The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Will the future not be autonomous driven cars in an Uber style arrangement where people pay per journey?0
-
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2020/national-travel-survey-2020#:~:text=By comparison 50% of trips,made by car in 2020.
That chart basically will end up being inverted.0 -
Your electronics could soon be powered by an ultra cheap sea salt battery.https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/13/significant-breakthrough-this-new-sea-salt-battery-has-4-times-the-capacity-of-lithium
Researchers have built a new cheap battery with four times the energy storage capacity of lithium.
Constructed from sodium-sulphur - a type of molten salt that can be processed from sea water - the battery is low-cost and more environmentally friendly than existing options.
It could be a ‘breakthrough’ for renewable energy, according to lead researcher Dr Shenlong Zhao, from the University of Sydney.
“Our sodium battery has the potential to dramatically reduce costs while providing four times as much storage capacity [as Lithium],” he said.
“This is a significant breakthrough for renewable energy development which, although reduces costs in the long term, has had several financial barriers to entry.”
https://newatlas.com/energy/chinese-giant-catl-commercial-salt-based-battery/
Battery technology is evolving rapidly, there is so much demand.0 -
What you are proposing already exists. People simply don't like it. Yourself included.rick_chasey said:
Christ alive. What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" says anything to do with not working for everyone?pblakeney said:
Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?rick_chasey said:
What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?Dorset_Boy said:Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.
The current system isn't just one thing. It's a mishmash. It will forever be a mishmash. But the orientation is going to change.
Come on. is "a orientated transport system not orientated around cars" that confusing a statement?!
You don't have a carrot so you need a stick. Glad I won't be affected. Carry on.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That's what the Model 3 was/ is all about. Also, why the dash is so minimalist.skyblueamateur said:Will the future not be autonomous driven cars in an Uber style arrangement where people pay per journey?
Shout out to Elon Musks forward thinking greatness.0 -
If Elon Musk was in charge from the get go we'd all be in transportation heaven.0
-
You think the current way people get around is not car orientated!? Most journeys are made by car, by quite a long way.pblakeney said:
What you are proposing already exists. People simply don't like it. Yourself included.rick_chasey said:
Christ alive. What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" says anything to do with not working for everyone?pblakeney said:
Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?rick_chasey said:
What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?Dorset_Boy said:Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.
The current system isn't just one thing. It's a mishmash. It will forever be a mishmash. But the orientation is going to change.
Come on. is "a orientated transport system not orientated around cars" that confusing a statement?!
You don't have a carrot so you need a stick. Glad I won't be affected. Carry on.0 -
You don't think there were any pollution related issues with horses that meant governments promoted the use of horseless vehicles?pblakeney said:
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.0 -
As mentioned, we await a reply. Otherwise this debate needs to go in the bin marked 'theoretical bollox'.Stevo_666 said:
If you want something that works and is accepted in the real world, the key criteria are set out in my post above. We await a workable solution that work for the whole country.rick_chasey said:
Yeah but because most of us live in relatively densely populated areas (around 85%), private cars are just too inefficient in terms of road (traffic james everywhere) and storage space (private cars are unused 96% of the time). And that's before you get to the problems with either burning fossil fuels (pollution, climate change) or using electric cars (the resources required to get the stuff for the batteries is tricky both geopolitically and there aren't enough relevant metals around to supply demand if everyone did have private cars).Stevo_666 said:
So you can see the benefits. I posted above what a replacement will need to do in order to be accepted:rick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
Sorry Brianbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bolloxrick_chasey said:Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.
Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.
RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.
To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.
"So we just need a transport system that takes people from their house or wherever they are, to wherever they want to go - at a time that they want to go. And can allow them to take a sizeable number of things with them. I think we used have something like that called 'cars'."
So as we get more and more densely populated, which is the trend, they will become less and less useful to get people around, and it will be harder and harder to find the stuff needed to make them go."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Autonomous, look at the views or have a nap.pblakeney said:
I am awaiting the onset of 3D movement, crashes and air rage. 🤣focuszing723 said:
Where does everyone park the things?0 -
It has never crossed my mind.kingstongraham said:
You don't think there were any pollution related issues with horses that meant governments promoted the use of horseless vehicles?pblakeney said:
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.
