Cars are a massive waste of energy and resources compared to other transport options we have now.
Societis/cultures who ignore efficiency will be eventually forced to adapt against their will. It's just market economics.
(E.g., you can be obstinate and waste a significant chunk of your income just for the perceived comfort of a car, but over a few generations these people will lose in economic competition to people who act rationally.)
"People won't do something if it's not efficient" is quite a take. Demonstrably wrong, too. People will happily trade off more energy consumption for personal convenience.
As PV goes down its experience curve, the cost of operating an electric vehicle will fall. As batteries go down their curves, the cost of the vehicles themselves will fall. This will naturally push the equilibrium tradeoff point to larger, more energy intensive vehicles.
As someone who’s adopting bikes for most of my utility needs, food shopping, dropping kids off at school, one thing I can’t agree with is that cars are more convenient. In general, I find cars to be far less convenient. They are annoying to park, often get stuck in traffic, and generally are just annoying large boxes that you need a lot of space to maneuver. Using a cargo bike for most of those needs on the other hand is far more convenient. Cars are definitely more comfortable, especially on rainy days. But even on rainy days, I often choose to ride (if it’s not a crazy storm) as it’s still more convenient.
Cars are only inconvenient in a few dense urban areas. In the places where most Americans live/work/shop/recreate there is plenty of free parking and traffic isn't too bad.
You appear to have misunderstood the Census definitions. Most of what they label as "urban" or "suburban" is hardly dense by urban planning standards. The people living in those places mostly have a surplus of parking.
The census has a broad definition of urban, which is why I also linked the Bloomberg article that is a more articulate piece on what we should define as urban. Even using that, more than 60% of Americans live in urban environments.
The question is about convenience. Cars and parking, parking lots, moving through them, being stuck behind one or two cars traveling into and out of a parking lot. Even if there is ample parking, you generally have to walk longer distances from that than you do when you bike. That is why biking can be more convenient than driving. It’s not that you have to search for parking for 30-40 minutes at both ends of you trip, it’s that driving has all sorts of annoyances, like random traffic from crashes, lots of waiting at signals, lots of waiting for others to get their cars out of the way in parking lots. That’s always been my experience driving, and that includes the very rural place where my parents live. When you travel into town for groceries, you still have to deal with moving a car through all of those situations. If I’m closer than 2 or 3 miles to where I’m going, my preference is definitely not driving, because overall it’s more annoying than biking.
> People will happily trade off more energy consumption for personal convenience
This must be why European cars are generally smaller than American cars. It has nothing to do with the lack of tax breaks on large vehicles, historically higher gas prices, and notoriously smaller parking spots. Nothing at all. Europeans just like smaller cars, right?
And let’s not get into why half of Asia seems to ride around on tiny little 50cc vespas/scooters. I’m sure that’s just more comfortable there what with all the extremely hot weather and monsoon rains.
You use money to buy energy. Wouldn't matter that you're money-bound if gas was free. With gas (energy) not being free, people are voting with their wallet to say they would rather spend their limited funds on things other than energy.
For example: Going bonkers crazy on insulation is a common thing to do in Europe. We had TV ads for triple-pane windows back in the 1990s in a country (Slovenia) where re-doing your windows costs an annual wage or more. Because over N years it comes out cheaper than paying for energy.
Energy is so cheap in USA, at least in CA where I am, that even in 2024 seeing double-pane windows on a house is rare. Let alone triple or quadruple pane, which have become the norm back home.
> Cars are a massive waste of energy and resources compared to other transport options we have now.
Comfort is something we spend energy and resources on. This is a good thing.
You could potentially argue its too much energy/resources but that's not a determination you can make, not having access to people's internal emotional states. Some people really like giant fuzzy toys, some like nothing more than flying and some like fancy VR.
We should let people spend the energy/resources they earn on what gives them the most comfort/enjoyment or we'll be Typical Mind Fallacying our way to collective unhappiness.
(The above assumes that the externalities of cars are correctly priced in in the form of car insurance, road tax, congestion charge and fuel duty)
Cars are a massive waste of energy and resources compared to other transport options we have now.
Societis/cultures who ignore efficiency will be eventually forced to adapt against their will. It's just market economics.
(E.g., you can be obstinate and waste a significant chunk of your income just for the perceived comfort of a car, but over a few generations these people will lose in economic competition to people who act rationally.)