SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
everybody in London is breathing toxic levels of PM2.5 particles. And the fact that the largest sources of PM2.5 particles are tires and brake dust suggests that electrification is at best only a partial answer.
We also have to drive a whole lot less.
Fortunately, London appears to be pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy when it comes to greener transportation, including electric buses to a massive investment in cycle infrastructure, the goal really does appear to be easing gridlock and rethinking how we get from one place to another.
London's cycle superhighways have already shown they can deliver 70% increases in cycling, and now Mayor Sadiq Kahn has announced an entirely new, fourth superhighway bringing segregated lanes to Southeast London for the first time.
Instead of car tire and brake dust, Londoners will be able to inhale healthier bike tire and brake dust.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:34PM (9 children)
Right now the incentives are all wrong.
Transaction costs eat up value in every home sale. Between the buyer and seller, it might be 10% or so. This discourages people from moving closer to work. You pay title insurance, absurd sales agent fees, title fee, probably lawyers, etc. Then there is the matter of a property tax reset. People who stay in one place are often able to limit yearly tax increases to a small fixed percentage by law. People who move closer to work have to pay more.
Vehicle weight matters. People want a large vehicle for some odd purpose, so they get one. Having a second vehicle to commute is unaffordable. Costs are up due to safety regulations and taxes. Well then, just drive a full-cab extended-bed truck everywhere!
Moving closer to work is difficult in 2-income families. We have encouraged everybody to work, never minding the environment or family life or anything else. Incentivizing single-income families would let people be closer to work, along with many other benefits.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:51PM
In the USA, with its absurd level of realtor fees, yes. In many other countries it's likely to be half this.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Friday October 06 2017, @12:20AM (5 children)
The article is about London, which makes your point about moving closer to work even more correct, as it is an incredibly expensive city to live in.
However it also has really good public transport. I can't understand why anyone who can avoid it would even bother driving in London, the Tube is awesome, the busses are pretty good too.
I must admit, when I voiced that opinion to a friend when I was there, she laughed and explained that compared to Berlin, London's Underground is an absolute shit-show.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @12:31AM (3 children)
If you are a healthy young unmarried male, you might not worry about your risks and you might not have any trouble carrying all your stuff. (note: public transport requires walking)
Well OK, that works for maybe 10% of the population.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday October 06 2017, @07:06AM (2 children)
The tube is not for married people? Who knew!
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @09:08AM (1 child)
If you are married, you have a person who would hopefully miss you if you didn't come home. This changes how much risk you are willing to take.
If you are married, you probably have a need for more groceries and other stuff. Carrying it becomes infeasible.
If you are married, you are probably older. You are thus weaker and more vulnerable to crime. You are also less able to walk large distances while carrying things.
Roughly half the married people are female. The above strength issues are likely more severe, you probably carry more junk, you probably have fewer pockets, and you have a higher risk of rape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @10:11PM
Strangely, despite all this, I see plenty of women (and men, of course) of all ages on the tube, I don't ask, but I'm sure a fair proportion of them are married.
Have you considered that you might be talking bollocks?
And honestly, driving in central London is pretty shit, parking is also a nightmare, and bloody expensive. Most people don't want to do it if they don't have to.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @12:39AM
Yeah the Tube can be extremely overcrowded especially at peak times and the problem is probably getting worse. It reaches absurd levels sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @10:58AM (1 child)
Title insurance?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 07 2017, @01:59AM
The USA does not actually track who legally owns property.
The USA instead tracks two other things, normally via country government. We track who is paying the property taxes, and we track all of the more recent property transfers.
If I buy from Joe, who bought from Kevin, who bought from George, who was not actually the owner... then I am not now the owner. The owner was actually Mary. Mary, or somebody who inherited Mary's stuff, actually owns the property. If I used that property as collateral to get a loan, there would be a huge problem for the bank if they had to foreclose on me. The bank therefore demands insurance.
For thousands of dollars, I can buy title insurance. The company looks over the records of property transactions as much as they wish, then sells me the insurance. If Mary comes along to get her property, the title insurance company pays for the loss. Perhaps they then sue Kevin, Joe, or George. Some of them may have bought title insurance, so that may pay the other title insurance company, and so on. Lots of lawsuits probably happen, and somebody is left with the loss.
Title to property must be traced all the way back to some sort of sovereign nation-state thing. That could be a war with the natives losing, a claim made in the name of a king, or similar. Sometimes rights can be partly respected even when territory changes country due to war. This is the case with Spanish land grants in California and with Hawaiian native land ownership.
It's a mess.