15 votes

All the ways car dependency is wrecking us – car harm: a global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment

5 comments

  1. scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: summary, information, quotations, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Ray Delahanty ("CityNerd") is a transportation engineer based in the United States who...
    Comment box
    • Scope: summary, information, quotations, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Ray Delahanty ("CityNerd") is a transportation engineer based in the United States who has recently taken an interest in making content about urban planning on YouTube for a wider audience. In this video, Delahanty discusses a 2024 paper by Patrick Miner et al. which categorizes and explains each of the problems that result from widespread automobile use globally.

    Delahanty's video summary is engaging and non-technical, but I encourage you to read the paper itself, which is very good. As he remarks, it is well-written and actually pretty accessible as scientific literature goes.

    Car harm: A global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment

    Abstract (emphasis mine):

    Despite the widespread harm caused by cars and automobility, governments, corporations, and individuals continue to facilitate it by expanding roads, manufacturing larger vehicles, and subsidising parking, electric cars, and resource extraction. This literature review synthesises the negative consequences of automobility, or car harm, which we have grouped into four categories: violence, ill health, social injustice, and environmental damage. We find that, since their invention, cars and automobility have killed 60–80 million people and injured at least 2 billion. Currently, 1 in 34 deaths are caused by automobility. Cars have exacerbated social inequities and damaged ecosystems in every global region, including in remote car-free places. While some people benefit from automobility, nearly everyone—whether or not they drive—is harmed by it. Slowing automobility's violence and pollution will be impracticable without the replacement of policies that encourage car harm with policies that reduce it. To that end, the paper briefly summarises interventions that are ready for implementation.

    In this context, "automobililty" refers to the use of an automobile vehicle (informally a "car") to travel, not to the concept of physically moving oneself with one's body.

    Sections of the article include:

