The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

So they solve the traffic geometry problem by adding a dimension to roads, but how do they solve the storage or battery problem?

There is this group of people called scientists who are working on all of that. They don't know much about economics or the arts, but they might just save the planet.

Energy storage is trivial. Either use some energy to raise the elevation of water and then run it through a turbine, or use some energy for electrolysis to store energy as hydrogen and burn it to turn a turbine, or use a fuel cell.

Sorry if this is patronising, but you do realise that fuel cells are capable of generating electricity from hydrogen and biomass? And do you understand that fuel cells don't use as many rare metals?

Long term, lithuim ion batteries may turn out to be the betamax of battery technology, at least for some applications. They are heavy and prone to overheating, not ideal for transport. Assuming that scale-up, stability and longevity issues can be overcome for other battery chemistries - and there are numerous candidates - then both of these issues can be mitigaged, as can the material availability, because elements like sulfur, sodium, aluminium and titanium (all of which are in candidate materials) are comparatively extremely abundant.

Are you so pessimistic that you don't believe that these technological challenges will be overcome?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

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.

I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.

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.

So you are effectively arguing that cars are unsustainable because they take up too much space, and journey times are too long?

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?

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.

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.

The "carrot" approach to reducing car journeys is fine.

The batpoo crazy "stick" approach of making living rurally impossible, is not, however because there is a level of personalised transportation that is sustainable (for everyone, not just rural dwellers).

In your mind what is that level?

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So they solve the traffic geometry problem by adding a dimension to roads, but how do they solve the storage or battery problem?

There is this group of people called scientists who are working on all of that. They don't know much about economics or the arts, but they might just save the planet.

Energy storage is trivial. Either use some energy to raise the elevation of water and then run it through a turbine, or use some energy for electrolysis to store energy as hydrogen and burn it to turn a turbine, or use a fuel cell.

Sorry if this is patronising, but you do realise that fuel cells are capable of generating electricity from hydrogen and biomass? And do you understand that fuel cells don't use as many rare metals?

Long term, lithuim ion batteries may turn out to be the betamax of battery technology, at least for some applications. They are heavy and prone to overheating, not ideal for transport. Assuming that scale-up, stability and longevity issues can be overcome for other battery chemistries - and there are numerous candidates - then both of these issues can be mitigaged, as can the material availability, because elements like sulfur, sodium, aluminium and titanium (all of which are in candidate materials) are comparatively extremely abundant.

Are you so pessimistic that you don't believe that these technological challenges will be overcome?

I've spoken to a bunch of people who's job it is to invest in these types of things and they are pretty pessimistic about the future of private cars and specifically the batteries needed in them.

That's where I first got the idea and then I read up about it. It seems the battery problem for transport is a real problem when it comes to the scale needed to replace combustion engines.

Maybe they'll come up with a solution, maybe they won't, but that's only one part of the problem! The density/traffic dilemma is not so straightforward.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

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.

Sorry Brian

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.

I'm not saying it's morally wrong we drive. I'm just being practical that they're unlikely to be the mass transit solution like they are today.

The current system is set up for private cars. For lots of reasons, I don't think that will be possible in the future, because of how the majority of us live, and what is required in terms of resources to do so.

So I think the future of the car as the main means to get around the country is limited.

That’s a change from what you originally said in the other thread though.

You also previously mentioned how we will run out of road space but it actually only takes a relatively small reduction in car use to get roads flowing freely, just look at the difference in school holidays. In a reasonable world we could maybe get close to the levels we had in the early days of lockdown I reckon.

I think there are a lot of people who will change their habits if cost and convenience encourage them but I don’t see the end of the private car until there there is a similar, greener option that provides the same benefits. Relatively light bits of stick alongside the carrots can make big differences as household waste has demonstrated. We used to fill a 240 litre bin most weeks, the Council then started collecting fortnightly and started kerbside recycling and they have since cut the size of the bin twice so we now only have a 120 litre bin a fortnight so are throwing a maximum of 25% of the previous amount into landfill. The key is not to give in to the complaints which Governments aren’t good at!

kingstongraham

I'm not car reliant unless I leave London.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So they solve the traffic geometry problem by adding a dimension to roads, but how do they solve the storage or battery problem?

