MrMakabar
to developers that they could fit another 2 or 3 stores in a lot that was previously going to be dedicated to parking
That is exactly my point. Underground parking adds 35-50% to a mid rise building construction cost. That means people have the choice between larger or cheaper units without a parking spot and more expensive ones with a parking spot. Even with underground parking mid rise buildings are already cheaper then single family housing. Especially ifthe area we are talking about has high land prices, like pretty much every city.
They are looking at the time since 1990. So a lot of these are decisions made by previous governments, which just take time to go to actual infrastructure. As an example, when you want to turn your district heating system green, the government first has to pass the laws to push the company owning it to do that(regardless of state owned or private). Then the actual engineering begins of what to built instead, then it gets built and only then you are actually saving emissions. Obviously that process takes years from the first law to the actual say large heat pump being built. However when you have the company already in the process of building the heat pump, even a change in government and sometimes even a change in law, does not mean they shut down the project. At this point it is fairly likely that sunk cost just drives it forward.
That is to say the current Swedish governments actions will start to be felt about now and really start to cause problems maybe around 2026 or so.
Imho the best policy is to require a permanent parking space close to the main residence of the person owning the car. With permanent access I mean that the space is only to be used for the car and has to be either rented or owned by the person using it. This is rather easy to do in a rural setting, but much harder the more urban the area becomes.
The next part is making access worse for cars. Place parking further away from interesting destinations then bicycle parking and public transport access. Like having bicycle racks right next to the shop doors. That also includes just removing parking as much as possible. Besides handicap spots obviously. Also modal filters to block cars to move through certain streets, but allow bicycles and pedestrians to use those. That can also mean one directional roads.
Slow down cars as much as possible. When cars are as fast as bicycles, cars loose a massive advantage. This has to be done using built infrastructure and not just street signs, but those are an important start. So narrow roads, little viewing space and speed bumps. Also traffic lights are a good option. Give priority to other forms of transport(default green for pedestrians and bicycles for example).
This sucks. I hoped that the LibDems would have more seats then the Tories.
A war over Taiwan would at first be a naval conflict. Ukraine does not need many anti ship weapons and does not get many as well. Those factories are mainly free.
For many other systems the West is running at capacity and increasing it. Air defence missiles for example. Taiwan has Patriot and it would only be a matter of moving production to Ukraine to Taiwan instead to make it work. The West has jets, so there are other options of winning the air war. Ukraine currently gets F-16. So no longer as much needed and maybe the Europeans could intervene with a few jets, if need be. Similar story for a lot of other weapon systems. Increased production in Europe, which can be delivered to Taiwan.
Then you have use of weapons. It is much more likely that Taiwan will be allowed to strike China right away. No discussion as we saw in Ukraine.
Also yes China is not ready. They have to win the naval war and then be able to land. Invading Taiwan is much harder then invading Ukraine over what is flat open ground.