    • The death toll of automobility: "car harm has grown to be so ubiquitous that it is socially constructed as normal, accidental, or inevitable ... cars and the system of automobility have killed approximately 60 to 80 million people ... [which] is similar in magnitude to the combined 57 to 82 million deaths from the two World Wars"
    • Violence:
      • Crashes: "Traffic crashes kill 1.3 million people per year or 3500 people per day, and they are the eighth‑leading cause of death globally ... Globally, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for children over 4 and for adults under 30 ... Crashes kill more than 700 children every day ... children walking to school or playing with friends must 'watch out and make way, or be killed' ... Since 2000, an estimated 2 billion people have been injured in motor vehicle crashes—up to 1 in 4 people alive today—not accounting for repeat injuries or population change."
      • Intentional violence: "In car-dependent societies, cars blend into their surroundings and can be inconspicuous weapons ... Hundreds of cities have installed bollards to fortify their public spaces against vehicle attacks ... Other forms of intentional car-based violence include aggressive driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, and drive-by shootings"
    • Ill health: "Cars and automobility negatively affect physical and mental health through a variety of mechanisms including pollution, sedentary travel, and social isolation"
      • Pollution: "Automobility contributes to air, land, and water pollution. These forms of pollution are harmful to human health and contribute to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths per year."
        • Air, land, and water pollution:
          • "Traffic-related air pollution is a mix of gases and particles ... Motor emissions are produced by the running of a vehicle's engine. Abrasion emissions are caused by the friction of materials such as tyres, brakes, and road surfaces ... The manufacturing and disposal of vehicles also contribute to ambient air pollution ... A systematic review of 353 studies found that traffic-related air pollution is associated with 'all-cause, circulatory, ischemic heart disease and lung cancer mortality' ... Vehicular air pollution may increase risk of neurological conditions including depression, anxiety, dementia including Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, autism, and cognitive impairment ... It contributes to low birth weights and premature births ... and in children it contributes to reduced lung volumes and increased risk of diseases, e.g. asthma and leukaemia, and mental health issues."
          • "Vehicle tyres and brakes, as well as road markings, shed microparticles including microplastics which become airborne and can contaminate food or water ... effects may include inflammation, cellular damage, gastrointestinal issues, and effects from the accumulation of heavy metals that attach to microplastics ... Automobility sources of metals that contaminate environments include exhaust, tyres, brakes, clutches, lubricating oils, vehicle corrosion, road surfaces (e.g. asphalt), and road markings ... The authors noted that brakes and tyres were especially potent contributors of metal contaminants in road dust. As such, increased uptake of heavy electric vehicles will maintain or increase these levels of metal contamination." We all know by now how bad the air pollution is (well, in theory, but we pretend it's not an issue in practice; otherwise you would seriously be up in arms about it), but there is basically no public perception of how bad the tire microplastic issue is. Please read my commentary on tire microplastic pollution for more analysis of this issue, as well as the many excellent sources cited in this paper.
          • "About 75% of current global lead consumption is for motor vehicle batteries ... Lead is also found in paint for both new and older vehicles ... Road markings contain high concentrations of lead, especially in yellow paint ... Oils from streets contaminate land and water, especially in the form of runoff after precipitation events ... People who come into contact with spilled oil, breath its vapours, or eat oil-contaminated seafood are at risk for dizziness, nausea, neurological issues, and cancer"
        • Noise pollution: "Motor vehicles are the main source of noise pollution in urban areas ... The negative health effects of vehicular noise pollution include cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, tinnitus (ringing in the ear), hearing loss, anxiety, stress, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment ... A European Environment Agency report estimated 10,100 premature deaths per year due to road noise pollution in 32 European countries"
        • Light and thermal pollution: "Automobility contributes to light and thermal pollution through car-centric built environments. Streets and car parks (parking lots) generate light pollution that interferes with human health, e.g. sleep quality ... Paved surfaces such as streets and parking spaces increase local air and surface temperatures. This “urban heat island” effect harms human health by exacerbating heat waves, increasing air pollution, causing heat-related conditions (e.g. heat stress and heat stroke), and worsening existing conditions (e.g. cardiovascular or respiratory diseases)"
      • Sedentary travel: "Sedentary behaviour, including car travel, increases the risk of 'all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality… cancer mortality, and incidence of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer' ... In car dependent places, many short journeys are made by car when they could be made by physically active modes."
      • Dependence and isolation:
        • "In car-dependent landscapes, individuals are isolated from people and destinations by long distances and physical barriers such as motorways (expressways). Without a car, one cannot access food, healthcare, work, education, family, or friends. Most people on the planet do not drive, including millions in car-dependent places. This results in social isolation, and 'isolated individuals are at increased risk for the development of cardiovascular disease, infectious illness, cognitive deterioration, and mortality' ... Emergency services can also be impacted by sprawling car-dependent landscapes as evidenced by fire and ambulance response time delays caused by road traffic and increased travel distances"
        • "Compared to children who walk or cycle, children who travel in cars have less knowledge about their neighbourhoods, have fewer opportunities for outdoor play and exploration, and gain less experience in assessing risk and becoming independent"
        • "Each time someone prepares to cross a street, they are engaging in a life-and-death decision process. The danger and unpleasantness of traffic reduces rates of walking and cycling and therefore physical activity which is essential to good health"
    • Social injustice: "Automobility is enabled by and produces a long list of social injustices. These include unevenly distributed harm, inaccessibility, and the consumption of space, time, and resources"
      • Unequal distribution of harm:
        • "In terms of age, more than 700 children are killed in traffic crashes every day, and children and the elderly are more likely than other pedestrians to be killed in crashes ... Crashes are the leading cause of death for people aged 5 to 29"
        • "In Brazil and the US, two large racially and ethnically diverse countries, crashes disproportionately kill Black and Indigenous people ... A US study found that people were less likely to stop their cars for Black pedestrians than for white pedestrians ... Automobility often conflicts with and endangers Indigenous practices of walking as transport"
        • "...when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured than a man, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seat-belt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die ... Traffic crashes are 'the main cause of injuries and trauma in pregnant women' and 'more than half of all pregnancy trauma are due to [crashes]'"
        • "Despite lower levels of car ownership and fewer kilometres travelled, the economically poor are more likely than the economically wealthy to be killed in traffic crashes ... The least wealthy members of our societies do not have cars but are forced to endure elevated levels of crashes and pollution so that wealthier people can drive."
      • Inaccessibility:
