Several years ago, I considered an EV, got sticker shock, and slowly backed away. I wound up with an ebike instead. What happened with the latter is it turned out I really loved that thing and rode it far more frequently than I would have imagined. It’s not a total car replacement, to be fair, but it handles most trips.
Today, EVs are still expensive, though there are more options and a bit more competition on price. But to make them worthwhile, you need to drive a lot so that you get back some of that initial investment in savings with charging vs fuelling. This means I am not really the demographic for EVs anymore, since I don’t drive enough. It’s so weird… I guess I’ll just keep that 2006 ICE around until it dies, which might be awhile yet considering how slowly the mileage is ticking up.
I'm about to start farming in a couple of months. I currently only own a fuel-efficient motorbike (which I don't actually use often since I still live in Tokyo and use trains or my own feet the vast majority of times), but that obviously isn't going to work for farm-related tasks (we are getting pedal-assist bicycles for other stuff as the train station is almost an hour walk away from our new property).
Should my takeaway here be that you think I should just by a gasoline car and save myself the extra money and trouble because electric isn't good enough?
I think fear grips people at every angle and none of us are brave enough to accept bold action for positive change in our society. It seems like most people are just retracting instead.
I vaguely remember that “Ye” (formerly Kanye West) once said something like he formed a think tank to build a city but the thing stopping his team was that “Ye” didn’t understand any of the concepts and he ran it into the ground.
I want public transportation, I think everyone wants it at this point but no no one understands why we need it. They all just want to escape.
(This message was brought to you by the new 2024 Ford Escape: just hit the road and escape to paradise)
There’s no comparison to the personal freedom of having a car versus being dependent on others to ferry you around. That’s why America will always be built around our great car infrastructure. We will never give up our freedom to roam our huge awesome land.
I would argue that a fast, frequent and comprehensive public transport system gives you more personal freedom. Being able to easily get around without having to worry about piloting a heavy vehicle, without the burden of maintenance, and being flexible once out due to not needing to worry about where you’re storing your car. Plug the gaps with (electric and/or cargo) bikes for shorter trips and car share for longer ones and you have a much better, more equitable transport system.
All public transport vehicles are heavier than my personal vehicle though. Also public transport doesn’t provide the freedom of choosing any destination that you want, and taking yourself there on your own schedule. That’s what I was talking about.
You aren’t piloting a public transport vehicle, a professional is and you are free to not worry about it.
A frequent and comprehensive public transport system does allow for that freedom, without all of the burdens of car ownership. Bikes and car share can be used to fill in the gaps when the public transport isn’t comprehensive enough.
Nothing like freedom like actively removing people from having multiple choices of transit by making illegal to build anything that isn’t dependent on cars.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to spend thousands on a several ton machine to do any task outside your home.
Nothing like freedon like being forced to pay predatory insurance to private corporations in order to be legally allowed to drive your vehicle.
Nothing like freedom like being dependent on oil companies that actively lobby against you in order to drive the vehicle that you are forced to own.
Nothing like freedom like having infustructure that denies poor people and disabled people from participating in society.
Nothing like freedom like having no independence if you are too old, too young, too intoxicated, or too disabled to drive.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to have a license issued by your government in order to be independent.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to use a vehicle that spies on you and collects information such as your sexual activity, immigration status, ‘private’ conversations, location, and much more.
And here again we see the typical attempt to put words in somebody’s mouth. I never said anything about what poor people deserve, that’s your words, not mine.
When you don’t have a substantial rebuttal, you just make up a strawman argument.
IMO everyone, regardless of economic stature, deserves every form of freedom legitimately available in society. For this example, if a poor person couldn’t afford a car I would suggest a cheap used motorcycle. I’ve bought a couple of those, one was $900 and the other was $2500.
This is incredibly insane when you consider the cost incurred to maintain a vehicle. No poor person would do this in the right mind it would be nothing but a debt trap. It’s shameful that public transit is downright near illegal and most metropolitan areas in North America and it is the best solution get over it
You’re overestimating the cost to own a vehicle. My costs are very low overall. I spend about $50 a month on gas or less, and I have no car payments, and my insurance cost is about $100 per month. Total cost of ownership for my 2 vehicles is less than $200 per month, and I can drive them anywhere I want at any time.
I’ve both been poor and owned a few vehicles and $2000 repair bills happen, more than once in the life cycle of a car and much more than I could ever afford if I hadn’t been better off before I pulled the trigger in cars but down take my word for it John Oliver did a great peice on how bad of a debt trap they are on average
Internal combustion engines in standard small size convert 19.65-22.1% of their energy from thermal to kinetic.
The ratio of electron throughput from battery to electric motor can be as LOW as 88% but hovers between 92-98% efficiency.
