Why The Obsession With Electric cars?

[Bletchleyite]

Trains are the future, not cars.

You probably need both, but an Uber-style arrangement to the nearest tramstop is a good use of each if you have a decent enough tram network. Look at say Den Haag - there are only a handful of bus routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've read them but can't see any answers to Klamberts 205 post, in 207 he wants everyone out on bicycles and electric buses and in 206 you want things repairing who's going to do it, you also say about moving stuff around the country even your trains get moved by lorry. cCould you maybe answer some of my points

We currently use a single point to point lorry, but trunking for non-time-critical goods probably makes more sense - electric lorry to the railway, rail, electric lorry to the destination.

Mind you, lorries are not an inefficient way of moving goods in and of themselves any more than buses are an inefficient way of moving passengers (they're not), so you've also got the option to look at of electrified main roads for them, charging up "under the wires" and running on battery for the first and last mile. They are a bit people-inefficient compared with trains, but that creates jobs so does have upsides.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Shouldn't we be moving towards phasing out car ownership altogether, self driven, electric or otherwise? Particularly in cities.

Supposedly that won't happen due to reasons of computers only thinking in 0 & 1 and not having the ability to make split second decisions on what to do.

If only they werent rode by such d***s.

 

[AM9]

... If only they werent rode by such d***s.

You seem to have included all cyclists, - is this a pathological hatred of anybody on an unpowered two-wheel road vehicle, or is it just a mistake in your post?

 

[Edders23]

Shouldn't we be moving towards phasing out car ownership altogether, self driven, electric or otherwise? Particularly in cities.

In the future the only use I can see for individuals owning vehicles would be in rural areas or for specialist uses.
With us approaching midnight hour towards an ecological armageddon, the planet can no longer sustain our individualistic, ego chariots. (As a matter of fact I am a car fan, but pure logic dictates we must dispose of these 20th century hangovers.)

Also I can't stand this American model of Uber style, self driving car infrastructure, that's purported to be the future of transportation. It does nothing to solve traffic congestion or the resource consumption required to build the cars. Really we should be looking to massively expand rail electrification and the rail network, as trains are a far more efficient form of transport.

Trains are the future, not cars.

There speaks a man who is clearly fit and healthy and not disabled

I spend my days driving people for whom a vehicle is the ONLY option to get them from Home to the Doctors,hospital,hairdressers etc.etc. there is no one solution fits all

In terms of the infrastructure cost railways are a VERY expensive solution and have an inbuilt inflexibility which is why many transport planners see buses as the best option

Add to that the fact that many journeys simply do not fit a timetable

cars are with us for good BUT we could overnight cut a big chunk of the pollution they cause by fitting existing tech which can reduce considerably the exhaust BUT the motor manufacturers are determined government is going to make us all buy lots of new cars not improve existing ones

Electric vehicles have severe limitations and I for one am sceptical that these can be overcome we have had battery technology since BEFORE the invention of petrol and diesel engines .

The very first London cabs were electric vehicles way back in the 1890's !!!!!!!!!!!!

what is needed is a rational approach that takes a world view Britain alone cannot solve the environmental issues nor are we likely to until politicians stop taking massive bungs from the likes of Uber, VW , BMW etc in exchange for promoting a future ideal for their shareholders

cars are necessary in these days of an ageing population and social mobility but the technology is there to cut vehicle emissions by up to 20 percent over night and by improving on current technology much further

 

[DavidGrain]

Supposedly that won't happen due to reasons of computers only thinking in 0 & 1 and not having the ability to make split second decisions on what to do.

I drive a hybrid car. The computers in my car make decisions and put them into effect much faster than I could.

 

[43021HST]

The idea of phasing out car ownership, isn't an idea of mine, it was the prevailing idea when I had the pleasure of attending an International Architectural Design Charrette in Copenhagen. I had access to a variety of international architects, town planners and general designers, many who considered car driving to be a bad habit, akin to smoking, or drinking. I felt positively outdated at my previous views on car ownership. It was there that purported the massive expansion of the bus and rail network, and cycling for short distance journeys and that car driving is a decadent habit that this planet can no longer sustain. If many leading town planners, architects and specialists believe this now. Car ownership will become a thing of the past.