There is this group of people called scientists who are working on all of that. They don't know much about economics or the arts, but they might just save the planet.

Energy storage is trivial. Either use some energy to raise the elevation of water and then run it through a turbine, or use some energy for electrolysis to store energy as hydrogen and burn it to turn a turbine, or use a fuel cell.

Sorry if this is patronising, but you do realise that fuel cells are capable of generating electricity from hydrogen and biomass? And do you understand that fuel cells don't use as many rare metals?

Long term, lithuim ion batteries may turn out to be the betamax of battery technology, at least for some applications. They are heavy and prone to overheating, not ideal for transport. Assuming that scale-up, stability and longevity issues can be overcome for other battery chemistries - and there are numerous candidates - then both of these issues can be mitigaged, as can the material availability, because elements like sulfur, sodium, aluminium and titanium (all of which are in candidate materials) are comparatively extremely abundant.

Are you so pessimistic that you don't believe that these technological challenges will be overcome?

I've spoken to a bunch of people who's job it is to invest in these types of things and they are pretty pessimistic about the future of private cars and specifically the batteries needed in them.

That's where I first got the idea and then I read up about it. It seems the battery problem for transport is a real problem when it comes to the scale needed to replace combustion engines.

Maybe they'll come up with a solution, maybe they won't, but that's only one part of the problem! The density/traffic dilemma is not so straightforward.

So your world view is based on financial investor timescales. It isn't a surprise, honestly.

No, I am afraid to say that science works on a time scale that isn't going to give a financial return on entirely new battery technologies within the next 3-5 years. Of course, we wouldn't want to make wholesale societal changes on the basis of banker timescales now would we?

This doesn't obviate the need to make urban and suburban transport more efficient. But some people will still need to drive to get to the start of some such journeys.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

I'm not car reliant unless I leave London.

But would want to be left unable to leave London when you want? Even if I enjoyed city living I’m sure I wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in London without trips to the mountains or beaches. Despite liking the countryside I wouldn’t enjoy living one of those completely sustainable off-grid self-sufficient lives either. I suppose we could all go back to being like other animals and only doing what we need to survive as it is really our need to entertain ourselves that causes the problems but is that a life worth living?

pblakeney

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm not car reliant unless I leave London.

But would want to be left unable to leave London when you want? Even if I enjoyed city living I’m sure I wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in London without trips to the mountains or beaches. Despite liking the countryside I wouldn’t enjoy living one of those completely sustainable off-grid self-sufficient lives either. I suppose we could all go back to being like other animals and only doing what we need to survive as it is really our need to entertain ourselves that causes the problems but is that a life worth living?

When I lived in cities I would take public transport out of the city.
No suitable public transport? Hire a car. Cost efficient, green, no parking hassle, why not?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm not car reliant unless I leave London.

But would want to be left unable to leave London when you want? Even if I enjoyed city living I’m sure I wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in London without trips to the mountains or beaches. Despite liking the countryside I wouldn’t enjoy living one of those completely sustainable off-grid self-sufficient lives either. I suppose we could all go back to being like other animals and only doing what we need to survive as it is really our need to entertain ourselves that causes the problems but is that a life worth living?

When I lived in cities I would take public transport out of the city.
No suitable public transport? Hire a car. Cost efficient, green, no parking hassle, why not?

Sure, car clubs are great too. Personally, I only need to travel 12 miles to pick one up. I could drive there I suppose.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm not car reliant unless I leave London.

But would want to be left unable to leave London when you want? Even if I enjoyed city living I’m sure I wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in London without trips to the mountains or beaches. Despite liking the countryside I wouldn’t enjoy living one of those completely sustainable off-grid self-sufficient lives either. I suppose we could all go back to being like other animals and only doing what we need to survive as it is really our need to entertain ourselves that causes the problems but is that a life worth living?

