The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If it really were the case that the infrastructure was simply all built and not costing us much more money, then you'd have a much more compelling argument. In reality, one of the biggest arguments against the status quo is that we'd have to spend so much to continue down the current trajectory that we just can't afford it. That's something we have to come to terms with regardless of how anyone feels about it. For instance, few cities of any size seem to be able to stay ahead of car congestion. There's always some big, expensive project needed to fix traffic whether it be a new highway or by-pass, road widening, calls for a multi-billion dollar harbour crossing, Boston-style big dig, or something. That, combined with all the other issues makes for an overwhelming case. It's true that there is already existing infrastructure but the question is what we should be spending money on going forward. We can do a certain amount to alter the current streets to make them more accessible to other conveyances without spending a huge amount, but building more car specific infrastructure is always going to be very costly.



There seems to be a misunderstanding about what some people are calling for. It isn't for no one to use a car for anything, it's that the whole of society shouldn't continue to be designed around cars exclusively. It isn't so much about a complete retrofit of what already exists, but about how to move forward in terms of new development. Even in places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam where there's many times more walking and biking, or places like Stockholm, NY, or Lausanne where there's far greater transit usage, there are still some cars and that's ok. If I didn't believe that i wouldn't be supportive of the move toward EVs.



The two are not divisible though though because it's a system in which the different parts work together. You can't talk about conveyance without talking about where people want or need to be conveyed. That's why in urban planning programs there are often "transportation and land use" classes (like this one I took at Dal) as a combined topic. In order for cars to actually even be convenient, there needs to be lots of parking, which outside of central cities tend to mean surface lots, and that causes things to be very spread out. It's common for buildings to occupy less than 1/4 of their lots, and taken together that quadruples the distance people have to travel to get places. And when things are so spread out, you need a motor vehicle to get to them since most things are too far to walk or bike and transit only works well when there's a lot of people traveling between common destinations. In a city that isn't designed in that way, cars aren't going to be convenient for such a huge proportion of trips.

For instance, if you didn't have expressways like the circ or bi-hi running through metro areas allowing people to cross town at highway speeds, or broad multi-lane roads with wide intersection spacing like Portland st, it would take ages to get places because of congestion, lower speed limits, and the number of stop signs and red lights. And if we didn't dedicate so much land to parking (with paved surfaces causing their own problems in terms of rain runoff and urban heat island) then driving would also be less convenient compared to alternatives.

The difficulty with the topic is that people want to ignore the link between transportation and land use and just pretend the conversation is between one "conveyance" vs another with all else remaining the same. If you design a place such that only one conveyance is feasible for most trips, then of course only that mode is going to be feasible for most trips. In other words, the design and layout of cities comes first, the design of the transportation infrastructure comes second, and conveyances used within the resulting context comes third.

There's not much to disagree with there, but despite all the negative aspects, cars still dominate the landscape. Sure, we could blow it all up to create something that suits peoples' needs/wants better... but what is that?

You suggest that cars still have a place, and I agree, but that means that the infrastructure still has to be maintained.

It's OK that you don't have an answer - nobody does. That's why, instead of creating a whole new way of getting around that provides the flexibility and usefulness of the car, we are simply just moving them by a different power source.

Reducing auto usage? Great idea, but to be replaced by what? Unless people agree to give up non-essentials (like sports, recreation, busy schedules created by work/life balance, etc.), I don't see this changing practically.

So we will have EVs. Apparently it's what the best and smartest among us can come up with right now, that still has a business case, as well. We'll see what the next big thing is, if it happens in our lifetimes, I suppose...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Given that we've structured our entire society around auto culture in the last 70 years and accepted massive negative impacts that come from that, reducing auto culture is exactly what we need.

Originally Posted by Mister F

Hell of a leap from acknowledging that cars have benefits to building our communities in a way that makes it all but impossible to get around unless you're driving. We would get far more benefits by moving away from near universal car dependence.


Do you have 19 minutes?

I've included your first quote for convenience.

