your 20s without serious negative financial consequences.

 

Many crossover SUVs fail at the alleged cargo superiority over the hatchback due to their piglet-like rooflines that place the tops of the pillars too close to the center of the vehicle and oversize wheels and tires causing the wheelwells to invade the interior too much.

 

CAFE started in 1975.

We only have a mid-sized sedan right now, but with a third kid on the way we are looking at bigger vehicles now because it's impossible to fit three car seats across the backseat of a Mazda 6. We are leaning mini-van due to pure interior volume and because SUVs are just so bulky, high and inaccessible to a third row. 

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

CAFE started in 1975.

 

The new CAFE regulations that indexed MPG regulations to footprint so that big cars could get worse MPG was a part of the late 2000s re-ruling took it easy on the Big 3 due to their bankruptcies (not Ford). Since the automakers had an enormous amount of input that time around that provision made it in.

42 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

We only have a mid-sized sedan right now, but with a third kid on the way we are looking at bigger vehicles now because it's impossible to fit three car seats across the backseat of a Mazda 6. We are leaning mini-van due to pure interior volume and because SUVs are just so bulky, high and inaccessible to a third row. 

 

This was the way we went, too, after we had our third.

 

At first I was thinking self-deprecating thoughts along the lines of what @mrCharlie was talking about above.  "Ugh, we're getting a parent-mobile.  Well, I guess we're parents now, so so it goes."

 

But I gotta say, some of the cabin tech of modern minivans is pretty sweet.  Guess that means I aged into their target demographic.

 

The only thing I wish is that there were any EV minivans on the market.  We had to get a gas-guzzler because there literally weren't any electric options.  The Pacifica Hybrid was just about to become a brand-new thing, and I wouldn't want a hybrid, anyway.

 

The sliding doors that are among the main features distinguishing minivans from SUVs and crossovers are absolutely huge if you intend to keep this familymobile well into the kids' more active years, especially if you park in a garage next to other cars.  Because my car would have all kinds of dings on it from the kids swinging the rear doors of any SUV or crossover open in our garage, but the minivan doors just slide out of the way.

 

3 hours ago, Dev said:

I strongly agree with this. It feels like it's an arms race. Everyone else gets taller and bigger cars so it seems to force everyone else to as well, otherwise they won't have as much visibility on the road, especially highways.

 

Technology can level this playing field somewhat.  The car I have is pretty good at being able to "see" even what's in front of the car in front of me, even if the car immediately in front of me is an SUV or pickup that is both tall and wide enough to block my view.

But the boots the women wear in SUV commercials are more stylish than in the minivan commercials 

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

The new CAFE regulations that indexed MPG regulations to footprint so that big cars could get worse MPG was a part of the late 2000s re-ruling took it easy on the Big 3 due to their bankruptcies (not Ford). Since the automakers had an enormous amount of input that time around that provision made it in.

 

Perhaps, but with the original rules station wagons counted as cars but minivans, Jeeps, and pickup trucks did not.   

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

The only thing I wish is that there were any EV minivans on the market.  We had to get a gas-guzzler because there literally weren't any electric options.  The Pacifica Hybrid was just about to become a brand-new thing, and I wouldn't want a hybrid, anyway.

 

 

 

Pacifica is also getting a version with a Hellcat engine.   It is not actually going to be called the Hellkaren.    #IStandCorrected.

Maybe we don't turn the car dependency topic into a car shopping thread?

^Sorry, but the feeling of needing to buy a minivan is directly related to my undesired dependency on cars to get around. I really wish I didn't need to buy a minivan but here we are, I live in an urban core near multiple bus lines but I still can't get my kids everywhere I need them to be without a damn personal vehicle. 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

The only thing I wish is that there were any EV minivans on the market.  We had to get a gas-guzzler because there literally weren't any electric options.  The Pacifica Hybrid was just about to become a brand-new thing, and I wouldn't want a hybrid, anyway.

