Right is possible if economy is local. Left is actual real life because of capitalism needs bigger markets in in small areas for maximing profits.
You can’t have bigger markets in smaller areas with cars because the cars take up so much space. Public transport gives access while still allowing for density, which provides a much larger market. The only ones losing out are the auto makers and oil companies.
Trains
Don’t bother mate, the people in this community don’t live in reality.
Hello. I used to live in Bremen which is an economy hub in Germany. It’s pretty much image #3
They’re a solution, not the solution indeed.
Not really. At all. Like they’re barely even a bandaid.
The issue is a car weighs a couple of tons and it’s being used to move a person who weighs around 100kg.
It’s massively inefficient use of energy.
Even in some fantasy world where the energy used to charge the batteries is all renewable - not even close to reality but let’s pretend - all that lithium and other precious earths are still an environmental disaster.
The answer is mass transit and lower mass vehicles. A lifestyle change is actually required and the thing is it wouldn’t even make people less happy, just that change is so fucking scary for some reason.
Walkable cities are a dream lifestyle and an electric scooter in a walkable city is outstanding. Fuck urban sprawl.
EVs are not limited to personal vehicles though. I absolutely agree on developing mass transit, be it rail or other, and preventing urban sprawl.
But cars (personal vehicles) and other vehicles will always exist (at least for the foreseeable future) and people will still need to haul stuff (garbage collection, artisans, deliveries, movers etc…).
I’d take an electric garbage collection truck over a ICE one for instance. It’s anecdotal but there are roadworks in my neighborhood, and most of the machinery is electric which is very nice. Electric mopeds/motorcycles are also much quieter than ICE ones. You could also electrify buses, airport equipment, port equipment, trains (the diesel ones), mining equipment, etc.
So no, EVs are not the solution but a solution, and their development is a good thing if we want to move away from fossil fuels.
Edit: corrected thermic with ICE
And trains don’t even need batteries, the biggest issue with EV cars
Yeah ok that’s fair, even in a transformed world there is still a need for some cars you’re right.
My point was more that a world in which we simply exchange fords for Tesla’s is still a fucked world but you make a fair counter point.
I find it helpful to remember “Perfection is the enemy of Progress.”
Investing trillions of dollars into dead ends is, however, the enemy of progress. The ressources we’re throwing at replacing existing cars with EV cars would be enough to implement better solutions.
No technology is a dead end, you can’t run trains 30 miles out of town for 6 families already over 500 acres. Just because a technology doesn’t benefit urbanization doesn’t make it worthless.
I’m not opposing the research, I’m opposing the implementation. Spending trillions of dollars because >1% of the population would be inconvenienced as you showed by having to use less developed or more expensive alternative is stupid.
Fuck urban rents, how about that?
People who give this message like everyone is just choosing to screw the environment for fun make a crapton of assumptions about the forces people face in finding a place to live.
Fuck urban rents, how about that?
Boy I wonder where we might be able to find lots and lots of space within a city for new construction to densify it.
The fun part is that many societies have had and currently have dirt cheap urban rents, accurately reflecting the efficiency and lower cost of supplying services to people in urban areas. This isn’t even a capitalism/socialism thing, since plenty of capitalist societies have figured out how to make it work via subsidies, public housing, price controls, etc.
The plan to address that is via crapping on EVs?
OK. Go for yourself.
I was just talking about urban rents. The fact of the matter is that climate change will not be addressed without significantly reducing the number of cars on the road, EVs or no, and you can’t do that without overhauling urban sprawl.
I don’t think they’re even a solution. They’re just another scam like hydrogen fuel cells were. They exist to keep people from pushing for the real change we actually need… Just like the decade we lost because people bought the hydrogen fuel cell grift last time.
They are a patch, not a solution.
