I don't disagree, but where I live zoning is a large part of the problem
The zoning in my area perpetuates unwalkable, uncyclable, parking lot infested sprawl, because single family houses take up 84% of the available land.
I don't want industry to move into neighborhoodseither , but I wouldn't mind commercial or retail, currently prohibited.
I dont mean throw out zoning entirely, but reducing the way they promote single family housing only. I live in a county with a million people and 84% of the land is single family zoning only, I want to throw that bit out.
Also if done right you dont need to zoning for all those things. Transit development will drive denser, walkable areas all on its own if its legal to build those kinds of areas. All the city has to do it manage transit as these areas develop.
I'm sorry that the area you live in has decided that transportation can carry a serious risk of death. Roads can be desinged in a safer manner, even when people are drunk.
Transit options are workable even in rural areas when designed correctly.
My bother in law has a Juiced Rip Current S, with the performance upgrade it does 30mph on throttle, it'll probably go faster with pedal assist. I can test it later if you want.
I'll need to check what model it is, but it's probably the highest power one.
Technically not street legal, but nobody is going enforce that. Probably.
To guarantee the range you'd probably need a spare battery.
You can also put a rack on it to carry stuff and the spare battery.
So far most ev batteries do much better than cell phones, as long as they have cooling.
The newer technology at that time was cars and roads, and many European countries did try the American system of roads and suburbs.
Its just that most of them realized it wad a bad idea around 20 years ago and started rethinking their cities.
Many city centers were even turned into parking lots like American ones.
Again cities arent supposed to be static, and normally they grow denser, rather than sprawling.
The problem with American cities is partly zoning, and partly nimbyism, where people don't want their places to change.
And sprawl sucks for pretty much everyone. Less arable land for farming, poorer anmeties, longer travel times, and finally huge transportation costs. Cars are by far the most costly method of travel, both personally and for governments.
It's a good point that cities aren't built anymore, and that's part of the problem. Our population has grown drastically, but we don't build hardly any new infrastructure for them outside of roads. So traffic is terrible despite enormous amounts of money from both government and people.
Cities aren't supposed to be static, they're supposed to grow and adapt to the needs of those that live there. There is a large need for non-car transport that is either ignored or sidelined for cars.
I'm not talking about 90% empty land, that's not where people are.
When the car was invented, governments had little issue buildozing entire neighborhoods for highways, but now that some places are realizing that's a bad decision, its really hard to undo.
How so? Is it because they're switching to electric vs hydraulic?
Ah I understand, let me be more specific, and answer some questions.
When it comes to farming, we don't put farmland in cities, in rural areas cars do make sense.
Energy generation doesn't have to be done in cities either.
As for sewage, yeah it takes up space in cities because you can't tranport it out, but it's small compared to the entire city.
The parts that are unsustainable are the vast swaths of single family homes.
The maintenance costs for these areas, in the form of electcity, water, sewage, roads, are higher than the tax revenues generated by property taxes.
It takes a long time for this tax deficit to show, about 30ish years, and it can be delayed by builidng and developing new suburbs. The taxes from the sales and other newness generate some new income. The federal government will also subsidizie a lot a building a new road, but notably not maintaing them. Which after 30 years can be more than the road would cost to build new!
But after a while the maintenance comes due, roads fill with potholes and need replacing, sewer and water pipes start leaking due to wear, or even the ground moving. Electricity lines blow over, knocked by trees, or hit by drivers need to be fixed.
The cost of roads and car dependency is not cheap. A study came out that it costs Americans an average of $20k a year for car dependency. About half that is owning a car, and the other half is taxes spent on road infrastructure.
In just slightly denser areas, where the government hadn't regulated things like setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and soley single family housing, there is enough revenue.
So what ends up happening is these denser areas subsidizie car dependent suburbs.
And all the while suburbs with car only transportation have tons of traffic, because when you get down to it, a single lane of cars just can't move that many people.
Now there are some exceptions to this. I live in an area with astonishingpy high property values, nearing 1 million for a normal house. This generates a lot of revenue, but it creates an housing affordability problem. This problem would be alleviated if there was increased density if the local government didn't zone 84% of the land into single family housing only.
And it would still increase tax revenues in my area.
Prey and outer wilds are games especially enjoyed blind with no prior knowledge.
While the free market should be able to correct the problem, it can't.
I can't talk specifically about the uk, but in the US many locales have strict zoning regualtions that hamper building medium density cheap housing, perfect for all these people that can't afford to live where there's work.
Examples are things like minimum parking requiements, driveway setbacks, and limitations on multifamily homes.
I think it depends, farsighted? Probably not.
Nearsighted looking at things hopelessly out of focus and not trying to look, perhaps.
I'm very nearsighted amd taking my glasses seems to make them relax, since nothing will be close enough to make them focus.
Somebody that's farsighted might strain their eyes to focus without their glasses.