Have we not considered how inefficient cars in general are and much space each car occupies, fitted with 5 - 7 seats, but the majority of the time carrying only 1 person, and how much land is dedicated to cars, vs land dedicated for rail. Sure stations like Waterloo seem vast, but pale in significance to say the long stay carparks required for Heathrow, many motorway junctions, Or even the amount of general space roads take up in cities.
Self driving cars still require parking spaces, motorway junctions and roads. (For the forum pedants I'm aware roads aren't just used exclusively by cars, but take cars out of the equation and you can massively downsize the road infrastructure.) Overall cars create an absolute vast wastage of land.

For a train forum we sure are anti-Rail. Although I think it's more a case of being anti progress, a common theme on here ...

There speaks a man who is clearly fit and healthy and not disabled

You make a very good point, however I believe in a world without private motoring, things can be made better for those with restricted mobility, there'd be no curbs, and I can see there being adequate scope for self driving mobility vehicles being available for those who need them due to disabilities or work requiring it and due to a lack of unnecessary motorists, your journey could be quicker with less congestion.

You seem to have included all cyclists, - is this a pathological hatred of anybody on an unpowered two-wheel road vehicle, or is it just a mistake in your post?

Ah excellent, being deliberately facetious in their writing, in order to generate discussion like I was, touche, sir. But on the off chance you do require some clarification, for your benefit; I don't believe that all cyclists are over defensive, pompous idiots, but enough of them are for this cultural phenomenon to be noticeable.

If you want to continue this discussion about cyclists further, I'd suggest creating a separate thread or PM me.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't help thinking that cars in some form are here to stay regardless of the downsides.

See https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/389592/tsgb-2014.pdf

Long-term increase in distance travelled across most modes - mainly due to increased travel by cars, vans and taxis.

From the 1950s to the early 21st century total travel increased by a factor of around four, with cars etc going from 50% of passenger-miles up to about 90% and public transport in total staying roughly the same (decrease in bus travel offset by increase in train travel). Causes or consequences of this change include much more dispersed employment, wider dispersal of families across the country and shopping and leisure patterns and the fact most couples now both have paid jobs, often in different places. In short, much more of our travel is now individual so less easy to provide by communal means - the most extreme case was the mill with the workers living within walking distance and where everyone piled onto special trains to Blackpool during Wakes week. These just don't exist any more. So those that suggest we can do without cars by going back to when train and bus networks were at their maximum need to realise that for most people that would require a significant reduction in mobility. In a free society where cars and energy are reasonably affordable that just isn't going to happen.

Having said that, there are some markets where the car is not dominant and I suggest the way forward for the transport network is to expand and encourage these. A car-free lifestyle is not overly restricting for many city dwellers who have no desire to visit more remote areas, and the advent of "car clubs" gives those people access to a vehicle when they occasionally need it without having to purchase one. There is also scope to integrate bus and train better in on the Swiss/German model, where buses generally operate in areas of low congestion and feed passengers into a train or tram for the trunk journey into the city centre, which is on segregated alignment so avoids urban congestion. The rural/suburban stations also permit timed interchange between buses for those shorter journeys that have no direct bus, and the ticketing system ensures no penalty for either type of connection. I don't believe these enhancements will ever totally replace cars, but they have the potential to shift the balance quite significantly.

 

[sprunt]

Supposedly that won't happen due to reasons of computers only thinking in 0 & 1 and not having the ability to make split second decisions on what to do.

Um, what?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Um, what?

Quite. Computers are entirely capable of making a split second decision - better at it than humans as they don't panic or get emotional.

 

[AM9]

... Ah excellent, being deliberately facetious in their writing, in order to generate discussion like I was, touche, sir. But on the off chance you do require some clarification, for your benefit; I don't believe that all cyclists are over defensive, pompous idiots, but enough of them are for this cultural phenomenon to be noticeable. ...