I live in GA outside of Atlanta and rent is already tough. I’ve been to cities with not exactly amazing but serviceable public transportation (various parts of greater NYC and Chicago) and loved them. I’ve tried to use busses elsewhere, though it often meant 3 hours wasted to go to work, with similar time wasted after (hourly buss schedules and multiple transfers).
I have an electric car now, work from home, and try to avoid having to drive much, but there isn’t much more I can afford to do atm. An bike would be nice but even that’ll take money I’m still recovering, and some places I go to even just a couple times a month has no public transportation. I’d love if it did, but I have to use EV for now.
I think when most people decry EVs, we’re not talking about individual EV owners but the system which forces basically everyone to move around by personal vehicle. Sure, they’ll be the occasional person who says, “I bike 28km to and from work at a very physical job where I often work overtime. I have to share the road with traffic. I don’t know why everyone can’t commute by bike,” (this was the gist of a comment I read on reddit years ago). However, most people understand that changes can’t just be personal responsibility.
With the information we have about your life, it sounds like you made a reasonable decision. If you can continue to be mindful about the decisions you make and advocate for a better world when you can, I think you’re doing a great job!
I’d call them less a solution, more an attempt at harm reduction.
And the only things they’ll properly resolve are tailpipe emissions and idling noise. At least one of which is of no concern when dealing with the externalities of car traffic.
If you really want to solve the environmental impact of transportation, you minimise the need for transportation. Put homes and workplaces close together, offer mass alternatives for the pairs where you really do need motorised mobility solutions, and minimise the number of situations where it’s more convenient to take a car. Ban on-street parking and heavily tax off-street parking. Need to park your car in the city? Hope you can afford to pay an arm and a leg. Oh, you can’t? Looks the Park & Ride at the train station two towns over is the nearest alternative. Don’t worry though, the trains go six times an hour and a day ticket is, like, four quid max.
Quid: you’re British. Great.
You’re smaller in area than Texas. It’s a little easier for you to stay close to everything, you’re never more than 70 miles away from the sea.
Hello, I’m Albertan. Stop saying this. Our governments maintain roads in between these cities every year, there is no reason they couldn’t have been train lines instead. Roads are far more expensive than many realize.
Once upon a time, all cities were connected by train, and we ripped it all up to build roads instead. Sure, it’s going to cost money to build these up again – that’s what happens when we make a mistake, we have to pay for it in one way or another. But connecting smaller towns and cities is not the herculean impossible task that people seem to want to pretend it is.
There ARE major urban areas in North America. People are not evenly spread out across the landmass equally. Connecting these first is obviously the goal, because that will take care of 70% of the problem already. And always remember not to make perfect the enemy of good - even if we stopped there we’d be in infinitely better shape than we were before.
We’ve done a ton of that. The Acela is great, I’ve ridden it a bunch. But that kind of thing doesn’t scale as efficiently as you would hope. It can serve corridors of people, but not huge continents of hundreds of millions all that well. There are to many places to be.
deleted by creator
Look mate, if you’re going to shove the “tHe stATeS arE ToO bIG, thus wE cANNot SOlvE The transIt ProbleM” rhetoric on us, please find another place to wallow in your lack of trains while assuming car industry rhetoric as undeniable fact.
Also, your claim has been debunked and reclarified so often that I’m not going to begin to explain just how wrong you are.
You guys are all idiots. A bunch of Europeans lucked into an infrastructure that works with twice the people in half the space, and you act like it was an intentional and smarter design decision in anticipation of a climate crisis. You shipped your most insane people off your continent to become Americans, and their shitty Calvinism has made everything that has always been terrible about Northern Europe even worse.
Now you want to act like anyone who thinks what you propose isn’t exactly easy (or democratic) is some kind of corporate fascist. Fuck off, the lot of you.
Sorry, chief. We don’t do nuanced thought in this community.
The problem is people got the idea that they need a 3 ton truck to do grocery shopping
The idea that you even need a car for grocery shopping is insane.