        • "...car infrastructure creates obstacles for people with mobility disabilities, e.g. pavement (sidewalk) clutter such as parking meters, driveway [curb] cuts, and bollards to guard against unsafe driving. [Curb] cuts for crossing streets, which originated as an 'accommodation' for people in wheelchairs, can be a barrier for people who are blind or have limited vision, especially when tactile paving is not used ... People with disabilities are more likely than others to be killed or injured by motor vehicles despite lower levels of car access and higher levels of public transport use"
        • "Car-dependent environments “disable” people who do not drive by restricting access to essential needs ... most disabled people are among the losers, along with people in poor neighbourhoods and children ... Automobility, like many systems, is organised around the assumption of “able-bodied” movement with too few considerations for physical and social accessibility."
      • Consumption of space, time, and resources: "Automobility consumes a large amount of space for the operation and storage of motor vehicles"
        • Car-dependent places: "Automobility enables the geographical separation of home, work, schools, hospitals, shops, parks, and other places so that motor vehicles are the most convenient way to move between them. In this way, automobility is a solution for a problem that it helps to create"
        • Streets and motorways (expressways):
          • "While moving, cars consume an estimated 1.39m2 per hour per person compared to 0.52m2 for bicycles, 0.27m2 for walking, and 0.07m2 for buses ... One person in a car consumes the space of about 20 bus passengers, and cars are consuming more and more space as vehicle sizes increase."
          • "Among roadways, motorways are some of the most space and resource-intensive. Not only do they cost millions of pounds per kilometre, they displace residents and destroy communities as they cut paths through the landscape ... From 1957 to 2010, construction of US motorways cost at least US$1.4 trillion and required the movement of 38 billion metric tons of earth—equivalent to 116 Panama Canal construction projects. These motorways displaced an estimated 1 million people from their neighbourhoods"
        • Parking [vehicle storage]:
          • "On-street parallel parking consumes approximately 10-19 m2 per car and off-street parking consumes about 25-33 m2 per car ... By contrast, a person standing, sitting in a wheelchair, or stationary on a bicycle consumes approximately 1-2 m2. An empty car in a car park consumes the space of about 20 people."
          • "Some governments have minimum parking “requirements” or mandates that legally obligate property owners to supply a certain number of parking spaces for each building. These mandates frequently result in car parks (parking lots) that consume more land than the buildings to which they are attached"
        • Housing: "Automobility increases the cost of goods and services ... one parking space is often larger than a person's living space. One off-street parking space consumes 25-33 m2 which is about the same size as the average living space per person in China, South Korea, or Spain ... Homes in car-dependent places are often built and sold with off-street parking in a garage, car park (parking lot), or drive. Bundling parking with housing inflates the cost of housing and obscures the true cost of automobility ... In an affordable housing development in California, bundled parking raised construction costs by 38% despite an exception that allowed the construction of fewer parking spaces"
        • Time: "As more people drive, the roads fill up thereby making it more difficult for each individual to drive. ... As Ivan Illich noted in the 1970s, “the typical American male” spends 4 out of 16 waking hours driving or gathering money to pay for a car." That is 25% of your waking life devoted to car-dependency. Wouldn't you rather live 25 more healthy, wonderful years?
        • Financial burden: "Car-dependent places force people to own cars so they can access essential destinations ... Even in countries with high tariffs on fuel, motorists cannot cover the cost of automobility. A study in Australia found that 10% of parking was covered by the motorist while the rest was externalised, and the motorist's “out-of-pocket costs” were just one-sixth of the total trip cost ... cars cost society €0.11 per kilometre while walking and cycling provide a positive benefit (mainly via health effects) of €0.37 and €0.18 per kilometre"
    • Environmental damage: "Automobility has contributed to the transgression of at least four of these boundaries: climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change, and novel entities. Automobility is a leading source of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and it damages ecosystems and habitats, consumes natural resources, and worsens natural disasters"
      • Carbon emissions:
        • "In 2019, transport “accounted for 23% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. 70% of direct transport emissions came from road vehicles,” and transport-related carbon emissions are rising"
        • "...internal combustion engine vehicles produce most of their emissions in the operation stage, with 23–32 t of CO2, and the production stage, with 5–10 t. Electric vehicles produce most of their emissions in the fuel or electricity provision stage, with 11–20 t, and the production stage, with 9–14 t"
        • "...automobility infrastructure includes streets, parking, and other spaces. Building and maintaining this infrastructure generates substantial carbon emissions ... sprawling land uses can also increase carbon emissions in non-transportation sectors"
        • "Technologies likely to be core to lower-carbon futures such as district heating and cooling systems only operate efficiently in high density areas"
      • Pollution and resource extraction:
        • "Oil is used to produce fuel and to produce plastics for vehicle manufacturing. The use of plastics in vehicles is increasing due to the low weight of plastics compared to metals. This means that plastics help reduce vehicle weights and therefore the energy needed to move them. However, plastics are made from petrochemicals and are a major source of carbon emissions and pollution"
        • "Mining activities for metals used in vehicle manufacturing influence several environmental areas of concern including 'air quality, water quality / quantity, acid mine drainage, land impacts, [and] ecological impacts'"
        • "In the end-of-life stage, economically valuable (e.g. copper) and hazardous (e.g. fuel) elements are removed from vehicles. The remaining plastic, glass, and other materials are cut into automotive shredder residue. About two thirds of this residue is sent to landfill and most of the remaining is incinerated"
        • Tyres [tires]:
          • "Approximately 2 to 3 billion tyres are manufactured annually and they are not biodegradable ... These materials are mostly derived from fossil fuels ... In the end-of-life stage...they are incinerated; or they are placed in landfills or stockpiles"
          • "Metals and microplastics from tyres and brakes pollute terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems and contribute to the transgression of the novel entities planetary boundary. Among primary microplastics (particles released directly rather than from the breakdown of larger plastics) released into the ocean, tyres and road markings account for an estimated 35% ... In an Arctic ice (firn) core with a bottom dating back to c. 1966, tyre particles constituted 24% of observed plastic particles"
          • "One of the substances found in tyres has been killing salmon in the north-western US for several decades."
        • Other pollution: "Applying road salt to melt ice and snow is contaminating freshwater ecosystems and making some water sources unsafe for drinking ... Traffic-related noise pollution harms wildlife through physical effects, e.g. hearing damage, and through behavioural effects, e.g. breakdowns in communication such as birdsong obscured by traffic noise"
      • Land use: "Vertebrate deaths from road traffic are difficult to count, but the global number is likely greater than 1 billion per year ... Roads and sprawl, or car-based low-density development, contribute to deforestation and declining biodiversity ... These types of development exacerbate natural disasters ... Sprawling development also alters the patterns of wildfires"

