ANewMachine615

ANewMachine615 t1_ja827xj wrote

Not now, no, but they will eventually. And one of the most successful electric vehicles out there in terms of selling out its production for years to come is the F-150 Lightning, which is both electric and a larger chassis. But an average Tesla sedan is about the same weight as a standard F-150.

But as another comment here pointed out, most of the wear and tear still comes from heavy loads, 18 wheelers, etc.

Edit: my overall point was that you can't expand these things endlessly with our current funding model for upkeep of the networks they rely on (power or roads). For me, the fix is changing how we fund those networks rather than simply blaming the new tech abstractly. Heck I'd be down for a large gas tax increase + a registration fee for EVs that offset each other, so gas still pays for more of the maintenance as a method of discouraging further use of ICE cars.

2

ANewMachine615 t1_ja607va wrote

I wasn't aware of that, but it's a good change. They're less costly in terms of externalities, but they do tend to be heavier on average due to battery weight, and that can wear on roads over time.

Lots of stuff is gonna have to change from taxing the input to taxing the use, I think, if we really do get to change over to a more electrified and dsitributed energy system.

1

ANewMachine615 t1_ja5uaob wrote

Yeah, Manch has a ways to go. I'm in downtown Dover now, and good Lord it's gotta be the best "big little city" in New Hampshire, by a country mile. But Manch's new city plan was quite good. Here's hoping the fact that commuter rail will never happen doesn't kill the whole thing.

9

ANewMachine615 t1_ja5sjv4 wrote

> it doesn’t seem to fit in though given the rest of downtown

Why should it? Tons of architecture we love now wasn't fitting with the character of the neighborhood at the time of the original construction. Brownstones were hated in Boston, derided as cheap and cookie-cutter housing. Thank God the people who hated it didn't have the ability to make stop it. Now just think of all the stuff that we're stopping today that'd be classic and beloved in fifty years...

25

ANewMachine615 t1_ja4x6sk wrote

There is a possible free rider problem. Grid maintenance costs don't change much with lower use, and in some ways, more distributed generation offsets lower use of centrally generated power. Grid maintenance is billed on a per KwH, to my understanding. So folks with solar don't pay as much towards grid maintenance as other users. This is one of the ways solar pays for itself, but so long as you're still connected to the grid, it is a problem. Solvable by changing the funding model, of course. Same as the gas tax for highway maintenance will need to change as EVs become a larger share of the market to remain a viable funding model.

4

ANewMachine615 t1_j7n6ved wrote

That's fine, but the real key is to let as much varied housing be built as possible. People in this thread prefer this, and would be willing to rent it. Let them. I'd prefer a non-double-loaded hallway apartment building. Let them build that too!

The fix for housing is fewer mandates and restrictions, not more controls over what you can build.

2

ANewMachine615 t1_j2ehv9b wrote

And the people who can't afford to live there just... get worse lives for their kids? The people who live in worse-off areas live there for a reason, too, but I doubt many of them are saying "yeah, I COULD do better by my kids, but y'know, I'm sure our shitty schools are good enough."

21

ANewMachine615 t1_j2dv242 wrote

The idea of a donor town is that it's a town that pays more in taxes than it received in statewide education funding. IMO this is a pretty terrible way to rate anything, since it's a statewide funding scheme whose entire point is to move resources from affluent areas to less-affluent ones. But it's something folks in those affluent areas have taken up as a term to convince themselves/others that they're the victims here.

34

ANewMachine615 t1_ira8yqj wrote

So how is a consumer supposed to make an informed choice about a health care provider, if arguably the most critical information - their rate of legally culpable fuckups - is hidden from them? Insurers, hospitals, doctors, etc. All have incentives to hide this. Only wronged patients, who lack power and coordination, have an incentive here - and one of the requirements for most settlements is confidentiality.

Does MA have a social credit system? Are they China? And yet they make this info public.

What an absurd concern.

13