I have my doubts.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Thank you for confirming what I wrote.rick_chasey said:
You think the current way people get around is not car orientated!? Most journeys are made by car, by quite a long way.pblakeney said:
What you are proposing already exists. People simply don't like it. Yourself included.rick_chasey said:
Christ alive. What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" says anything to do with not working for everyone?pblakeney said:
Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?rick_chasey said:
What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?Dorset_Boy said:Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.
The current system isn't just one thing. It's a mishmash. It will forever be a mishmash. But the orientation is going to change.
Come on. is "a orientated transport system not orientated around cars" that confusing a statement?!
You don't have a carrot so you need a stick. Glad I won't be affected. Carry on.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This could be quite an interesting discussion, especially among a bunch of cyclists from different industries.
Instead we have this.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Hyperloops make sense in key major congestion hot spots over long distances replacing plane flights. Connecting major EU Cities, US states.0
-
All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.rjsterry said:
Is insulation not available in Scotland? This nicely illustrates the point that even with your pretty extreme scenario, travel emissions are only roughly equivalent to domestic heating. Also it hides that car emissions are much higher than rail emissions per passenger mile. Average car emissions are 220g/mile, so let's say 6,000 miles for a low-mileage year, that gives us 1.3tonnes of CO2.First.Aspect said:.
Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.rjsterry said:
You are comparing different numbers of people. And who on earth does 100,000 miles of rail commuting a year. Even London to Cardiff every working day is only 70,000 miles a year, which works out at about 5 tonnes of CO2 emitted. The rural dweller will emit around 3-4 tonnes of CO2 just to heat his house, whereas a small terraced house is around 2.7 and that's shared between two people. I think it's likely the rural dweller will have a significantly higher carbon footprint despite working from home and cycling.First.Aspect said:.
It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.rick_chasey said:Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.
Let's have another go at rational discourse.
If we all had a houshold environmental impact budget to spend each year, which would be the higher budget?
1. Rural dweller, no kids, two low mileage a year cars, work from home/cycle commute.
2. Town dweller, one low mileage car, one child, 100,000 miles of rail travel a year.
I think we are at about 5t co2 for heating, but I live in Scotland at some altitude, and the house is all but detached. (Would be a lot less in the south of the UK, but I'm sure no one is suggesting we abandon the north because its more sustainable for us all to live in Cambridgeshire.)
Anyway, by the back of the envelope calculations, it seems like a close run thing doesn't it?
I don't think a 60 mile e/w commute is that extelreme. I know people who commute from Oxford or even further north to Central London. Edinburgh to Glasgow is 49 miles and that is an extremely common commute.
Rail travel, at the moment uses about 20% the CO2 as road. At least in relation to propulsion, this could hypothetically be zero in both cases.
RC and now you seem to believe that should both modes be zero carbon to that extent, the car but not the train, would be unsustainable.
Why? Make ypu argument, don't just keep repeating things like a simpleton.0 -
There were. It was a more physically obvious form of pollution.pblakeney said:
It has never crossed my mind.kingstongraham said:
You don't think there were any pollution related issues with horses that meant governments promoted the use of horseless vehicles?pblakeney said:
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.
I have my doubts.0 -
I don't understand your argument. We have a car orientated system, which favours private cars. I am saying that needs to change. Then you say, "but people want to drive cars". Yeah duh, it's a car orientated system.pblakeney said:
Thank you for confirming what I wrote.rick_chasey said:
You think the current way people get around is not car orientated!? Most journeys are made by car, by quite a long way.pblakeney said:
What you are proposing already exists. People simply don't like it. Yourself included.rick_chasey said:
Christ alive. What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" says anything to do with not working for everyone?pblakeney said:
Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?rick_chasey said:
What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?Dorset_Boy said:Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.
The current system isn't just one thing. It's a mishmash. It will forever be a mishmash. But the orientation is going to change.
Come on. is "a orientated transport system not orientated around cars" that confusing a statement?!