The Pacifica Hybrid is a really sweet ride -- you're selling it short.  But this entire conversation shows how difficult car-dependent society is for families compared to places that are more compact with quality transit.  Compare Strongsville or any other outer suburb with Kyoto, Japan or Amsterdam.  You would live in a crowded "city" and you would have a small refrigerator and you would stop at the market every day on your way home -- or you'd send your kid to the market to pick something up since it's just down the block and they could walk or bike safely.  Young kids hop on the streetcar or ride their bikes to soccer practice.

 

Here, you can't send the kid to soccer practice on his own, because you NEED a car to get there.  You might not be able to send your kid to walk to any store -- which is the case in most places in the US.  We have the Big Box Store where you can buy Giant Boxes of Everything which means you need a big vehicle to get it home and lots of room to store it.  You have to buy a bigger vehicle because you don't have convenient subways and streetcars that you can just roll the kid stroller on and off, you "need" something that can fit three extra-child-safety seats in.  To have a family in the US, you must buy not just a bigger car, but a bigger house, a bigger yard, live farther from family and friends, schools, libraries, parks, etc. 

 

I look forward to the day when I occasionally need to borrow a car but live most of my life without "needing" to drive.  (As we all age, we'll all reach that point where we shouldn't be driving anyway.  Then what?  Maybe move to Amsterdam.)

Wrote this as a letter to the editor, but I never heard back:

 

We've seen the news. Experts have warned of the possibility of $6/gallon gasoline by August. Americans, especially low-wage workers, are understandably upset, and the news prompted a predictable and shallow partisan blame game.

 

What everyone seems to forget is that the country has received and ignored multiple warnings over the past 50 years about the vulnerability of the economy and our personal lives to high gas prices: the 1973 Oil Embargo when OPEC cut oil production, the 1979 Oil Shock after the Iranian revolution, and the gradual rise in oil prices from 2000 to 2008 when oil ultimately reached $150/barrel, contributing to the 2008 financial crash.

 

As the anger rises again, we need a good, honest look in the mirror, because each and every time this has happened, we've gotten mad, taken no effective action, and returned to business as usual. We never talk about the real problem: since the 1950s, the country has willfully and blindly created and maintained a transportation system that has effectively hand-cuffed Americans to the gas pump—to no one's advantage except the profits of oil companies. Cars are our only choice to get around, except in a few of our largest cities. We can't get to work, see a doctor, or even feed ourselves unless we drive. Americans love to talk about the freedom of the automobile, but is it really freedom when we can only reach for the car keys and pay $6/gallon or stay home?

 

It's long past time to demand better from our elected officials. To all of them I say: Stop your cynical quest for political advantage in this latest crisis. Put partisanship aside, roll up your sleeves and put this country on the only effective path we have to address this problem once and for all: re-design our transportation system for maximum freedom. If we want to leave the car keys at home and to not have to pay for gas on any given day, we should be able to do so.

Edited May 28, 20223 yr by gildone
Formatting

6 hours ago, gildone said:

We never talk about the real problem: since the 1950s, the country has willfully and blindly created and maintained a transportation system that has effectively hand-cuffed Americans to the gas pump—to no one's advantage except the profits of oil companies.

 

For 60 or 70 years, this might have been true, from after WWII to about 2015.

 

However, autocentrism and gas dependency are decoupling quickly because of the EV revolution.

 

America has been slower on the uptake vis-a-vis EVs than many other countries--only about 4.5% of sales in 4Q21 were EVs (https://www.kbb.com/car-news/electric-vehicle-sales-surging-as-overall-new-car-sales-fall/).  But as that article notes, that's still substantial in percentage terms.  Also, in other countries, which we may yet follow (and could have followed with different planning and incentives over the past 20 years), EVs are many times that share of new sales (about 65% in Norway, https://time.com/6133180/norway-electric-vehicles/).  And, of course, the last decade or so has seen the technology mature but adoption slowed by the continued existence of cheap gasoline; it could be a while before we see that again, so the adoption curve is ripe for a major change as economic incentives and technological maturity align.