So more like a typographical error to me, followed by an attempt to stereotype some cyclists that you have problems with. That frames the rest of your responses nicely thank you.

 

[AM9]

... Having said that, there are some markets where the car is not dominant and I suggest the way forward for the transport network is to expand and encourage these. A car-free lifestyle is not overly restricting for many city dwellers who have no desire to visit more remote areas, and the advent of "car clubs" gives those people access to a vehicle when they occasionally need it without having to purchase one. There is also scope to integrate bus and train better in on the Swiss/German model, where buses generally operate in areas of low congestion and feed passengers into a train or tram for the trunk journey into the city centre, which is on segregated alignment so avoids urban congestion. The rural/suburban stations also permit timed interchange between buses for those shorter journeys that have no direct bus, and the ticketing system ensures no penalty for either type of connection. I don't believe these enhancements will ever totally replace cars, but they have the potential to shift the balance quite significantly.

All this would be nice but we are still saddled with successive administrations that see money spent on roads as 'investment' yet cash towards public transport as subsidies. I can't see why attitudes to transport modes are so polarised in the UK when most other European nations seem to support horses for courses. Maybe it's influenced by our obsession with US lifestyles, which is logistically so inappropriate.

 

[AndrewE]

All this would be nice but we are still saddled with successive administrations that see money spent on roads as 'investment' yet cash towards public transport as subsidies. I can't see why attitudes to transport modes are so polarised in the UK when most other European nations seem to support horses for courses. Maybe it's influenced by our obsession with US lifestyles, which is logistically so inappropriate.

I am half way through reading "Holding the Line" by Faulkner and Austin. It documents a long-standing antipathy to rail within the Civil Service, and seems to me to be one of the first examples of "regulatory capture," where a powerful vested interest ensures that it has a strangle-hold on decision making.
They quote a senior civil servant saying "a DofT under-secretary said the DofT was accountable to the Road Haulage Association."
A bit like this from yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...a-opioid-crisis-warning-nhs-big-pharma-policy which says

The US watchdog that is supposed to protect patients is in thrall to an industry profiting from addiction

and explains it at length.

 

[underbank]

All this would be nice but we are still saddled with successive administrations that see money spent on roads as 'investment' yet cash towards public transport as subsidies.

Err, because public transport needs roads?

 

[underbank]

Quite. Computers are entirely capable of making a split second decision - better at it than humans as they don't panic or get emotional.

But only if programmed to cope with that exact scenario. Humans can think on their feet and make snap decisions on events that haven't been pre-planned for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But only if programmed to cope with that exact scenario. Humans can think on their feet and make snap decisions on events that haven't been pre-planned for.

True, but it isn't all that difficult to plan for all the situations a car is likely to encounter, and to select "stop as quickly as possible" for all other situations just in case, or potentially the slightly improved "pull out of the running lanes if possible and stop without hitting anything and if no damage means it would be unsafe, failing that stop".

What humans can do is take calculated risks to improve their journey speed, but those calculated risks are often miscalculated and cause accidents.

 

[43021HST]

I can't help thinking that cars in some form are here to stay regardless of the downsides.

See https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/389592/tsgb-2014.pdf


Having said that, there are some markets where the car is not dominant and I suggest the way forward for the transport network is to expand and encourage these. A car-free lifestyle is not overly restricting for many city dwellers who have no desire to visit more remote areas, and the advent of "car clubs"

I agree with your point overall but I believe what you mention above in regards to car clubs I can see being an interim measure before car use is eradicated. Obviously this process I reckon will take around 40 - 50 years.

All this would be nice but we are still saddled with successive administrations that see money spent on roads as 'investment' yet cash towards public transport as subsidies. I can't see why attitudes to transport modes are so polarised in the UK when most other European nations seem to support horses for courses. Maybe it's influenced by our obsession with US lifestyles, which is logistically so inappropriate.

Precisely! I noticed this when I was in Copenhagen last month, and it's what made me realise the Uber style infrastructure purported for car ownership is mostly intended for an American lifestyle. On another note AM9 why are you so touchy over my comment about cyclists, can you not take generalisations with a pinch of salt? I assume cycling is something you hold very close to your heart and clearly means a lot to you.