    The paper suggests a number of interventions which we could take to reduce the negative impacts of automobiles on the world and society, including:

    • Congestion charges / road pricing
    • Reductions to on-street parking
    • Car-free or car-limited areas
    • Reduced traffic speeds
    • Replacing minimum parking mandates with maximums
    • Converting parking structures into homes, shops, etc.
    • Ciclovía / open streets
    • Electric bikes / micromobility
    • Car sharing

    The authors are also very clear to note that electric vehicles solve almost none of them problems that cars create:

    Although switching to electric vehicles may be less politically controversial than reducing car use, electrification fails to address a majority of the harms described in this paper, including crashes, intentional violence, sedentary travel, car dependence and isolation, unequal distribution of harm, inaccessibility, land use, or consumption of space, time, and resources. Electrification has the potential to reduce carbon emissions from motor running, but emissions from vehicle production and the end-of-life phase will remain high—or increase. Electric vehicle production will likely increase the extraction of mined metals. Increased energy demand to charge electric vehicles may delay efforts to decarbonise electric grids.

    You are welcome to form your own opinions about your lifestyle, but this ENORMOUS body of research is undeniable. Automobiles cause an incredible amount of damage to society; they unequally distribute this damage to the least privileged and poorest members while benefitting the wealthiest and most advantaged; they criminally destroy natural wildlife habitats and harm the environment; they encourage the destruction of human habitats via dangerous land use, impermeable surfaces, and increased heat; and they cause irreparable damage to the physical and mental health of people around the world, especially vulnerable persons with disabilities, seniors, and children, including billions of deaths and injuries.