You don't have a carrot so you need a stick. Glad I won't be affected. Carry on.
If we funnelled money away from private cars cars into public transport and cycling infrastructure, then that would likely change.
You make out like the existing alternatives to private cars are terrible, but I'm saying that's only because *we have orientated how we travel to private cars*. That's a choice we have collectively made over the last century.0 -
A quick Google comes up with compelling reasons for the transition to cars (the carrot) but nothing of government interference. Would make sense but would still be a carrot.kingstongraham said:
There were. It was a more physically obvious form of pollution.pblakeney said:
It has never crossed my mind.kingstongraham said:
You don't think there were any pollution related issues with horses that meant governments promoted the use of horseless vehicles?pblakeney said:
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.
I have my doubts.
Where is the carrot of the future?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Will do. Won't see mass transport by drones in my lifetime so may as well nap.focuszing723 said:
Autonomous, look at the views or have a nap.pblakeney said:
I am awaiting the onset of 3D movement, crashes and air rage. 🤣focuszing723 said:
Where does everyone park the things?
Where will they be parked? You have plenty time to come up with an answer.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
interesting.....rick_chasey said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2020/national-travel-survey-2020#:~:text=By comparison 50% of trips,made by car in 2020.
That chart basically will end up being inverted..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Not really because of emissions but because of the geometry of roads and parking and the stuff needed to make electric cars go.First.Aspect said:
All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.rjsterry said:
Is insulation not available in Scotland? This nicely illustrates the point that even with your pretty extreme scenario, travel emissions are only roughly equivalent to domestic heating. Also it hides that car emissions are much higher than rail emissions per passenger mile. Average car emissions are 220g/mile, so let's say 6,000 miles for a low-mileage year, that gives us 1.3tonnes of CO2.First.Aspect said:.
Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.rjsterry said:
You are comparing different numbers of people. And who on earth does 100,000 miles of rail commuting a year. Even London to Cardiff every working day is only 70,000 miles a year, which works out at about 5 tonnes of CO2 emitted. The rural dweller will emit around 3-4 tonnes of CO2 just to heat his house, whereas a small terraced house is around 2.7 and that's shared between two people. I think it's likely the rural dweller will have a significantly higher carbon footprint despite working from home and cycling.First.Aspect said:.
It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.rick_chasey said:Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.
Let's have another go at rational discourse.
If we all had a houshold environmental impact budget to spend each year, which would be the higher budget?
1. Rural dweller, no kids, two low mileage a year cars, work from home/cycle commute.
2. Town dweller, one low mileage car, one child, 100,000 miles of rail travel a year.
I think we are at about 5t co2 for heating, but I live in Scotland at some altitude, and the house is all but detached. (Would be a lot less in the south of the UK, but I'm sure no one is suggesting we abandon the north because its more sustainable for us all to live in Cambridgeshire.)
Anyway, by the back of the envelope calculations, it seems like a close run thing doesn't it?
I don't think a 60 mile e/w commute is that extelreme. I know people who commute from Oxford or even further north to Central London. Edinburgh to Glasgow is 49 miles and that is an extremely common commute.
Rail travel, at the moment uses about 20% the CO2 as road. At least in relation to propulsion, this could hypothetically be zero in both cases.
RC and now you seem to believe that should both modes be zero carbon to that extent, the car but not the train, would be unsustainable.
Why? Make ypu argument, don't just keep repeating things like a simpleton.
So, traffic will continue to get worse until using a car is unusable for a lot of journeys.
Space will increasingly be a premium so parking cars will be more problematic. That's a lot of real estate we hand over to cars that are unused most of the time.
And the stuff that goes into batteries is not so easy to get.
0 -
Silly. They don't get parked anywhere, they fly all the time coz power is free in MuskratWorld.pblakeney said:
Will do. Won't see mass transport by drones in my lifetime so may as well nap.focuszing723 said:
Autonomous, look at the views or have a nap.pblakeney said:
I am awaiting the onset of 3D movement, crashes and air rage. 🤣focuszing723 said:
Where does everyone park the things?
Where will they be parked? You have plenty time to come up with an answer.