 

I know that many posters on these boards still link the two phenomena (autocentrism and gas dependency) together under the generalized umbrella of "bad" without much further thought, but they really are separable phenomena, and in recent years, increasingly not just separable but actually separated.

 

I charged on the highway (Supercharger at Mt. Gilead) today on the way home from Kirkersville to Akron.  Added about 180 miles of range for about $18.  Figure that 175 miles at about 25 MPG would be 7 gallons, that would be $30+ at today's prices.  And that was at a Supercharger, which is more expensive per kWh than charging in one's own garage.

@GramaryeAn electric car is still a car and does nothing to solve auto-dependency and the finacially ruinous public expense of maintaining the infrastructure  to support it.  

 

As to the point about gas prices, it's impacting people's lives and the economy right now.  Few people can afford to run out and buy an electric vehicle this summer as gas prices spike-- especially low-wage service workers who keep restaurants and stores running and goods moving through warehouses, etc.  You are essentially saying it's no big deal because "someday" everyone will have an electric car.

 

Car dependency is the real problem.  Gas prices are exacerbating the problem at the present time. That's the context here. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 20223 yr by gildone
Clarity

13 hours ago, gildone said:

@GramaryeAn electric car is still a car and does nothing to solve auto-dependency and the finacially ruinous public expense of maintaining the infrastructure  to support it.

 

Car dependency is the real problem.  Gas prices are exacerbating the problem at the present time. That's the context here. 

 

Then I'll merge this into the Car Dependency thread rather than having a new one called Gas Prices.

 

And you're correct, of course, that an electric car is still a car, and they still tend to be on the more expensive side, at least in the US.  As to whether I'm saying it's no big deal, I'd say you're half-right: The reason I insist on maintaining conceptual distinction between car dependency and gas dependency is that I think dependence on fossil fuels is both the more serious problem and the more solvable one, and insisting on linking the two risks what I see as, frankly, the futility of overcoming autocentrism contaminating the potential of overcoming fossil fuel dependency, leading to inaction on both.

 

I can sell the other parents at my kids' school on switching to EVs (and I make that pitch at any reasonable opportunity); I will never sell them on reorienting their lives around being car-free or even car-optional, not even with the most lavishly funded and perfectly designed public transportation network, with a subway station right at the school itself.  And this is a group of mostly people who live in Akron proper.  Selling happy suburbanites on changing that lifestyle preference is an even more impossible ask.

Electric cars may not save us.  Sure, they help people who can  afford them but replacing 287 million of them in the US (and over a billion of them in the world) is not only a huge task, it may not even be achievable:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-22/mr-lithiumalr-warns-there-s-not-enough-battery-metal-to-go-around

 

Also, lithium prices are up 500%:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-25/lithium-the-hunt-for-the-wonder-metal-fueling-evs

 

And there are other considerations besides supply:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z

 

Electric cars are here to stay, are a net positive for carbon emissions, and we'll see a lot more of them.  Whether or not they will fully break fossil fuel dependency remains to be seen.

 

That said, @Gramarye, you can insist all you want on maintaining an intellectual distinction between the two. I respect your opinion, but no one's insistence makes anything a reality, and others are allowed to think differently.  If you want to merge the thread, that's your prerogative, and I won't lose any sleep over it if you do, but I didn't think a single post, including the first one in a new topic, had to define and confine everything that a thread is supposed to cover.  

 

As to walkable, transit-friendly  neighborhoods and the understanding and approval of suburbanites, that may not be as much of an issue as you think.    The idea is selling itself already.  Such neighborhoods have been expensive places to live for years because demand outstrips supply.  But like we're seeing more electric cars, we are also seeing more and more cities invest in their downtowns, and their efforts are attracting residents who want that lifestyle  For the past couple years, Strong Towns has been seeing their message gain a lot of steam across the country too.  There is a long way to go, but things are already in motion regardless of whether suburbanites understand it.  

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by gildone
Typos, clarity, spelling

People aren't as married to the suburbs as is billed. A lot of people just default to them since that's what their friends do.