I don't think it's much of a leap. It started when somebody attempted to attach a newish technology to a horse carriage in an attempt to eliminate the need to use horses to get around. They still ran on the same roads that horses, wagons, and people used, but the roads were quite bad. Often becoming rutted and muddy, and almost impassible, even for horses and wagons. Citizens complained, roads were improved by government. Many city streets were paved with cobblestones or other types of stone surface before cars became a thing. Eventually the public decided that cars were a better way to get around than horses, for numerous reasons that don't need an explanation.

Planners decided that cars should be accommodated more, since they had become so popular and integrated into peoples' lives, governments wanted to keep their citizens happy, so new roadways were optimized to accommodate the car (and trucks, buses, etc.). As expected, some worked well, some not so much.

We got to the point, quite some time ago, where the downsides of such a system had become apparent. Now we, as a society, are faced with the problem of where to go with it, but so far we are just continuing along the same path. So it's obvious that our society gets good function out of this form of transportation, despite all of its negative points.

I've been curious about this for quite some time, and started reading forums like SSP a long time ago to try to understand the phenomenon and what can be done about it. What I noticed is that I keep hearing the same things said over and over again, and when I think deeply about it, I realize that much of it seems short sighted, as in let's remove the problem while not having an actual solution that doesn't result in a large decrease in quality of life for the majority of citizens. Nobody really has an answer, but just keeps repeating the same stuff over again...

So, no thank you, none of the videos people post tell me anything I haven't heard before, and I don't want to waste 56 minutes, 19 minutes, even 5 minutes listening to some person preaching to me as if it's new stuff.

Forgive me if I seem a little crusty and impatient... repetitiveness does that to me. So until somebody comes up with a solution that the public will embrace more than having a personal vehicle that will take you where you want/need, when you want/need, and is always there, ready for you to hop in it and drive across the city to an appointment, or across the country for a vacation, there's no need to come to a thread about electric vehicles and tell us all how bad vehicles are for us. We know, but collectively as a country (not just SSP members) we've decided to put up with the negatives in order to take advantage of the benefits. I'm not sure how I can state it more clearly than that.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There's not much to disagree with there, but despite all the negative aspects, cars still dominate the landscape. Sure, we could blow it all up to create something that suits peoples' needs/wants better... but what is that?

You suggest that cars still have a place, and I agree, but that means that the infrastructure still has to be maintained.

It's OK that you don't have an answer - nobody does. That's why, instead of creating a whole new way of getting around that provides the flexibility and usefulness of the car, we are simply just moving them by a different power source.

Reducing auto usage? Great idea, but to be replaced by what? Unless people agree to give up non-essentials (like sports, recreation, busy schedules created by work/life balance, etc.), I don't see this changing practically.

So we will have EVs. Apparently it's what the best and smartest among us can come up with right now, that still has a business case, as well. We'll see what the next big thing is, if it happens in our lifetimes, I suppose...

I do have an answer which I've mentioned many times. A very simple and clear answer which is mirrored by the HRM's official plans. Adjusting the built form to make it easier for more people to make some trips without cars. It's something we know perfectly well can be done since there as very different rates of driving, transit, walking, and biking across different cities, not just internationally but even right in Canada. Saying that "despite all the negative aspects, cars still dominate the landscape" is basically saying that because a problem we've just started trying to solve hasn't already been solved, that it can't be solved so we shouldn't bother trying to solve it.

I'm frankly a little baffled as to where you got the idea that "nobody has an answer". The only explanations I can think of are that either you haven't been listening or simply don't like the answer. Neither of which are in any way the same as an answer not existing. Things like "Unless people agree to give up non-essentials" makes it sound like a hopeless task that degrades quality of life when it's been thoroughly documented that the rates of auto usage do drop when cities are designed such that people have reasonable alternatives. And in fact, there are several studies consistently showing that people tend to be happiest with their commutes when done by active transportation with transit coming 2nd is some studies and cars in others (likely based on the quality of different transit systems.)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26650670/
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...blic_transport
https://transfersmagazine.org/magazi...-quality-time/

The part that we seem to keep glossing over is that it's too expensive to continue doing things the same way we've been doing them based on the actual statements of cities including the HRM. The HRM's Regional Plan sets a goal of having a minimum of 30% of trips made by transit or active transportation by 2030, up from 23% in 2011. The reason for this is that as the population grows, the city not only has to pay to maintain the current road infrastructure which it already finds challenging, but would need to embark on various high cost capacity expansions to avoid congestion from the increased traffic loads. Yet it would be much less costly to provide that extra capacity through other modes. If something is very expensive, talking about how wonderful it is and how you don't personally care for the alternatives is fine, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. You have to choose among the options you can afford and not get bogged down with worrying about the differences.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So, no thank you, none of the videos people post tell me anything I haven't heard before, and I don't want to waste 56 minutes, 19 minutes, even 5 minutes listening to some person preaching to me as if it's new stuff.

