Even if we did want to humor them. 1 or 2 train tracks to cross is much easier for an animal than a 6 lane road of mixed traffic. Trains are all chained together so rails see a train every 5-15 minutes at most whereas a road could see hundreds of cars all spaced apart and going different speeds in that same time frame. Trains will still hit some animals, but it far less per person/good moved per mile of travel than a car.

As for their resources argument yes they still use resources, but it is less resources spent overall so still a better option.

Well technically some parking space and asphalt might be needed. And the odd snail or small snake may get hit by bicycles, and tires still shed particles off of bikes, but the scale is vastly different in comparison to cars.

My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives

The government building transit would effect the number of people who need to rely on a car.

Asphalt is at least the most recycled material we use. I guess except water technically speaking.

Those issues from trains and busses are less impact per person than a private automobile. Also pretty sure they don’t need to salt train tracks and trains don’t use tires (except a few very rare examples).

You do realize those roads are only driveable because of extensive maintaince. If we stopped maintaining a specific road and built tracks instead, many people would choose the tram/train as the road would be too rough to travel at any decent speed after a few years. The infrastructure we build and maintain directly impact the mode people use. And currently many places exclussively build and maintain roads, often not even including the option of a sidewalk.

Im curious if the additional weight of EVs causes more tire wear and ends up negating any savings from the brake dust. We also have to consider manufacturing and disposal of both vehicles to be truly fair.

Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

This, to me, shows cars are more damaging than what just comes out of their tail pipes. Maybe the illustration could have included impacts of cycling and transit to help illustrate the point it is trying to make by comparing the impacts.

The irony is, teflon is used extensively in water treatment and plumbing as well.

Cost is an important factor. Someone has to pay for installation, maintenance etc. It needs to be clear how much is going to fall on municipalities, provinces, and feds to tackle this issue. Dumping all the costs on a municipality is unreasonable.

A partial solution could be something like a rebate for in home RO installations for drinking and cooking water. This tackles the biggest health concern while only treating a small fraction of the total water a city pumps.

Those chemicals are not easy to remove, especially compared to traditional water treatments. New solutions need to be developed or a new, uncontaminated source found for some areas. Reverse osmosis could probably reduce the toxic chemicals, but reverse osmosis is expesnive to install and operate and very energy intensive. Getting the toxic chemicals out is easier said than done.

Not the onion but still from a fake news site.

Not just safety data but comutes times are expected to shorten and congestion to decrease. Turns out one more lane bro does work if that lane is for bikes or transit.

I bet a tax cut for the rich would finally kick trickle down economics into gear.

Those trees really jump out in front of drivers sometimes.

If thats the case, every car needs a high visibility paint job. Its only fair.

They typically call those zones by parks, trails, and sports complexs community safety zones. To be honest those zones should be 24 hours as they see lots pedestrian traffic often including children.

Part of the problem is that roadway rule enforcement is seen as the police’s problem and the police’s budget, which is probably why they were getting the revenue from the cameras in the first place.

The portion of police budgets that goes to traffic control, responding to accidents, doing radar, and issuing tickets should be considered part of the roadway budget. How we design, fund, maintain roadways and their alternatives directly impacts the funding needed to enforce roadway rules and respond to roadway accidents. It doesn’t seem fair for speed enforcement not to be considered while designing the road then just dump that problem onto the police budget.