Even if you had a fuel cell in the back, running electric motors quintuples (5×) the standard energy efficiency owing to the principle of energy quality type preservation in conversion (High to High vs Low to High):
Jevon’s Paradox states that improved efficiency of something will only increase its use, and in this case, electric cars will in fact, correlate to car use, and increased mineral demands.
This is a problem you cannot solve endemic to humanity.
I mean, Jevon’s Paradox works because the increased efficiency leads to decreased costs. It’s unclear if that’s going to be the case for electric cars because the hardware needed to get to that high efficiency is so expensive, and mostly made cost-effective by government assistance (I.e. eletric cars here in the UK do not pay road tax).
I’m also not sure if lowered costs would massively change the number of drivers (at least in the developed world) in the EU there’s one car for every two people. We’re not going to see that become 5 cars for every two people just because the efficiency increases, demand is too inelastic.
I think you missed the meaning of inefficency on this matter…
While it is undeniable that electric cars have a better supply-to-engine energy efficency than combustion cars, you can understand that they are equiparated in the meme as “equally bad” if you think outside of the box labelled “rubber wheels on high friction asphalt transporting usually a single individual”.
Compare that with a tram or a train, transporting multiple passengers with the same electric engine but also steel-on-steel friction on the wheels and the difference between an ICE and EV vehicle becomes a mere approximation error; god I can do the math for you if you want, but I bet even a disel bus with a lot of passengers has a better efficency/passenger ratio than an EV.
So 1 electric car = 4 less carbon liquid fuelled cars worth of pollution.
Also I think this is a bit misleading: if I buy an EV this won’t magically destroy 4 (where is this number from?) already existing carbon liquid cars, it merely means you avoided adding 1 other ICE car to the total.
The “when transporting a large number of people” is quite a caveat. Sure ok high saturation of public transport / walkable cities is probably achievable with high population density, but in rural / regional areas it’s just not possible.
In fact, low speed electric cars are quiet enough that they’ve considered putting speakers in them to alert pedestrians and make the absence of feedback less disconcerting for drivers.
We’re so used to ICE cars that they’ve contemplated making electric cars pretend that they have an ICE.
They already do this in Europe and other countries where mixed car/pedestrian environments are more common. Electric cars must have some form of audible signature, usually a quiet whirring sound.
I think that the solution is automated rail transit. Being in a dedicated place with lower likelihood of encountering people removes nearl every issue that self-driving cars have. Being automated means that 24/7 schedules are possible. If there are enough trains and high enough saturation, need for cars and even taxis is removed.
One train transports 100s of people, the driver is a fairly low proportion of the cost. And there’s other members of staff that are required even in a fully automated system. (network monitoring, security). Removing the driver is a nice step, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the economics of rail transport. If a route is uneconomic, that’s going to be the case without a driver too.
Removing the driver mainly removes barriers to running late - meaning things like drunk driving can be significantly reduced since transit in the US is virtually non-existant at drunk’o’clock, effectively pressuring people into bad decisions when their judgement is the poorest.
If a route is uneconomic, that’s going to be the case without a driver too.
Infrastructure is vital to economic and other activity. It needs to be treated as an investment or necessary cost, not a business. Doing otherwise inevitably results in collapsing bridges, toxic spills, and other symptoms of neglect as corners are cut to maximize profit.
We’re in agreement that night trains are a good thing, but you should push for them whether or not your trains are driverless.
You misunderstand my use of economic. Everything has a cost and a benefit which can theoretically be calculated, with infrastructure like transit that benefit extends beyond fares. Typically governments will do this calculation when deciding whether to pursue a new project, they include all the planning, construction, running costs, and externalities e.g. climate impact, and all the benefits from fares, economic activity, new opportunities for industries and development, ect. This produces a cost benefit ratio. In my research with transport, the best value projects are local safety improvements like cycleways, sometimes the ratio is as good as 10. Large public transport projects are maybe 1-2, and large motorways are usually less than 1. My point was a train driver is a small cost that isn’t going to significant affect this. Of course, this analysis often gets ignored and the overpriced motorway gets built anyway.
I can imagine them being cheaper and I only would use people to transit other people when you can have 40 people or so. Where security on big vehicles like bus or train need more caution. A person driving a single person feels like a waste of time or smth. Driverless cars could also be more efficient in routing.
Yes! And you know what, at that point, given the size of a minimum viable car, we could use some kind of algorithm to match people that are going similar places, and put them together to be more efficient. And I bet we’d find that a lot of the large scale transit patterns are common large parts of the population, so we could even use some kind of segregated, higher speed, more frequent vehicle for that.
While we’re at it, we might as well just warehouse some of these vehicles around places where the common cores end and start, and then we would only have to match one end of the trip.