Forgive me if I seem a little crusty and impatient... repetitiveness does that to me. So until somebody comes up with a solution that the public will embrace more than having a personal vehicle that will take you where you want/need, when you want/need, and is always there, ready for you to hop in it and drive across the city to an appointment, or across the country for a vacation, there's no need to come to a thread about electric vehicles and tell us all how bad vehicles are for us. We know, but collectively as a country (not just SSP members) we've decided to put up with the negatives in order to take advantage of the benefits. I'm not sure how I can state it more clearly than that.

The problem is that while this topic involves aspects of human values and emotions, it's largely reliant on empirical, verifiable facts. When I post videos it's by creators who cite the studies they're drawing their conclusions from which, frankly, would take me much longer to compile on my own. This is important because if two people make conflicting claims about facts, the only way to resolve it is to look at the actual data. If someone claims "Assertion X" and the other person doesn't believe them, then the solution is for the first person to provide a resource confirming assertion X. But if the second person assumes they've already seen or heard it all and won't listen, then it's impossible to resolve the disagreement or for the second person to learn anything new. We're all busy and reviewing evidence is time consuming. But what it comes down to is that having and defending a strong position on a fact-heavy topic is time consuming. If you don't have the time to engage with all the evidence, you don't have the time to hold a position on the topic with any level of certainly.

There's a common technique often used when attempting to find common ground in the case of disagreements over facts. If someone seems to have made up their mind and isn't open to reconsidering their position no matter the argument or information presented, it's best to ask them, "What information would you need to see in order to change your mind?" If they answer that there's nothing anyone could provide them that could change their mind, then they're a lost cause who isn't open to reason. But if that's not the case they'll be able to describe what facts or evidence they would find persuasive. So I guess that's all we can do.

In my case, if I saw evidence that:
- the rates of auto, transit, and active transport usage could not be shifted over time by designing cities to better accommodate a particular mode
- that cities with comparable incomes had a higher quality of life if they have higher rates of auto usage or,
- That it isn't actually much more costly for cities to build exclusively for cars

Then I'd definitely rethink my stance. Even though there are other problems associated with auto dominance, those pieces of evidence would make me want to find another way to address them.

But what, if any, evidence could persuade you? And would you actually be willing to take the time to engage with it if it was provided?

[Nouvellecosse]

To be clear, people don't necessarily need to watch hour long videos in order to be open minded. If someone makes a claim you disagree with, you can often just post counter evidence to prove the opposite of their claim instead. The issue is when someone claims "X" and someone counter claims "not X" and the person claiming not x is neither willing to consider evidence provided for X or provide evidence showing not X. Then it just becomes an evidence-free discussion which is a problem for any topic heavily reliant on evidence.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Great posts as always, Nouvellecosse (can I call you "Ed" for short? ).

I'm often baffled on how an offhand comment can turn into pages of responses. I think the answer is that different people expect different things from the conversation. Some of us want to have casual conversation, some of us want to debate and argue, some of us want to go into detail to explain our point of view, hoping to pursuade others to see things our way. My take is generally the first, and I think yours tends to be a combination of the others. All fine, but please excuse me if I decide not to spend further time on the back-and-forth. If it helps satisfy a little, I'll say "you win", though I didn't intend to have an argument in the first place.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by lio45

I’ve seen several Lightnings (last sighting today had Vermont plates so not even a Canadian market model ) and also I see Polestars on occasion — you have those in the States too?

Congrats Acajack on your EV!!! The Mach E is actually my favorite. Great choice

I've liked the Polestar since I first saw the renderings in Motor Trend years ago. I have a friend that's a Ford mechanic and he's seen a Lightning at the dealership. Since he's on the commercial vehicle side he hasn't had a chance to poke around to see the ins and outs of the Lightning but he said it looks very promising to be a success.