    It is important to prioritize the well-being of society when making decisions about your own lifestyle and especially when voting for political candidates. I ask that you consider these negative effects of cars more seriously than you probably do now. I hope that this may encourage you to seek changes to your own lifestyle (i.e. the reduction in number of vehicles you own; relocation to a place where cars are not needed; adjustments to your movement patterns to facilitate a car-free or car-lite lifestyle; political votes toward candidates who seek to reduce car dependency; and community engagement with organizations who seek to do the same.

    Delahanty suggests that conscientious viewers join local advocacy organizations that may, among other things, seek to improve the design of their communities; reduce car speeds and access; eliminate minimum parking requirements; promote travel by public transit, bicycles, walking, and other forms of micromobility; encourage infrastructure that prioritizes human-scale activity rather than car-oriented activity; support better integration of human habitats into natural wildlife habitats via the removal of some car infrastructure; redesign cities and towns to better withstand natural disasters by reducing infrastructure which reinforces car dependency; and more. I agree with this takeaway and recommend that you do these things.

    12 votes
  2. [4]
    Mullin
    Link
    I haven't read all of the article or your long reply. But 'electric vehicles solve almost none of them problems that cars create' feels hilariously wrong. Emissions pollution is the single biggest...

    I haven't read all of the article or your long reply. But 'electric vehicles solve almost none of them problems that cars create' feels hilariously wrong. Emissions pollution is the single biggest harm of cars, and cars have almost singlehandedly fueled the entire oil industry, to say that EVs wouldn't be a significant improvement is just ridiculous.

    I don't have much to comment on, of course cars are dangerous, but there is a reason they became so ubiquitous, especially in the US: they are convenient, that's really it, that's all it takes sometimes. They had an edge over other forms of transport in final mile, and they were viewed as a luxury item, and a car culture emerged. I'm all for more dense, walkable/bikeable areas...I think it'll happen eventually, but in the mean time if we could replace all fossil fuels vehicles with EVs, then we'd be in a much better place ecologically, not to mention safety of newer cars as well as lower noise and pollution just for pedestrians nearby.

    I'm honestly trying not to kneejerk too hard as I've seen this constant deluge of "fuck cars" slowly growing on the web, when it feels like there is a lack of nuance in considering why people like cars, why cities subsidized car infrastructure, and approaching more realistic ways to reduce car traffic, car dependence, and the share of fossil fuels vehicles. For one, increased push for remote work could remove a lot of vehicle miles from roads, more dense housing, more (protected) bike lanes, etc.

    3 votes
    1. [3]
      scroll_lock
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I would recommend reading the article. That isn't my position, simply that the externalities of automobiles are...
      • Exemplary
      Comment box
      • Scope: comment response
      • Tone: neutral
      • Opinion: yes
      • Sarcasm/humor: none

      I haven't read all of the article or your long reply.

      I would recommend reading the article.

      to say that EVs wouldn't be a significant improvement is just ridiculous.

      That isn't my position, simply that the externalities of automobiles are largely unsolved by electric vehicles. The health impacts of automobiles are far from exclusively related to emissions; the two billion people injured by vehicle collisions speaks to this, as do those suffering (unknowingly) from particulate matter from vehicle tyres. Mining pollution, manufacturing pollution, and end-of-life pollution also involves emissions which are materially similar to those of burning fossil fuels for propulsion and do not evaporate when you consider EVs. Electrification generally reduces lifetime emissions and is beneficial to society, but does not address the overall harms of car dependency.

      Personally I find that the larger problem with automobiles is not gaseous exhaust emissions but really the way that they shape lifestyle in an inherently unsustainable way. The article speaks to this somewhat in its analysis of social and economic inequality, land use, sedentary lifestyles, reductions in childhood independence, and so on. Collectively I find these issues to be more significant than CO2 emissions, which are well-understood and comparatively simple to fix without massive lifestyle, cultural, legal, and infrastructure changes.