When I lived in cities I would take public transport out of the city.
No suitable public transport? Hire a car. Cost efficient, green, no parking hassle, why not?

Sure, car clubs are great too. Personally, I only need to travel 12 miles to pick one up. I could drive there I suppose.

You don't live in a city though so irrelevant.
This is a discussion about high density urban areas don't you know? 😉

kingstongraham

I can't see urban and rural car usage as having the same issues at all. The global sustainability of private car use isn't getting solved by the UK on its own, but it will be great when there is a solution that people want. Pricing according to impact might help it along the way.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

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.

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.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

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?

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.

All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.

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.

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure there's any point me arguing with your invented version of what I wrote.

BTW, it's not that difficult to build a house that requires no heating at all even in the frozen wastes of Scotland.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

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.

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.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

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?

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.

All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.

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.

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure there's any point me arguing with your invented version of what I wrote.

BTW, it's not that difficult to build a house that requires no heating at all even in the frozen wastes of Scotland.

Are you doing that forum thing where someone inserts their own agenda into some other discussion, then getting huffy?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

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.

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.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

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?

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.

All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.

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.

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure there's any point me arguing with your invented version of what I wrote.

BTW, it's not that difficult to build a house that requires no heating at all even in the frozen wastes of Scotland.

Can you tell me how to make a 19th century stone cottage heating-free please? And the price? And also how I can sustainably travel between Utopia and Ricktopia?

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

I can't see urban and rural car usage as having the same issues at all. The global sustainability of private car use isn't getting solved by the UK on its own, but it will be great when there is a solution that people want. Pricing according to impact might help it along the way.

I don't understand why the distinction is really necessary. It's not like people don't travel to and from different places all the time.

Basically the issue for non-private car travel in rural areas, is the distance from the hub and the destination is usually longer, right? In FA's case, a lot longer by the sounds of it.

For the vast majority of people, you're never *that* far away from somewhere dense enough to justify a mass transport hub, be it a bus or a train. Not least as 85% of people are already in urban areas and of the other 15%, quite a few will be not super far away.

And it's not about UK "solving private car sustainability" as much as it's about adjusting the transport to most efficiently get people around. Increasingly, private cares are getting less efficient by the moment, and there's nothing to suggest that is gonna change, so why not get ahead of the problem?

rick_chasey

Maybe I have gone wrong as I am using sustainable in the literal sense.

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

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.

I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.

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.

So you are effectively arguing that cars are unsustainable because they take up too much space, and journey times are too long?

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?

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.

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.

The "carrot" approach to reducing car journeys is fine.

The batpoo crazy "stick" approach of making living rurally impossible, is not, however because there is a level of personalised transportation that is sustainable (for everyone, not just rural dwellers).

In your mind what is that level?

I think it's an interesting thought to see, if, hypothetically, private cars were just never allowed or never existed, and the only vehicles we had were commercial vehicles, how we'd do.

I suspect in the vast majority of cases, absolutely fine and an improvement, if the equivalent resources spent on private car ownership, directly or indirectly, were spent on other types of transport.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

Energy storage is trivial. Either use some energy to raise the elevation of water and then run it through a turbine, or use some energy for electrolysis to store energy as hydrogen and burn it to turn a turbine, or use a fuel cell.

If you do the calculations on how much water you need to raise, you'll find it isn't trivial unless nature has built a convenient mountain and lake.

Hydrogen could act as form of storage, but a lot needs to happen before it does on any real scale. The government had a very positive consultation on the subject, but then the PM changed and nothing has happened since.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

I can't see urban and rural car usage as having the same issues at all. The global sustainability of private car use isn't getting solved by the UK on its own, but it will be great when there is a solution that people want. Pricing according to impact might help it along the way.

I don't understand why the distinction is really necessary. It's not like people don't travel to and from different places all the time.