On 5/30/2022 at 1:13 PM, GCrites80s said:

People aren't as married to the suburbs as is billed. A lot of people just default to them since that's what their friends do.

A lot of people default to them because that's the vast majority of what has been built, and in most of the country, it's illegal to build anything else.  

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by gildone

The biggest reason imo is that the school districts are often considered better in the suburbs. I've got plenty of friends who move out of the city to get their kids into better school districts. That's their #1 motivation even if they'd prefer to live in the city

20 hours ago, gildone said:

Electric cars may not save us.  Sure, they help people who can  afford them but replacing 287 million of them in the US (and over a billion of them in the world) is not only a huge task, it may not even be achievable:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-22/mr-lithiumalr-warns-there-s-not-enough-battery-metal-to-go-around

 

Also, lithium prices are up 500%:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-25/lithium-the-hunt-for-the-wonder-metal-fueling-evs

 

And there are other considerations besides supply:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z

 

Electric cars are here to stay, are a net positive for carbon emissions, and we'll see a lot more of them.  Whether or not they will fully break fossil fuel dependency remains to be seen.

 

That said, you can insist all you want on maintaining an intellectual distinction between the two. I respect your opinion, but no one's insistence makes anything a reality, and others are allowed to think differently.  If you want to merge the thread, that's your perogative, and I won't lose any sleep over it if you do, but I didn't think a single post, including the first one in a new topic, had to define and confine everything that a thread is supposed to cover.  

 

As to walkable, transit-friendly  neighborhods and the understanding and approval of suburbanites, that may not be as much of an issue as you think.    The idea is selling itself already.  Such neighborhoods have been expensive places to live for years because demand outstrips supply.  But like we're seeing more electric cars, we are also seeing more and more cities invest in their downtowns, and their efforts are attracting residents who want that lifestyle  For the past couple years, Strong Towns has been seeing their message gain a lot of steam across the country too.  There is a long way to go, but things are already in motion regardless of whether suburbanites understand it.  

 

The last line is bordering on Sim City Syndrome here.   While suburbanites are not nearly as prone to prosletyzing their lifestyle as urbanites (understandable, as those who actually prefer residential density need others to do so), they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.  Careful....

14 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

The biggest reason imo is that the school districts are often considered better in the suburbs. I've got plenty of friends who move out of the city to get their kids into better school districts. That's their #1 motivation even if they'd prefer to live in the city

 

Far and away their #1 motivation.   A neighbor at Beulah just moved out to Brecksville, not coincidentally as her son hit school age.

On 5/30/2022 at 12:10 AM, Gramarye said:

 

Then I'll merge this into the Car Dependency thread rather than having a new one called Gas Prices.

 

And you're correct, of course, that an electric car is still a car, and they still tend to be on the more expensive side, at least in the US.  As to whether I'm saying it's no big deal, I'd say you're half-right: The reason I insist on maintaining conceptual distinction between car dependency and gas dependency is that I think dependence on fossil fuels is both the more serious problem and the more solvable one, and insisting on linking the two risks what I see as, frankly, the futility of overcoming autocentrism contaminating the potential of overcoming fossil fuel dependency, leading to inaction on both.

 

I can sell the other parents at my kids' school on switching to EVs (and I make that pitch at any reasonable opportunity); I will never sell them on reorienting their lives around being car-free or even car-optional, not even with the most lavishly funded and perfectly designed public transportation network, with a subway station right at the school itself.  And this is a group of mostly people who live in Akron proper.  Selling happy suburbanites on changing that lifestyle preference is an even more impossible ask.

 

Far better answer than the one I was preparing.

 

Some urbanists don’t seem to understand that last paragraph.   The vast majority of Americans are not willing to collectivize their transportation.  They are willing to pay for it, at least in principle.   They are very willing to defend their ability to move around at whim.   They take it for granted, for now.  Changing that will release a political tsunami of epic proportions.    Pushing against it would be like pushing against sprawl in the early 50s.   A way to become irrelevant.