      I don't expect people to read most of what I write, nor to know me personally, but I am a strong proponent of electric vehicle adoption. Actually I think that some people on this website would call me 'rabidly' in favor of EVs to an extent they would find unreasonable. The reason I highlighted that remark is because this community (Tildes) is full of people who already agree with the premise that EVs are a good solution to the climate crisis. I wish to reinforce the reality that EVs are just a very, very small part of the solution; focusing solely on emissions is insufficient, both because EVs do not solve that problem, and because that is not the only problem.

      it feels like there is a lack of nuance in considering why people like cars, why cities subsidized car infrastructure, and approaching more realistic ways to reduce car traffic, car dependence, and the share of fossil fuels vehicles.

      Well, cities in the US mostly subsidized car infrastructure in the 20th century to reinforce the racially segregated status quo, which the journal article actually mentions. Today, that is still a reason car infrastructure is prioritized while public transportation is not, although people will not admit it. Around the world, cars are a status symbol and infrastructure that supports them actively disenfranchises people without vehicles; in many cases, including in developed and supposedly progressive countries, this disenfranchisement continues to be enacted intentionally or, at best, is overlooked.

      There are quite obviously reasons that people like automobiles, but this article is a meta-analysis of the costs associated with car dependency specifically. It does not argue that automobiles should not exist or that people's desire for them is necessarily immoral. But delving into more scientific literature around car dependency reveals many hidden costs of car-dependent infrastructure (including the reality that most localities literally cannot afford it because it is so ridiculously inefficient); there are many perverse incentives in government and in the private sector to prioritize car infrastructure at the expensive of human life and otherwise human-based spaces, and bad actors have historically taken advantage of these incentives to convince the general public that automobiles are both more good and less bad than they really are.

      At a certain point, what people want has to take a back seat, so to speak, to public safety, financial resilience, environmental health, and more.

      For one, increased push for remote work could remove a lot of vehicle miles from roads, more dense housing, more (protected) bike lanes, etc.

      Delahanty proposes that conscientious individuals engage with local community organizations and government to push forward ideas such as the ones you propose. Personally, I commit a large portion of my time toward such initiatives (in real life, not on the internet). I am not sure how many people here really participate in civic life, but I bet it could be higher.

      15 votes
      1. [2]
        Mullin
        Link Parent
        It just seems like, and I agree that emissions aren't the only problem, but emissions are killing us far more than any amount of automobile crashes, tire particles, or poor walkability ever could....

        It just seems like, and I agree that emissions aren't the only problem, but emissions are killing us far more than any amount of automobile crashes, tire particles, or poor walkability ever could. It's the single biggest issue about car use, and there should be MASSIVE subsidization of EVs to replace ICE if we hope to limit the harms of cars. But I get that you're on board with that.

        I've gone back and read the full article linked, and frankly.....it just doesn't move me much. It isn't that I don't believe them, or that I think the interventions suggested are bad, it's just......I feel like despite extensive references, there isn't enough explanations of the causality of things, especially when, whether I'm correct or not about it, it feels like they are omitting a possible answer. The article says that black people in Brazil are disproportionally suffering fatalities.....I check the study and it shows that 52.8% of road related deaths were black skin color.....Brazil is half black! The reference for women being more likely to be injured in a car accident I couldn't find the relevant page of that book available free online, and while I am inclined to believe it: it feels disingenuous to so heavily load "When they are involved in a crash" given the Brazil study shows us that 82% of auto related deaths were men! Why does the article not discuss the disproportionate harm that cars are doing to men vs women? It's like, I HATE having to go through something and nitpick every source because I can't trust that the information they are presenting to me is the entire story, EVEN WHEN I agree with the thrust of their argument! That's incredibly frustrating. It's the exact same to their points about how crash death rates are highest in Africa and Southeast Asia despite fewer cars per person: anyone could tell you that the adherence to road safety and infrastructure in those places is worse than in Europe, Japan/Korea, the US etc etc. It's easily explained, we don't need to talk about it as if the car is somehow intrinsically racist and this is a point to that, it feels WAY too much having a social justice axe to grind when all the other points are much more concrete and don't require any sort of harkening back to colonialism. It's........I don't know, it bothers me. It's also the same cherrypicking the ages where the leading cause of death is, 5-29, when when I checked broader statistics recently, even outside infant mortality and looking at just adults, accidental poisoning recently usurped automobile accidents (in the US).