0 -
Well it would be bad for Britain, but good for the planet. Stop being so selfish.rjsterry said:
Not sure if this is what you are getting at, but no, I don't think that everyone foreswearing starting a family is anything other than a way to exacerbate the demographic strain we already have in this country.First.Aspect said:In terms of comparing numbers of people, that's the elephant in the room, isn't it?
0 -
Who knows? Affordable renewable energy?pblakeney said:
A quick Google comes up with compelling reasons for the transition to cars (the carrot) but nothing of government interference. Would make sense but would still be a carrot.kingstongraham said:
There were. It was a more physically obvious form of pollution.pblakeney said:
It has never crossed my mind.kingstongraham said:
You don't think there were any pollution related issues with horses that meant governments promoted the use of horseless vehicles?pblakeney said:
Carrot and stick.kingstongraham said:
I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.pblakeney said:
We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.kingstongraham said:
But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?pblakeney said:
...and a carriage to stay dry in.kingstongraham said:Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?
Then more horses..and on and on....
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.
Moving from horses to cars was the carrot. The future is using a stick. Very different.
I have my doubts.
Where is the carrot of the future?
In cities, probably being able to get around quickly.0 -
So you are effectively arguing that cars are unsustainable because they take up too much space, and journey times are too long?rick_chasey said:
I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bolloxrick_chasey said:Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.
Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.
RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.
Currently the transport system for travel is fundamentally oriented around private cars.
For reasons, such as the fact that 85% of people live in urban areas and the associated geometrical problems (traffic jams and car storage) as well as the sustainability of resources needed for mass private car travel, means that, in the future, it’s not really viable for travel in the future to be private car oriented. In plainer English, it’s not sustainable for the majority of journeys to be made by private car.
Instead, we are likely to see a system where public transport is the main way to travel and the roads are left largely to commercial vehicles and ebikes, not private vehicles. The challenge with public transport is the miles betwee destinations and those hubs and I recon the vast majority of those journeys are e-bikeable.
This is not an argument, despite everyone’s best attempts, about the sustainability or otherwise of rural living. Or a discussion about how car reliant everyone is. That’s a given because that’s the system we have collectively built. For thy very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.
If we spent what we all collectively spent on cars and instead spent it on public transport and infrastructure for more efficient travel, the quality and reach of public transport would be better, and I recon, sufficient for the vast majority of journeys.
For things like shopping, the roads could clearly be used, as they are already, for commercial vehicles to deliver. I can’t remember the last time I needed the car to buy something, and soon it will cost me £5 every day i use my car, so it’ll even more economical to pay for delivery. I’d be surprised if the delivery costs were more than a few hundred quid a year for most people. And think how much faster they’d be without private cars clogging up the routes.
Taxis etc could form part of the travel network too, and for obvious reasons, taxis are much more efficient for those journeys not serviceable by the type of network I’m describing. (After all, private cars spend on average 96% of their time not being used)
I am genuinely surprised this is so controversial. I mean, if you read anything into transport planning in the future, what I’m saying is basically the model the experts want to head towards.
In the scenario where the grid is decarbonised, are individuals' willingness to waste time in traffic jams and dedicate some space in their property for a car really anything to do with sustainability?
There are clearly economic arguments in favour of moving people around more efficiently, but that's not what you've been arguing.
Or are you coming from the perspective that the power grid will NEVER be decarbonised?0 -
Reverse urbanisation incentives in Japan
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/03/million-yen-per-child-to-leave-tokyo-japans-offer-to-families
Doesn't appear to include e-bikes.0 -
... Edited as the comment already made[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
When I say sustainable, I mean, literally sustainable. Not euphemistically green. I mean, it cannot be sustained indefinitely. It I'm not talking specifically green or emissions or whatever, though that is clearly a part of it, as our tolerance for pollution and emissions will continue to be less. Clearly lower emissions travel is beneficial.First.Aspect said:
So you are effectively arguing that cars are unsustainable because they take up too much space, and journey times are too long?rick_chasey said:
I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bolloxrick_chasey said:Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.
Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.
RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.