Err, because public transport needs roads?

I refer you to my previous point:

(For the forum pedants I'm aware roads aren't just used exclusively by cars, but take cars out of the equation and you can massively downsize the road infrastructure.) Overall cars create an absolute vast wastage of land.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Precisely! I noticed this when I was in Copenhagen last month, and it's what made me realise the Uber style infrastructure purported for car ownership is mostly intended for an American lifestyle.

Ubers are in any practical sense just taxis with an electronic booking app, and there is and will continue to be a need for taxis for most people from time to time. I think people read too much into what it is.

 

[underbank]

True, but it isn't all that difficult to plan for all the situations a car is likely to encounter, and to select "stop as quickly as possible"

But for them to work, you really don't want them stopping all over the place every time something unusual happens. You'd just end up with very slow journeys and gridlock.

You also need them to be programmed for their next action, i.e. what happens next. If the hazard moves away, then that's easy enough, but what if the hazard is still there, what if the hazard continues coming towards it? How does it decide what to do? How long does it wait until it reverses, turns around to find another route? A real person can see the situation and can make a "best guess" judgment call about what to do based upon what they can see.

Eg., if it's driving on a country road and has to stop because a herd of cows is coming the other way - how does it know it needs to reverse out of their way - will it's sensors be good enough to spot the open field gate that they're heading towards and to reverse just beyond that? If all they're going to do is stop to wait for the obstruction to move, then we're going to have a lot of blocked roads.

 

[underbank]

Ubers are in any practical sense just taxis with an electronic booking app, and there is and will continue to be a need for taxis for most people from time to time. I think people read too much into what it is.

And if everyone is using taxis, then you've got even more cars on the road and therefore more congestion. At least in your own car, it's just parking that's the issue, you're just driving to/from work. With a taxi, its using the road to come to you, then to take you, then to drive back somewhere else, then drive to pick you up, then drive you home, then drive to the next job, so there's actually on the road for more miles than you are by using your own car. There'll be few cases where they're close by dropping someone off before picking you up or close to picking up the next fare once they've dropped you off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if everyone is using taxis, then you've got even more cars on the road and therefore more congestion. At least in your own car, it's just parking that's the issue, you're just driving to/from work. With a taxi, its using the road to come to you, then to take you, then to drive back somewhere else, then drive to pick you up, then drive you home, then drive to the next job, so there's actually on the road for more miles than you are by using your own car. There'll be few cases where they're close by dropping someone off before picking you up or close to picking up the next fare once they've dropped you off.

Yes, this is true. But that's no different to using any taxi. Taxis are private transport - but they are useful in encouraging public transport use by being able to do the "awkward bit on either end". It might make little difference to congestion or pollution in MK if I use an Uber to the station, then a train to (say) Manchester, but that's a load of pollution not kicked out on the longer leg and one fewer car on the M6.

 

[radamfi]

Having said that, there are some markets where the car is not dominant and I suggest the way forward for the transport network is to expand and encourage these. A car-free lifestyle is not overly restricting for many city dwellers who have no desire to visit more remote areas, and the advent of "car clubs" gives those people access to a vehicle when they occasionally need it without having to purchase one.

The youth of today appear to be driving this change in mobility culture without any help from transport planners and government by actively choosing to live in city centres or major public transport nodes. Poor suburban transport may actually be helping to drive this trend as they assume that anywhere that isn't in a city centre or near a major tram/metro/rail stop is going to be inconvenient.

 

[underbank]

The youth of today appear to be driving this change in mobility culture without any help from transport planners and government by actively choosing to live in city centres or major public transport nodes. Poor suburban transport may actually be helping to drive this trend as they assume that anywhere that isn't in a city centre or near a major tram/metro/rail stop is going to be inconvenient.

Is that actually a good thing? City centres getting even busier, public transport more crowded, higher house prices, etc., Then run down rural areas and smaller towns becoming even less popular, fewer jobs for locals, fewer amenities, wasted infrastructure not used to its full potential?