        All that is to say: I want denser, more walkable cities, I do not think we need to overemphasize or coerce data to that end: denser areas are often desirable, and people on tildes in prior arguments with me have pointed to the increased cost in highly walkable areas as a premium people are willing to pay, so if cities want some of that premium they will densify and add the things people want, most of the interventions the article suggested. All in all, it just makes me roll my eyes, which is bad, but I suppose overall it's fine? I don't really know what I'm getting at at this point, it just struck a nerve I suppose.

        2 votes
        1. scroll_lock
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: a bit Sarcasm/humor: none Thankfully this is already happening. IMO, the pivot to EVs isn't happening fast enough, but there is a lot of...
          Comment box
          • Scope: information
          • Tone: neutral
          • Opinion: a bit
          • Sarcasm/humor: none

          there should be MASSIVE subsidization of EVs to replace ICE if we hope to limit the harms of cars

          Thankfully this is already happening. IMO, the pivot to EVs isn't happening fast enough, but there is a lot of inertia both in government and in industry to develop infrastructure to incentivize greener vehicles on the producer end and to support an electrified network on the consumer end. Here are two developments of note:

          So one of the reasons I feel comfortable expressing my dissatisfaction with EVs is that the movement here is all but unstoppable already. I will still defend EVs from people who falsely believe them to be more environmentally damaging than ICEs, or are just uneducated about the benefits in general, but I'm not interested in hiding the fact that they are still cars, and cars still suck.

          it feels WAY too much having a social justice axe to grind

          I'm not necessarily able to dispute that (whether or not you are correct), which is why I omitted some of the race-based statistics from those countries in my summary. But I am pretty familiar with the scientific literature on car-centric design, and I can attest that the environmental, health, economic, financial, and energy-focused critiques the article provides are substantively in line with other research. It is always possible to find little nitpicks, but the thrust of the paper is nevertheless accurate.

          It's a little hard to defend an entire literature review because it covers so many topics, but for a start, I might point you toward Donald Shoup's writings on parking reform as an example of a fundamental space inefficiency of cars and how that affects life in towns and cities. Really scintillating reading, I know, though I think it underscores the innate problems cars (which always require storage) offer to urbanized landscapes. Inefficient land use, including for parking lots and parking garages, makes higher density very difficult and expensive because it is correlated with higher housing costs per a given area. That increases the cost of living for everyone in an area, which exacerbates social and economic inequality. Just an example.

          I could extend that analysis much further, especially as it pertains to people with disabilities, seniors, children, etc. who experience the externalities of car-based cities in unique ways. But that is itself a huge series of topics. If you want to read more about the underlying connections between car-dependency and the issues presented, I do suggest looking at some of the academic sources in more depth, and I can give more precise reading suggestions for some (not all) of these things. I can also provide some personal anecdotes to demonstrate some correlations discussed in literature, or clarification based on cities I am familiar with of how these factors influence life.

          My account bio lists a few accessible internet creators who talk about urban planning and environmental matters. CityNerd is one of them, though there are others. Almost all content you find on YouTube is going to be geared toward simplicity, but Delahanty and Amos are examples of professionals in their fields who have worthwhile perspectives. Folks like Martin and Slaughter are not (AFAIK) credentialed in the same way, but still produce interesting content. Blog-based content, such as public transit discussion (especially on bus networks) from consultants like Walker and train/high-speed rail discussion from Levy, can be comparatively detailed; especially Levy, who I quote here all the time. (They have an excellent blog called Pedestrian Observations which gets quite technical about railways, if you are interested in that sort of thing.) They are also responsible for many publications from organizations like the Effective Transit Alliance and the Transit Costs Project, and TransitMatters. As far as local advocacy goes, Strong Towns produces both accessible and actionable media beyond probably any other creator I've mentioned, who tend to be less focused on real-world advocacy.

          5 votes