Pretty easy to make a socialist argument for cars IMHO.
It’d go something like, “the only way to ensure the right to mobility is equally distributed is to ensure every individual has what equates to a bus station in their own home.”
Using an ideology to support a desired outcome isn’t as hard as it should be.
Without teens and boomers, social media would be dead.
Subjectively.
Like most things, it is about preference and/or what the measure of success is. Some people prefer the tighter, mixed-use concepts and some don’t. I know people that would love a concept like this and I know people that would be overwhelmed and depressed.
The amount of goods that can be shipped and how much it costs to ship them is a massive part of this.
Vehicles have weight restrictions in a lot of regions. Everything you have to put into creating locomotion takes away from the transportation capacity. If the transportation capacity is too low, the investment into non-fossil fuel transportation of goods won’t be made as rapidly by companies.
Although the exact load on the day was not shared, the event organisers have previously stated that the average loads during the trial have been around 31.8 tonnes (70,000 lbs).
Without the load size, this is all pretty meaningless. If you’re going to talk avg load size, then you need to talk avg distances per charge/day.
My initial reaction is “fucking gross”, but that’s only because Google Maps has taught me what map colors should be. I’m old enought to have used a book-based atlas even before Yahoo Maps was popular, but young enough I don’t remember what that coloring was.
While I do find it harder to understand what is going on with the map, esp while driving, I’d be interested in reading more into why they made the change. So fucking help me God if this is just some graphic artists idea of what looks better…