My supermarket does this: if you go shopping with public transport, then you can ask the cashier to have someone deliver the just purchased groceries to your house for 5 euro
Not really, if you’re doing your weekly shop all in one go (especially for a family), it can make sense that your weekly shop can be more than you can carry and thus you need something to help you carry it. I wouldn’t want to lug 4-5 bags of shopping onto a bus where I’m going to piss someone off because I placed them on the seat, nor do I want to try to balance all that on the handlebars of a bike where a single fuckup or pothole I can’t see will lose me lots of money in shopping.
I don’t personally do those sorts of large shops, but people are busy and literally schedule this in their week so it’s not insane.
Or hey, maybe more people could shop online? With well planned routes it could be more efficient than lots of people all travelling to one place.
If you live in a dense area with more local shops, you’ll probably be doing more frequent, smaller shops throughout the week.
What about one of those carts you can hook up to your bike? I asked around once and heard it can carry 50 kg.
I used to have this handcart and it could easily carry enough groceries for 3 people for 1 week. We’d put stuff directly inside at the counter and then empty it in the kitchen, then fold it up for storage. It was maybe 100 euros? And of course you could also use it for picnics or shopping for other things.
For heavy stuff we’d use delivery or a lasttaxi. Basically a taxi for carrying heavier things.
Removed by mod
Disagree on inefficient.
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):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation
So 1 electric car = 4 less carbon liquid fuelled cars worth of pollution.
What you’re actually looking for is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
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 think the point is that compared to public transport when transporting a large number of people, they are inefficient.
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.
When is it efficient to carry several tons of steel with you to pick up eggs and milk?
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.
box labelled “rubber wheels on high friction asphalt transporting usually a single individual”.
so, a box I keep my bike in? :D
Disagree on noise. Electric cars are quieter when going slowly and the main noise is engine, but louder when going fast and the main noise is tires.
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 heard a good saying the other day: “Electric cars are a solution for the car industry.” Give me walkable cities please
I live in Scandinavia, in one of these walkable cities. Everyone has a car. Why? Because relying on public transport or walking/biking everywhere is not practical. It’s just reality.
That’s fair enough. I also own a car, but I try to use alternative means of transport (bus, bike, walk, skateboard) whenever possible. It’s the prioritisation of cars over all other modes of transport where I have the issue. My city is riddled with car filled streets criss-crossing all over. There’s a plan to take one of the most shop focused streets and make it walkable. It would mean that I would be able to get to work almost the whole way on it. I hope it goes through
I’m not disagreeing with you or most people here for being annoyed by everything being build around car usage. I just don’t see it realistically change. You’d have to rebuild most cities from the ground up and invest ungodly amounts of money into several modes of public transport in every city. It just won’t happen.
I’ve had to use public transport to get to a job I loved in a neighbouring city, due to not having a car at that point. Where a drive with the car would have taken me about 20 minutes one way, the bus+train combo I was forced to use was 1,5 hours including waiting times. It was so draining that I quit that job after 6 months.
If this is the choice you need to make, people will take that car every time because you can’t rely on jobs being available within 20 minutes of walking or public transport, most cities aren’t build to offer jobs+housing+shopping within a small radius for all the people living there.
The part about going to your job is totally valid. Some jobs can be worked remotely or partly remotely now, but that doesn’t apply to all professions, so that is something to keep in mind.
In terms of not being able to realistically change the current cities, many of the best walkable cities prioritized cars first and then changed. It took decades, but they eventually achieved it.
There’s this presentation I found after doing some research on the 15-minute cities conspiracy theory, and it was a really interesting talk about how towns and cities can be changed into slower, more accessible ones. It’s an hour long but there’s a 5 minute segment where it discusses cases where cities have changed from car-based to a more walkable one, in this case Amsterdam and Pontevedra (in Spain).