 

Example:  my brother and sister in law live near me, so in a reasonably dense (though our neighborhood is not) area.   Their kids are long grown.   They are way to my left, politically.   They have two cars.

 

Electric cars are more of a sell.  The key is charging, not cost.  Even Elon Musk says we don’t have the charging infrastructure to electrify a large proportion of private automotive usage.   Once we get past that, demand will increase (no pun intended) and costs will decrease.

 

But for now, it’s fossil fuels.   The price of gas and the associated inflation will be the big political issue of 2022.   If it’s not gotten under control by then, and I don’t expect it to be, Alabama’s football team will not be the most overpowering crimson tide this fall.

 

Blowing this off is the “let them eat cake” of the 21st century.

23 hours ago, gildone said:

As to walkable, transit-friendly  neighborhods and the understanding and approval of suburbanites, that may not be as much of an issue as you think.    The idea is selling itself already.  Such neighborhoods have been expensive places to live for years because demand outstrips supply.  But like we're seeing more electric cars, we are also seeing more and more cities invest in their downtowns, and their efforts are attracting residents who want that lifestyle  For the past couple years, Strong Towns has been seeing their message gain a lot of steam across the country too.  There is a long way to go, but things are already in motion regardless of whether suburbanites understand it.  

 

I'm well aware that demand outstrips supply, but that's because new builds in dense, walkable, mixed-use, transit-friendly areas are probably something like 5% or 10% of total new development.  That number could become much higher to address true market demand and still be nowhere close to 100% or even 50%.

  

16 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

The biggest reason imo is that the school districts are often considered better in the suburbs. I've got plenty of friends who move out of the city to get their kids into better school districts. That's their #1 motivation even if they'd prefer to live in the city

 

The old three S's: space, safety, and schools.

 

I've seen this with several friends similar to my age who have kids, too, though even the school issue shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is anymore, because of Ohio's voucher program, EdChoice, which isn't even means-tested (though EdChoice Expansion is).  Anyone who lives in Akron Public can go to Hoban for at least $7500 off sticker price, and another Hoban grad told me this weekend that however the program is working now, anyone in Akron Public can actually go for free.  (Don't quote me on that last because I couldn't corroborate it online but she was very confident that no one from Akron Public is paying tuition this year.)  SVSM and Walsh Jesuit are EdChoice schools, too, and there is no shortage of K-8 schools in the EdChoice program, either.  And this is just in Summit County.  Even on a per-capita basis, I think the number of schools in the denser metros that accept them is higher.

 

(You didn't raise the safety issue but the dreadful danger of urban neighborhoods is also vastly overestimated in the suburban imagination.)

  

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Electric cars are more of a sell.  The key is charging, not cost.  Even Elon Musk says we don’t have the charging infrastructure to electrify a large proportion of private automotive usage.   Once we get past that, demand will increase (no pun intended) and costs will decrease.

 

The primary difference is that charging infrastructure doesn't need to be as dedicated as fueling infrastructure because you don't need to worry about burying and protecting massive tanks of explosive liquids.

 

When I installed a NEMA 14-50 outlet in my garage to charge my car (and any guests' that happen by with Teslas of their own), I made a private contribution to the nation's charging infrastructure.  I was not about to install my own private gas station.  Most EV charging happens at home.  Yes, highway charging is an essential capability, but for a typical ICE car owner, 100% of their refueling happens away from home; for a typical EV owner, that might be 5-10%.  Also, any random business can install a charger, and many have, often making them free, if they're hoping people will stay a while; no normal business can do that with a fuel pump.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Once we get past that, demand will increase (no pun intended) and costs will decrease.

Will it though? Aren't we just trading one commodity (petroleum) for another (lithium)?

18 minutes ago, Dev said:

Will it though? Aren't we just trading one commodity (petroleum) for another (lithium)?

Maybe the lithium can be recycled once enough of it is in circulation (and other lithium-free battery technologies complement them).  But don't forget that petroleum elephant in the room -- roadways.  And heavier EVs will cause more wear (more potholes to repair).