No but I have a nose and lungs and I can smell the difference next to roads with jammed heavy traffic, it ain’t the CO2 and I am not simply imagining pollutants.

“almost completely zero toxic emissions” is a fairy tale. Respiratory issues remain to be a bigger issue in cities for a reason.

Toxic emissions from road traffic remain as major health problem in the US: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2107402118 (not the newest data but you are not claiming that in the 10 years since, everything has changed ro the beeter,are you?), even if progress has been made. I can’t wait to see those dirty combudtion engines (no matter how much you purify the exhaust) vanish from the streets. In Europe we are on the way at least even if China will ve likely faster

Pedestrian safety, especially for children, is however much worse, luckily no one cares about that in safety tests in the US. In Europe you get downgraded for it.

Toxic emissions have absolutely not gone down to zero. High respiration activities next to a highway still get you a solid dose of toxic stuff. Yes, it would be much worse with 1970s vehicles but it would be much better if the majority of vehicles sold today would not be able to use the regulatory SUV/truck loophole to be able to pollute more. This loophole is not just about CO2.

I witnessed myself what a huge impact on air quality it had on a street to see heavy two lane traffic gone and that had nothing to do with CO2 and it was even without that loophole you have in the US.

There are vast differences. Not every major city in the world is car-oriented, as in cars being given strong priority over all other means. What is true is that most cities are accessible by car. That is not the same.

Have a look at the density of various cities. Vienna for example has a population of around 2 mio within municipal limits within an area that is tiny compared to any actually car oriented city with a much smaller population. Also the urban area is organised along hubs and spokes to work well with public transportation but not so great for cars, at the same time, highway coverage within municipal borders is pretty poor. Most neighbourhoods, also outside of the centre have good walkable access to all sorts of local infrastructure, including supermarkets, gastronomy, health services, schools etc.

That is reflected in the modal split: 25% of all journeys in the city are done by car (not merely the city centre, the entire city which includes a population of around 2 mio, the large majority of people living in the metropolitan area), 34% are done by transit, 30% by walking and 11% by cycling.

Compare that to London, Ontario for example and if you don’t see the difference I don’t know what to say. And before you say that this comparison does not count as London, Ontario has only ~400k inhabitants. Yes, but both cities consume a very similar area in km2 and that’s the point.

Hardly, the EV adoption rate in the US is pretty poor and even if we ignore that, the share of EVs among existing vehicles on the road is way to small to be the dominating factor for the increase in weight. That said, yes, EVs will lead to an increase in weight, a necessary evil. However, that can be compensated by downscaling vehicles to actual needs. People are currently buying cars far larger than what they actually need for partly irrational and partly egoistic reasons (increasing threats to life and well being towards others in the hope to slightly decrease it towards oneself).

“A lot less” is something I’d like to have a source for, especially as the switch to SUVs and trucks is done to a large part to evade the much stricter emission norms for officially classified “cars”. Emissions could be a lot lower if the SUV loophole for many of the car norms had not been invented.

The graphs are terrible but come on, a 10% increase in weight in 10 years, doesn’t sound bad to you? Especially when the base value was anything but low to begin with? And an increased space consumption of 6% is a huge additional space consumption in absolute numbers, given the huge numbers of cars.

Ah, ad hominem. Always nice.

Your quote does not answer my question, but the source you linked to actually did.

Average vehicle weight by year

2014: 4060 pounds

2024: 4419 pounds

deleted by creator

I find it entertaining what people think is an issue with a car free life style. In reality transit oriented places make it much easier to have fresh produces at home. You can simply get them daily on your way home, by investing maybe 5-10 min extra (not travel time, for everything incl. shopping). You rarily need to go to a hypermarket and even then, cooler bags are a thing. So are shopping trolleys.

The solution is a cohesive well integrated system, of a mix of modes (local/ mid range/ rapid backbone) in a city that is optimised for public transit, cycling and walking. Buses have their place in that, so do trams, light rail and heavy metro and heavy rail.

That’s because you compare both in a car oriented setting. In a public transit oriented setting you won’t be faster by car.

Are you also saying that walking and cycling in a city is impossible and cuicidal because you judge it also based on a car oriented city?

A city designed for PT can be much more compact. A city designed for cars has to be much more bloated. What you are faster by car you have to drive further.

'Merica is more metric than even USians are ready to admit.

Yeah, show us the average numbers for all vehicles used for private personal transport then.