 

[radamfi]

Is that actually a good thing? City centres getting even busier, public transport more crowded, higher house prices, etc., Then run down rural areas and smaller towns becoming even less popular, fewer jobs for locals, fewer amenities, wasted infrastructure not used to its full potential?

Top priority has to be environmental protection and if that is optimised by urban living then that has to be preferred to people being dispersed widely and being dependent on private cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Top priority has to be environmental protection and if that is optimised by urban living then that has to be preferred to people being dispersed widely and being dependent on private cars.

You can of course have people dispersed using public transport, but it requires a different layout compared with designing for cars. Compare Runcorn with Milton Keynes.

 

[underbank]

Top priority has to be environmental protection and if that is optimised by urban living then that has to be preferred to people being dispersed widely and being dependent on private cars.

But in the world we are in, rather than a theoretic utopia, that means massive spending and building on new homes, businesses, new infrastructure, which not only costs money but will have a massive environmental impact. Then you have the cost and energy usage to do something with the properties now left idle in small towns and rural areas and all the environmental factors that entails. What's the carbon footprint of demolishing hundreds/thousands of homes and other buildings outside the major cities which is the end game of your proposal? Surely we're better working with what we have and make better use of resources already in place in small towns etc rather than just scrapping all that and embracing urban sprawl.

 

[radamfi]

But in the world we are in, rather than a theoretic utopia, that means massive spending and building on new homes, businesses, new infrastructure, which not only costs money but will have a massive environmental impact. Then you have the cost and energy usage to do something with the properties now left idle in small towns and rural areas and all the environmental factors that entails. What's the carbon footprint of demolishing hundreds/thousands of homes and other buildings outside the major cities which is the end game of your proposal? Surely we're better working with what we have and make better use of resources already in place in small towns etc rather than just scrapping all that and embracing urban sprawl.

But I'm talking about the opposite of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is what happened between the 1960s and the start of the millennium, primarily to cater for car based development. Even now the main British housebuilders are building edge of town estates and there are the so called "eco towns" which are almost totally car dependent given their rural locations. The good news is that people are voluntarily flocking to urban centres without councils having to bribe developers which would have been the case 30 years ago. Just look at the thousands of new flats built in and around Manchester city centre in areas previously considered to be no-go areas. Not only does this mean low car usage, but for many it means they can walk to work, so not even a strain on public transport. Croydon, long considered a joke, has several residential tower blocks under construction or planned in the town centre, including a giant 68 storey building which will be the second tallest building in the country. Surely that's got to be better than sprawling Barratt estates on former greenfield or agricultural land?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced tower blocks are the solution to anything, really, I certainly wouldn't want to live in one - but I do think Scottish style tenements of 3-5 storeys with large high quality family apartments with good balconies and shared gardens are a good answer to densifying development without making it unpleasant.

 

[underbank]

Just look at the thousands of new flats built in and around Manchester city centre in areas previously considered to be no-go areas. Not only does this mean low car usage, but for many it means they can walk to work, so not even a strain on public transport. Croydon, long considered a joke, has several residential tower blocks under construction or planned in the town centre, including a giant 68 storey building which will be the second tallest building in the country.

Sounds like some kind of soviet inspired hell. Good for twenty somethings wanting the night life and social aspect of living in a city, but maybe not so good for families with young children, elderly, disabled, etc. But each to their own I suppose.

But with automation, internet, robotics, artificial intelligence etc., won't the next generation be more likely to be working from home (at least some days per week) rather than the current daily commute in their thousands to big city centre office blocks, so living close to work will be pretty irrelevant for huge numbers of people?

 

[Edders23]

Ubers are in any practical sense just taxis with an electronic booking app, and there is and will continue to be a need for taxis for most people from time to time. I think people read too much into what it is.

Uber is more than that it is a cynical, exploitative and secretive organisation whose only goal is to make it's founders the wealthiest men alive. it uses secretive technology to prevent enforcement by authorities it pays its serfs a pittance and ignores or circumvents the laws which it's competition must abide by plus it makes sure governments are on it's side with generous political donations.