I recommend checking it out. Here’s a link with the timestamp of the start of the section about those cities:
Dr Rodney Tolley: Fast Speed, Slow Cities
In the section before this one, he discusses the cost of other transport modes versus cars. Building and maintaining infrastructure for cars is waaaaay more expensive than for other methods, so cost isn’t an issue. I’ve included the slide below.
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.
Wher train 😢
I really think we’re too far in the hole here.
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)
In Case of Electric-Car Fire, Half of Fire Departments Are Unprepared
the car fires for EV are very much a different thing.
Car fires from ICE’s are magnitudes more common and cause more damage every year because of this. If you spent half a second to search this you’d find that reports indicate that per 100,000 vehicles sold in their respective powertrains in their lifetime, 25 electric cars catch fire, and 1,530 gas vehicles catch fire. While searching this, something that caught me off guard and surprised me was that hybrids are even higher, 3,475! The more you know.
some of these problems are actually worse with electric cars, namely tire and brake dust, since EVs are heavier than similar size/performance ICE cars
On the other hand, EVs typically have regenerative breaking, reducing the wear on brake pads.
Still shit, but partially canceled out.
At this point I have landed at:
Someday I am going to get a used adventure bike, and modify it to be a hybrid capable of electric only at low speeds / low acceleration, and charge that with solar panels.
Why not an electric bicycle?
Theyre astoundingly overpriced for what they are.
Why not public transportation?
Well obviously use that whenever possible, but I like the hybrid concept because if you run out of fuel, you can do electric running, or if power goes out, you can charge batteries or run important equipment via the gas motor going through a transformer into a battery yada yada.
That and it’ll be useful to be able to cruise around on said motorcycle when our modern american civilized society finally collapses into chaos.
I am all for urban redesign projects and locally sustainable diverse economies and all that, but i dont have faith enough of that will happen quickly enough to basically make it totally safe to just stay in one particular metro area.
EDIT: I suppose maximum utility apocalypse bike would also be capable of running on ethanol, and maybe even somehow whatever the proper name for the fuel refined from fast food restaurant grease is, forget the name. Ive heard it makes your vehicle smell like french fries though lol.
Ebikes are not expensive. At least not the ones I have and see around town.
Ebikes aren’t actually overpriced. Unless you buy them from Specialized. All those components are actually just that expensive. I can tell you this for sure because I compared the cost of building my own electric bike and buying a prebuilt one and I ended up going prebuilt.
I agree with you from the perspective of actual parts costs.
I probably should have specified this a bit better, but when I say they are overpriced for what they are, this is more what I mean:
(disclaimer I do not have total comprehensive knowledge of the entire ebike market, please correct me if I am wrong)
Generally speaking I see ebikes going for something like $1k to $3k, and generally speaking you get a top speed of about 20 to 25 mph, and a fully electric unassisted drive of about 40 miles, unless you pay a good deal more for bigger batteries/more advanced drive train, basically.
Sure, this is neat amd useful for people who do not need to move long distances.
But I guess you could say I dont fall into that use case demographic.
And I can get a used motorbike with significantly greater speeds, range, and greater off road capabilities in that same price range.
That’s fair. I live in a city of 100k people with bike paths or lanes to ~70% of where I’d want to go. So my life is on an ebike. I truly believe they are an important part of the solution to the problems car dependence caused.
I can tell you for sure that my ebike is cheaper in 3 years than a motorcycle in 1 because I first, don’t pay for gas, second, do all my own repairs and maintenance (I can’t do this on a motorcycle - I learned about my bike after getting it), and third, no secret fees like registration, insurance, or licensing. I paid 2,000 upfront for my ebike and with the price of my bike and all of my owning costs combined it isn’t even hitting 3,000 altogether. I’ve been able to save MASSIVELY because of this. Ah, and I take it out in the winter time as well. There’s been a lot less snow this year for us but I still don’t see motorbikes out when I’m on my ebike.
So I will unironically shill for ebikes because I believe in them as car replacements, since I live that life.