Why? Cars are more inefficient than nearly every other mode of transport, whether we’re talking energy efficiency, space efficiency or cost efficiency. Only air travel is worse. But those modes make up for that in some circumstances by being fast, convenient and flexible.
Because the infographic isn’t comparing cars to other forms of transit. It’s comparing one type of car to another. Electric cars are incredibly efficient, for what it is.
this entire chart is invalid in terms of it though, as half of it is comparing just basic traits of cars as a whole, I believe that was the point of the chart(at least in the way OP is using it). It’s intent is to try and persuade people away from cars, but it does a poor job doing so since it lacks an actual decent alternative in the chart. I think it would be more accepted if they added it in comparison to alternatives such as rail (but ironically that system also shares similar traits to cars).
Ok, yes, you’re right, in those terms cars are not very efficient.
E: I suppose I was thinking of situations like when you have 4 people riding in the car and the trunk is full of luggage. That seems quite a lot more “efficient” than any other method of transportation I know of. Or considering the freedom and flexibility that a personal transportation vehicle + road networks gives you.
But obviously, if you’re driving alone along a route that you could have just as easily done by public transportation, walking or biking, then cars are pretty shit.
And is there a better solution? And don’t give me that public transportation bullshit, it’s a bad solution in most cases and is already in place anyway.
I mean, step 1 would be forcing the suburbs to pay the actual cost for their own power lines, plumbing and sewage, roads, phone lines, etc. Since as it stands, most of that cost is subsidised by the highly productive inner city, and that infrastructure is far cheaper per-person in dense neighbourhoods than it is in suburban tumours (sure, live out there if you want, but accept that you will either be paying a fortune for the infrastructure upkeep that supports you, or accept lower-class, cheaper infrastructure. I have a great aunt and uncle who live out in the countryside, and they have a dirt road, a septic tank and a rainwater tank, only their electricity and phone lines are comparable to what you get in cities, because it literally does not make economic sense to run paved roads or plumbing out to where they live).
Once people have realised that single-family housing with paved roads, sewage, plumbing and reliable electricity is well outside the economic reach of the vast majority of people, UPZONE. Demolish suburbs to replace them with far denser urban neighbourhoods, ones made up of townhouses, apartment blocks and mixed residential/commercial buildings. Change the zoning laws so that anyone can start a commercial business out of the front yard. Designate parks and other community areas in between your blocks of apartments and townhouses so that nobody is ever more than 15 minutes’ walk away from one. And for those who still want to live out in suburban sprawl, make the transition to being more self-sufficient easier.
Then, you have a city dense enough that you can start running vast amounts of public transport through it. Not just busses, but trains and trams as well. A train is more or less the ideal form of fast transportation along a known, unchanging transport corridor, with far more energy efficiency than anything that runs on tarmac, the ability to hit highway speeds inside city limits, and the ability to be extended almost infinitely. They can also be run from overhead power lines, no need for batteries or internal combustion engines. Oh, and the same lines you run urban rail along can also be used for freight trains, so they can replace both car journeys and freight truck journeys.
When you have dense cities with well-designed and extensive public transport, you can get almost anywhere with just one transfer, your bus/train/tram comes often enough that you’re never at the stop for more than 10 minutes, and even a trip from one edge of the city to the other will rarely be more than an hour. Plus, you don’t have to pay attention to the road, nor pay for fuel and maintenance.
Source: I live in a city where you can sharply draw a divide between the pre-car and post-car zones, and the pre-car zones are mostly like how I describe, while the post-car zones are suburban sprawl shitholes that might have a train station if they’re lucky
“Sure, the planet is unfit for human habitation now, but at least we got to have lawns in front of our houses and meat every day until the world ended”
Stopping climate change requires drastic action, rethinking how we live every aspect of our lives, and the wastefulness of suburbs means they must go, just like the internal combustion engine and the animal agriculture industry. How will you justify to future generations that you left them with a ruined world, all because you and those like you were too selfish to give up your current style of living?
Additionally, they are provably a blight on cities. They cost far more to maintain than they produce, since they lack any serious commercial activity, so no taxes, and the spread-out nature of them means that any infrastructure is far more expensive per person. You wouldn’t even need to actively demolish them, just cut off all maintenance, and watch them rot. Plus, they keep literally bankrupting cities, so often there is no choice, the money is no longer there to maintain them.
Sure, go right ahead and get to work on that plan then. I’m sure everyone in the suburbs will agree to give up their homes and land and move to the dense urban Soviet-style shitholes that you envision as the perfect way to live.
The problem is that it isn’t a matter of cars vs busses. It’s a matter of urban design in general.