Currently the transport system for travel is fundamentally oriented around private cars.
For reasons, such as the fact that 85% of people live in urban areas and the associated geometrical problems (traffic jams and car storage) as well as the sustainability of resources needed for mass private car travel, means that, in the future, it’s not really viable for travel in the future to be private car oriented. In plainer English, it’s not sustainable for the majority of journeys to be made by private car.
Instead, we are likely to see a system where public transport is the main way to travel and the roads are left largely to commercial vehicles and ebikes, not private vehicles. The challenge with public transport is the miles betwee destinations and those hubs and I recon the vast majority of those journeys are e-bikeable.
This is not an argument, despite everyone’s best attempts, about the sustainability or otherwise of rural living. Or a discussion about how car reliant everyone is. That’s a given because that’s the system we have collectively built. For thy very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.
If we spent what we all collectively spent on cars and instead spent it on public transport and infrastructure for more efficient travel, the quality and reach of public transport would be better, and I recon, sufficient for the vast majority of journeys.
For things like shopping, the roads could clearly be used, as they are already, for commercial vehicles to deliver. I can’t remember the last time I needed the car to buy something, and soon it will cost me £5 every day i use my car, so it’ll even more economical to pay for delivery. I’d be surprised if the delivery costs were more than a few hundred quid a year for most people. And think how much faster they’d be without private cars clogging up the routes.
Taxis etc could form part of the travel network too, and for obvious reasons, taxis are much more efficient for those journeys not serviceable by the type of network I’m describing. (After all, private cars spend on average 96% of their time not being used)
I am genuinely surprised this is so controversial. I mean, if you read anything into transport planning in the future, what I’m saying is basically the model the experts want to head towards.
In the scenario where the grid is decarbonised, are individuals' willingness to waste time in traffic jams and dedicate some space in their property for a car really anything to do with sustainability?
There are clearly economic arguments in favour of moving people around more efficiently, but that's not what you've been arguing.
Or are you coming from the perspective that the power grid will NEVER be decarbonised?
And yes, everyone using private cars as their main way to travel is indeed unsustainable, because they take up too much space and journeys by car will be too long. They're getting longer ever year. We also dont have enough of the right metals in the ground to put batteries in all the private cars we will likely need with the existing model.
Often the reason people drive is because it's the best way to get around versus the alternatives. But that may well be just because the alternatives are really bad, rather than private cars being all that good.
I propose that if we invested as much non-private car travel as we have done in cars, then in the long run we'll have a system that gets people around more efficiently: that is, getting more people around faster with less energy and fewer resources used.
One delivery van is a much more efficient use of all the things that go into a vehicle than the 100 or so people who the van delivers to going back and forth in their own car to the supermarket, for example. So you're better off sitting at home and having your supermarket shop delivered to your door.
The amount we collectively spend on cars is remarkable. Outlay for the car, servicing, fuel, depreciation, repairs, parking the lot.
Imagine if all of that was instead spent on infrastructure, public transport, deliveries, taxis and ebikes, and all the extra space we get from not having to park cars everywhere.0 -
This thread is bonkers, especially considering this is a cycling forum...
Listen to Chris Boardman on this subject (and with respect to the honours thread, if anyone deserves a knighthood, he does).
You don't need to make people get rid of cars. You just need to make the alternatives better to the point they become the de facto choice. If it is cheaper, quicker, easier to get from A to B on bike, public transport, walking, scooter, whatever, people will do it.
That's quite hard to achieve in this country, not because of geography, but because of mindsets and the political will. If you're not in a car you're seen as poot, and anything that tips the overwhelmingly car orientated landscape less so gets derided as the "war on motoring". But it is possible, the progress in London in the last 10 years is clear evidence of that.
Bear in mind 70% of car journeys are under 5 miles, if you can switch even half of them to bikes, that's a major win all round. Less pollution, less stress on the limited roads we have, making it easier for those journeys that are always likely be better by car to happen.
A lot of things are needed to make this happen, starting with a major change of incentives from one off taxes like VED to pay as you use, increase the cost of parking, spend money on joined up cycling and walking infrastructure.0