It's nice to see how quickly Canadians are embracing electric vehicles. I like the Mach E as well. Congrats Acajack.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by travis3000

THIS. Totally agree. I was the same. Never really into cars, but now that I have the Tesla I follow EVs, do lots of research, baby the hell out of it.

Congrats on the purchase! The Mach E is a beauty and was my 2nd choice, but Im more of a sedan guy and contrary to some opinions I love the look of the model 3. Its sleek, sexy, minimalist, and with all the work I've done to it I always get people stopping me randomly to compliment it. And to get 0-60 mph in only 3.7 seconds, there's no car (EV or ICE) that comes close to that for the price. Yes Im a bit of a speed demon haha.

wow, that's crazy fast!
I thought only the Model S could get close to that speed. Do you have some advanced option on your Model 3?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Great posts as always, Nouvellecosse (can I call you "Ed" for short? ).

I'm often baffled on how an offhand comment can turn into pages of responses. I think the answer is that different people expect different things from the conversation. Some of us want to have casual conversation, some of us want to debate and argue, some of us want to go into detail to explain our point of view, hoping to pursuade others to see things our way. My take is generally the first, and I think yours tends to be a combination of the others. All fine, but please excuse me if I decide not to spend further time on the back-and-forth. If it helps satisfy a little, I'll say "you win", though I didn't intend to have an argument in the first place.

I think you're 100% right. We just have different expectations and reasons for being here. I'm actually very conflict averse and therefore strongly dislike the whole "win / lose" dichotomy. When i encounter a disagreement my instinct is to methodologically dissect the issue, identify the core source of disagreement, and either reconcile or resolve it to the satisfaction of both sides. "Reconcile" in the case of value differences that have no right or wrong answer and therefore require compromise, and resolve in the case of disagreement on facts in which the truth of the matter can be discovered. I see the forum as a sort of microcosm of wider society, and since I obviously can't talk to everyone, if it's possible to reconcile/resolve differences with a few people holding opposing views, it gives me hope that the same can be done on a wider scale. I do sometimes make provocative statements in order to spur the process, but that's only because it's a lot of work and many people are hesitant to engage otherwise.

But I realize it's just not always possible, something I discovered very early in my time here. One long time member in the Halifax section who I disagreed with basically ignored anything I said and simply repeated the same position over and over. After a few years i gave up and just added them to ignore list. I know that's an aspect of society and in those cases the only option is to simply "defeat" them electorally and in the marketplace of ideas, but that's not something I have ever - or probably will ever - enjoy. I just find it too stressful and upsetting.

But I understand we all have different views and approaches, including on public discourse itself. And obviously you're a lot nicer than that person so it's all good.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think you're 100% right. We just have different expectations and reasons for being here. I'm actually very conflict averse and therefore strongly dislike the whole "win / lose" dichotomy. When i encounter a disagreement my instinct is to methodologically dissect the issue, identify the core source of disagreement, and either reconcile or resolve it to the satisfaction of both sides. "Reconcile" in the case of value differences that have no right or wrong answer and therefore require compromise, and resolve in the case of disagreement on facts in which the truth of the matter can be discovered. I see the forum as a sort of microcosm of wider society, and since I obviously can't talk to everyone, if it's possible to reconcile/resolve differences with a few people holding opposing views, it gives me hope that the same can be done on a wider scale. I do sometimes make provocative statements in order to spur the process, but that's only because it's a lot of work and many people are hesitant to engage otherwise.

But I realize it's just not always possible, something I discovered very early in my time here. One long time member in the Halifax section who I disagreed with basically ignored anything I said and simply repeated the same position over and over. After a few years i gave up and just added them to ignore list. I know that's an aspect of society and in those cases the only option is to simply "defeat" them electorally and in the marketplace of ideas, but that's not something I have ever - or probably will ever - enjoy. I just find it too stressful and upsetting.

But I understand we all have different views and approaches, including on public discourse itself. And obviously you're a lot nicer than that person so it's all good.

All good for me too!