Our ebike takes about the same amount of time as driving for most of our trips and nearly halves public transit time to some places we go. It was about 2k, and for that price it has been an actual steal. I think we put about 1.5k miles on it in the first year, and cost wise I think it’ll break even at about double that.
It doesn’t sound like ebikes are overpriced, it sounds like you don’t find value in what an ebike does. And that’s totally ok, especially if you’re advocating for making your community more healthy and doing your best to live that way too.
It is a real shame that ebikes weren’t subsidized like electric cars are, that would have changed the equation a lot for folks who are more on the fence and could have started a shift where more people want safer places to use their new bikes.
Edit: just read your reply to the other folks, you get it. I gotta wake up more before I start commenting
If you’re advocating for reduced car use, increased micromobility and public transportation in the community, voting for change, and doing you’re part where you can, good on ya, you’re fighting the good fight. If you’re unilaterally calling for cars to be abolished, saying that anyone that owns a vehicle is the worst, and shitting on electric cars which are substantially better for the planet simply on the basis of “BAHT ITS STILL A CAR” then you’re an embarrassment and damaging the cause. I have zero doubts big oil and gas is doing everything they can to propagate these views on electric cars in communities and view holders like this, so congrats on being in their back pocket.
This community is so self-damaging to their own cause with their extremist hyperbole.
Anyone with 2 brain cells would agree that better city infrastructure, and increased use of public transportation is a good thing, but anyone with 2 brain cells should also be able to recognize that the car will 100%, absolutely, be necessary on some level basically until we’re able to teleport, and that unilaterally calling for bans on cars (which I’m embarrassed to say is a view that is actually a thing in this community) puts you in our less than 2 brain cells bracket unfortunately.
It reminds me of vegans alienating and crapping on vegetarians, or meatless Monday folks who are trying to do their part but might not be ready for the lifestyle change yet. LIke wtf, we’re all on the same side here.
I live in the northernmost million + population city in all of the Americas (Edmonton), and provide in home healthcare services to children with disabilities across the city. I’m not going to bus, bike, or walk in -30-40 C weather in the dead of winter when I have to be at my next visit across the city in 20 minutes. If you think that’s a feasible thing, then you need to reassess your deluded opinions, and put your money where your mouth is and take the train to the hospital rather than an ambulance next time you need to.
To be fair I’m in a minority, weather and profession wise, no doubt. But there’s a HUGE number of people, also simply because the infrastructure hasn’t caught up yet in many places, where this isn’t possible. I feel like most of these, blinders on bonkers people, are those that live European cities with fantastic public transportation (which again, is THE DREAM for real), but somehow think that this London, Paris, Amsterdam-esque fair weathered, public transportation dream is just the norm everywhere and are somehow unaware that the rest of the ruddy world exists outside their little bubble?? (and before I hear anyone saying “oh but it snows sometimes here too in London”; buddy… Visit northern Canada. These places are fair weathered).
So next time you’re about to post some toxic bullshit like this checkbox picture, remember:
- Crap on public infrastructure.
- Crap on politicians not doing enough, and fight like hell for change.
- Don’t crap on people who are just trying to get by in situations different from yours, who need (yes “need”, see my 5th paragraph) to use cars, and don’t crap on electric cars. Crapping on electric cars like calling someone using nicotine gum to quit smoking weak because they didn’t go cold turkey. A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.
Also feel free to crap on all the people buying SUVs and Megatrucks when they don’t actually need it vs. a car (“I like to be higher up” - my mom), increasing pedestrian deaths, emissions, tire and brake dust, noise, parking space, and accident damage. If for your next vehicle you buy a car, a hybrid, or an electric and you need it, then don’t let anyone in this community tell you you’re not doing the right thing :)
“Being inefficient” is bit bullshit though.
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.
It’s a meme, it absolutely is comparing both kinds of cars to other modes of transport.
