No, there are foundational differences in the studies that make them impossible to generalize. The widely cited studies are on company cars, where incentives are different
Also European electricity prices are very high, so savings are low or non-existent from plugging in. Not the case in Canada.

Wild

Latest year is 2023 so I think that’s not it.

What is being proposed is that neighborhoods can’t remain exclusionary single family-only enclaves. It needs to be possible to build housing everywhere, because humans need housing.

And AI is pretty good at that stuff right now in my experience if it’s a mainstream language

No doubt it will take much longer to take over core highly complex low level programming. But quite honestly most human programmers are also incapable of doing that work currently so it’s already a niche

Depends on the space, but just in the last 4 months I’ve seen AI coding assistance go from “it can write one function for you 75% of the time in a few iterations” to “it can implement a significant refactoring touching 50+ files in a single shot”

We will not agree here. For me, the housing is a greater positive than the forest that was there before

I cannot morally condemn today's sprawl when I live in yesterday's sprawl and we have still not provided an alternative for people

When we have abundant housing in town, I'm with you, not before

🤷‍♂️
Feel free to ask the 50,000 people that live in Langford on formerly pristine nature, whether they think their homes are a net positive or not.

Would it be better if we had built more compactly? Obviously yes.

Would it be worse for them if he hadn’t built at all? Also obviously yes

That's where I diverge from the general urbanist consensus.

I consider Langford sub-optimal but still a net positive. I'd rather have the housing than for the land to have remained undeveloped, just like I prefer my house to exist

Great if we could have zoned all that land for higher density instead. 110 years later we are still struggling with that, in fact we've on net made ~zero progress since 1914 on zoning

So I'm allergic to any housing solution that involves banning a type of housing before housing is widely permitted

Every bit of land in Victoria was once undeveloped or rural

I live in the sprawl of the 70s in what we now call the core. In fact a majority of people do. Would we be better off if we left it all undeveloped?

Yes to denser urban infill, but developing land for SFHs isn’t bad either, just limiting

Hmm. Hard to say. In principle a risk based approach seems sensible. If there’s new data on risk it makes sense for them to evaluate it sooner than every 15 years and if there’s no reason to believe that risk has increased then no point reviewing. But that presumes they are on top of the research

So now that they're abdicating all responsibility for EVs they're going to smarten up and invest in mode shift, right?

* insert star wars right meme*