One of the things I enjoy about SSP is the quality of information presented, and the level of discourse shown by many (and that doesn't mean that it has to be all rays of sunshine).

From my perspective, it's been a learning experience over the past dozen years I've been a member here, but as I mentioned in a previous post, there comes a point where I may arrive at a different conclusion than others, based on my personal experience and point of view. It can be argued right or wrong on numerous levels, but frankly, we're not changing the world here, and I have other things in life that I want to devote my time and energy to. So I'm at the point where this is a place to come for info, opinions, and to an extent... entertainment. If it becomes work, or stressful, then there are other places that I'd rather be. On a personal note, I've had some difficult losses in the past year, losing a family member and a long-time good friend fairly recently (and suddenly/unexpectedly). The trauma and grief surrounding these losses puts things into perspective, and for me life's too short to have a long drawn-out discussion where every point is batted back and forth, with a diminishing level of benefit the further it carries on. Just me and the way I'm seeing the world and my life these days. I've seen so many videos explaining/preaching/pushing points of view, etc., that I'm just not willing to invest any more of me into that - especially when you've just watched something for a half hour and realize that you haven't heard anything new, just something said by a different person in a slightly different way. I'm kinda done with all that.

So, yeah, that's enough for me. I'm good.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I've liked the Polestar since I first saw the renderings in Motor Trend years ago. I have a friend that's a Ford mechanic and he's seen a Lightning at the dealership. Since he's on the commercial vehicle side he hasn't had a chance to poke around to see the ins and outs of the Lightning but he said it looks very promising to be a success.

It's nice to see how quickly Canadians are embracing electric vehicles. I like the Mach E as well. Congrats Acajack.

I saw a FB post a few weeks ago from Village Ford in Dorchester Ontario just outside London, congratulating their customer on being the dealership's first Lightning purchase. As an aside, I love this dealership. A throwback to a small town car lot of decades ago. It's literally one of those old full serve Esso gas stations with attached 2 bay garages, with the dealership in the little office part of the gas station. Look at their staff online and there is the owner (who is the only sales rep), an accountant, 2 mechanics and fuel guy. They have a MACH E on the lot for $92,000 lol

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've included your first quote for convenience.

I don't think it's much of a leap. It started when somebody attempted to attach a newish technology to a horse carriage in an attempt to eliminate the need to use horses to get around. They still ran on the same roads that horses, wagons, and people used, but the roads were quite bad. Often becoming rutted and muddy, and almost impassible, even for horses and wagons. Citizens complained, roads were improved by government. Many city streets were paved with cobblestones or other types of stone surface before cars became a thing. Eventually the public decided that cars were a better way to get around than horses, for numerous reasons that don't need an explanation.

Planners decided that cars should be accommodated more, since they had become so popular and integrated into peoples' lives, governments wanted to keep their citizens happy, so new roadways were optimized to accommodate the car (and trucks, buses, etc.). As expected, some worked well, some not so much.

We got to the point, quite some time ago, where the downsides of such a system had become apparent. Now we, as a society, are faced with the problem of where to go with it, but so far we are just continuing along the same path. So it's obvious that our society gets good function out of this form of transportation, despite all of its negative points.

I'm well aware of the history. Your version of it makes it seem like it was all based on public preferences and inevitable. That's not the case at all. Public sentiment was very much against the way that cars were impacting cities when they were getting popularized. Car and oil industry lobbying played a big role in shifting things in their favour. They invented the concept of jaywalking, pressured politicians, and even bought streetcar systems and shut them down. Eventually government rules mandated car dependency into all new communities. Those rules persist today.

People were never getting around en masse in cities by horse, they were largely getting around by walking and, later, taking public transit. And they still do in neighbourhoods built before 1950. And in countries with more enlightened planning.

Even if we ignore the health costs, safety impacts, and poor financial performance of car centric communities, public preferences don't line up with the way that things are today. Older, pedestrian focused communities are in high demand but we're not allowed to build any more of them, ensuring that supply never meets demand. The public doesn't have a chance to form preferences because car dependency is all that's allowed.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've been curious about this for quite some time, and started reading forums like SSP a long time ago to try to understand the phenomenon and what can be done about it. What I noticed is that I keep hearing the same things said over and over again, and when I think deeply about it, I realize that much of it seems short sighted, as in let's remove the problem while not having an actual solution that doesn't result in a large decrease in quality of life for the majority of citizens. Nobody really has an answer, but just keeps repeating the same stuff over again...

