Probably The American Conservative magazine is not going to become any go-to source for critical thought on climate. And yet here we are. Earlier this month they asked whether the transportation side of our climate policy has become captured by EV techno-mania. And that is a very good question.
|Conservatives questioning our EV Mania|
Yesterday's announcement of the President's infrastructure plan got lots of headlines, and one particularly exciting element was more talk about Amtrak and the prospect of improving the Eugene-Vancouver, BC corridor.
But as Streetsblog points out with the first of their five big questions, the initial concept in the plan may have too much EV mania and not enough non-auto enthusiasm.
- Do we really need this much money for electric cars?
- How will we spend that $20 billion to make streets “safe for all”?
- Will road ‘repair’ projects morph into highway expansions?
- Will we reconnect neighborhoods right?
- Will transit really get its due?
We won't follow this too closely here, but as others chime in with analysis we may update this post or, if things get really interesting, it might merit a series of posts.
|Saying the right things - via Twitter|
In any case, particularly if prospects for passage become likely, this could get very exciting. Our Secretary of Transportation is saying the right things - can it all get translated into actual budgets and budgeted priorities?
Elsewhere (this may be updated):
- At Sightline on housing and land use, "Zoning Reformer in Chief: President Joe Biden wants you to lift your bans on duplexes, apartments, and car-free homes."
- At Transportation for America, they have several preliminary observations. They also ask about safety: "$20 billion for “safety” but nothing explicitly prioritizing safety over speed."