Public transit gets better as density goes up. A bus that drops you off at a giant-ass Walmart parking lot with nothing else but two drivethroughs in walking distance isn’t very useful. A bus that drops you off in a neighborhood with 4 dozen shops, a dozen restaurants, 4 bars and 3 coffee shops within a 5 minute walk is way more useful.
By contrast, density makes driving worse. Density means more people are driving the same way you want to go. More people in cars means more traffic on the road with you. Designing for cars pushes you to low density sprawl.
Just building public transit isn’t the solution. Just building public transit in a typical American suburban sprawl makes something about as compelling as a Ford F150 in Vatican City.
You have to fix urban design - stop building stroads and start building streetcar suburbs again.
Then it isn’t good enough yet. People will use public transport when it’s better or cheaper than a car. Dedicated bus lanes to bypass car traffic should be in place, to encourage using busses that create less traffic. Trains should be reliable, frequent, and cheap for longer distance travel. This stuff is all do-able with just a small amount of effort, and has been done and successful in other places, but it requires governments to stuff huffing gasoline.
What kind of public transport? And how is it implemented? The devil is in the details for this stuff.
Free bus tickets do nothing if the buses are stuck in traffic with no bus lane so often that people go “fuck it” and take the car anyway, because it’s more convenient.
Free metro tickets do nothing if the routes don’t go where people want to go.
Free train tickets do nothing if the trains don’t leave frequently enough to have options and/or are stuck waiting for freight trains to pass.
There’s any number of non-monetary reasons that public transport might suck, but there are solutions for them.
You forgot about the material extraction and carbon emissions for manufaturing a new electric car. Can someone link the data for it please?
Edit: The article in below reply says it best. Lithium extraction and manufaturing emissions for electric cars are bad for the environment but still dozens of times better than ICE cars lifecycle emissions
It heavily depends on the battery technology used in that particular vehicle and the economy of scale. The emissions reduce as the build batches increase
Honest question. Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there’s a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?
Now it doesn’t mean it’s the right solution but particularly in North America due to lack of XYZ automobiles are king.
It’s very easy to go “hurr durr automobiles bad” but do you understand the multitude of reasons why we use them? All the things that need to be improved or fixed before we entertain the alternatives?
Saying this as a car owner who takes public transit far more than other car owners.
Yes. Nobody is suggested we should ban all cars everywhere.
Cars are incredible. I do trips to remote places all the time that would be impossible without cars. There’s no better way to transport 5 people and their gear for a week to a place that’s 100km from the nearest small town.
But for 1 guy commuting from the suburbs to work in the city every day in their SUV? Fuck that, the system is broken to even entertain that as a possibility.
For the appearance of XYZ we need a policy and cultural change, and for that we need to be very vocal about how stupid and inefficient cars are (i.e. hurr durr automobiles bad).
“Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there’s a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?”
Firstly, this feels a very confrontational way of phrasing the question. It carries with it the assumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which I don’t feel is a helpful way of approaching a discussion.
Yes, of course people realise that car ownership is the only viable solution for individuals at the current time. You have engaged with a community who are passionate about and engaged in urban planning, so they are going to be more switched onto the challenges than most.
The entire point is that on their own they are not a sustainable solution long-term. They are hugely inefficient energy and space-wise, their infrastructure causes massive damage to the communities they carve through (see this Guardian article for a breakdown of some NA case studies), and they currently cause a huge amount of environmental damage.
So, the question becomes: how can we remove the need for car ownership? There’s a host of ideas, from better high speed rail links to eliminate long-distance trips, to micromobility and demand responsive transport for short-distance, to better constructing our cities to begin with to allow for amenities to be walkable. Are we going to eliminate car use in rural areas? Of course not; there’s no point running a bus service for a village of 10 people and a goat. Can we eliminate 99% of car trips for those in built up areas, improving air quality, walkability, and accessibility? That should absolutely be the goal.
And I’ll tell you right back that people don’t care about your list here. You want to get people onboard start pivoting the conversation. “yaytransit” is far more positive and forward thinking than “fuckcars”.
In fact, the responses I’ve gotten already are a good indication of how deluded this community is. You’re not here to promote change, you’re here to scream into the wind.
So I guess consider that more a failing on my part.
Riots and protests don’t need your approval or applause. They happen because the majority of people are too complacent. If everyone was already aboard we’d just do those things, you know. You probably don’t understand this, because you never stuck out your neck for anything in your life.
I’ve noticed that people often imagine that they know what kind of person I am, because in their minds it makes it easy to build up a strawman version of a person that fits their preconceived ideas of the “bad guy” that’s opposed to their dumb ideas. Here you go again, doing that. But in reality, all you know is that I made fun of your idea of rioting against cars.
People can read your other comments as well, you know? Your account is a textbook about insecure masculinity, Mr. „I am the man other men wish they could be“ 😂
Add comment