Sunita Narain makes a case. Speaking of what she calls the Nano-flyover syndrome (Nano being Tata's new low-priced car), she says:
The question is should we discount the price of motorization so that some (and maybe a few more) can drive a car or a two-wheeler? Or should we pay the real cost of our commute so that the government can invest in mobility for all? The fact is that the government cannot afford to subsidize cars for all. Nor can it afford to invest in both cars and buses.Ultimately, it is not about economics. It is about politics and the imagination needed to build cities in which mobility does not mean cars.
More like this
Suppose you're running a small organization with five motor vehicles used by your staff and you want to replace them with more fuel-efficient versions, both to save money and reduce your organization's carbon footprint. Each vehicle travels 10,000 miles a year.
Back at the start of the summer, I asked a question about automotive thermodynamics: On a hot day, is it better to open your car windows a crack when making a short stop, or leave them closed?
First, I think we should all be using smaller lighter cars. They get better gas mileage, they are better for the environment and maybe even reduce traffic? (ok, not sure about that last one - but it is possible).
While browser over at programming.reddit.com, I came across something simultaneously hideous and amazing.