No, we do have an answer. We can build our communities the way we used to, communities that still exist today and function better than newer, car dependent ones. We can build new communities like they do in other countries that understand that walkable communities make society richer, healthier, and safer. The answers are out there and well understood by decades of research and experience. All we have to do is pay attention.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So, no thank you, none of the videos people post tell me anything I haven't heard before, and I don't want to waste 56 minutes, 19 minutes, even 5 minutes listening to some person preaching to me as if it's new stuff.

And yet you have time to write multiple long posts on SSP.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Mister F

And yet you have time to write multiple long posts on SSP.

Not anymore I don't... I spent more time than I really wanted to in order to try to explain the thought process behind my posts, as I respected you enough to want you to see where I was coming from. For my efforts I receive a snarky insult.

Have a good night.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Condolences for your loss. Goes to show you never really know what people are going through.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Wigs

wow, that's crazy fast!
I thought only the Model S could get close to that speed. Do you have some advanced option on your Model 3?

Since he already called me an "expert", I will opine that it must be the performance model, the base model is somewhere around 5 secs. BTW, there are ICE cars that can beat the Plaid too.

https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-model-3/

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Wigs

wow, that's crazy fast!
I thought only the Model S could get close to that speed. Do you have some advanced option on your Model 3?

I purchased the $2700 acceleration boost which is available to all Model 3 LRs. Takes the 0-60mph from 4.2 seconds to 3.7.

The difference is... I can now make my tires squeal every single time If I so choose haha. The speed is certainly addicting. I could never go back to gasoline cars now. That instant rush makes me feel like Im on am airplane ready to take off.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Architype

Since he already called me an "expert", I will opine that it must be the performance model, the base model is somewhere around 5 secs. BTW, there are ICE cars that can beat the Plaid too.

https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-model-3/

Yeah if they are tuned. Nothing stock beats it.

Regardless, Tesla is ready to blow them all out of the water when the Roadster comes out in 2024. Top speed 420KM/H. Will pass motorbikes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Condolences for your loss. Goes to show you never really know what people are going through.

Thanks for your thoughts. You deal with what comes up and just get through it. Meanwhile you can't forget that life goes on as normal for everybody else. It's the way it goes. There are a lot of people dealing with much worse.

It's true what you say, though, and it holds true for all social interactions. I think it's a good rule in life to always try to err on the kinder, gentler side if you can, because you don't know what the person on the other end is dealing with.

Oh well, enough of this tangent. Didn't mean to get into all of that. I'm thinking that SSP isn't the best place to come if one is looking for something to lift their spirits, though. Lots of negativity here. Hopefully it isn't a reflection on what is really residing in peoples' hearts these days, but it does seem like we are on the negative slope of the curve.

Cheers.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Forgive me if I seem a little crusty and impatient... repetitiveness does that to me. So until somebody comes up with a solution that the public will embrace more than having a personal vehicle that will take you where you want/need, when you want/need, and is always there, ready for you to hop in it and drive across the city to an appointment, or across the country for a vacation, there's no need to come to a thread about electric vehicles and tell us all how bad vehicles are for us. We know, but collectively as a country (not just SSP members) we've decided to put up with the negatives in order to take advantage of the benefits. I'm not sure how I can state it more clearly than that.

These conversations have a tendency of going into one extreme or the other, so I'll put it another way. Reducing car dependency doesn't mean you can't have a personal vehicle or drive a car to an appointment or on vacation. All of those things are possible in communities that are more oriented to other modes of getting around. You can live old suburbs like Riverdale or Leaside and own a car. But those communities are built in a way that makes driving just one option for getting around. The way that newer suburbs are built practically removes all other options and makes driving the only practical choice. That makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not anymore I don't... I spent more time than I really wanted to in order to try to explain the thought process behind my posts, as I respected you enough to want you to see where I was coming from. For my efforts I receive a snarky insult.

There were no insults in my post.

[Truenorth00]

• Video Link