Basically the issue for non-private car travel is the distance from the hub and the destination is usually longer, right? In FA's case, a lot longer by the sounds of it.

For the vast majority of people, you're never *that* far away from somewhere dense enough to justify a mass transport hub, be it a bus or a train.

And it's not about UK "solving private car sustainability" as much as it's about adjusting the transport to most efficiently get people around. Increasingly, private cares are getting less efficient by the moment, and there's nothing to suggest that is gonna change, so why not get ahead of the problem?

Perhaps part of the problem here was your own private definition of "sustainable".

FWIW, I live about 20% as far from the hub I use than you do. My commute is 12 miles, when I do it, which I normally do by bike. Overall, this probably makes my rural lifestyle more sustainable than your urban one, just about.

Sometimes I drive to work (during things like lockdowns, or off peak), but I won't do that when the ULEZ comes into force and I don't mind that the policy will reduce my options, because its sensible.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

I can't see urban and rural car usage as having the same issues at all. The global sustainability of private car use isn't getting solved by the UK on its own, but it will be great when there is a solution that people want. Pricing according to impact might help it along the way.

I don't understand why the distinction is really necessary. It's not like people don't travel to and from different places all the time.

Basically the issue for non-private car travel in rural areas, is the distance from the hub and the destination is usually longer, right? In FA's case, a lot longer by the sounds of it.

For the vast majority of people, you're never *that* far away from somewhere dense enough to justify a mass transport hub, be it a bus or a train. Not least as 85% of people are already in urban areas and of the other 15%, quite a few will be not super far away.

And it's not about UK "solving private car sustainability" as much as it's about adjusting the transport to most efficiently get people around. Increasingly, private cares are getting less efficient by the moment, and there's nothing to suggest that is gonna change, so why not get ahead of the problem?

The distinction is between physical local issues (particulate pollution, congestion) and global issues (emissions, availability of components).

If you conflate them, you end up with ridiculous arguments about there not being enough space for all the cars in empty parts of the country.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

...
I suspect in the vast majority of cases, absolutely fine and an improvement, if the equivalent resources spent on private car ownership, directly or indirectly, were spent on other types of transport.

I suspect that 90% of this thread is about getting your train commute improved and nothing more.

rick_chasey

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

I'm not either - the point I am making is that there is considerable overlap between what you consider to be "acceptable" and what you do not. Which helps us to circle right back to the absurdities that others have pointed out about you about your initially very polarised line of argumentation.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

I'm not either - the point I am making is that there is considerable overlap between what you consider to be "acceptable" and what you do not. Which helps us to circle right back to the absurdities that others have pointed out about you about your initially very polarised line of argumentation.

Genuinely, i am baffled when i am talking about an entire system everyone seems hell bent on making it a rural vs city thing, and can't distinguish between their current experiences of non-private car travel in a system where that is the main means of travel and one where it isn't.

The system is *everything*. All of it. No system for people will be perfect for all individuals, and no system will be exclusively one thing.

Obviously. It's absolutely mad that that needs spelling out. That is totally a given.

I feel like I'm being straw manned because people are assuming I'm so thick that I can't conceive of people travelling in the rural world. FFS, it's really not hard to conceive. I have actually lived in a village for half my life.

Come on.

briantrumpet

I'll admit I've entirely lost the point of this discussion, other than using up pixels.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

I'm not either - the point I am making is that there is considerable overlap between what you consider to be "acceptable" and what you do not. Which helps us to circle right back to the absurdities that others have pointed out about you about your initially very polarised line of argumentation.

Genuinely, i am baffled when i am talking about an entire system everyone seems hell bent on making it a rural vs city thing, and can't distinguish between their current experiences of non-private car travel in a system where that is the main means of travel and one where it isn't.

The system is *everything*. All of it. No system for people will be perfect for all individuals, and no system will be exclusively one thing.

Obviously. It's absolutely mad that that needs spelling out. That is totally a given.

I think your confusion is because you aren't reading what anyone is saying, or accepting any feedback whatsoever. The thread is basically you telling people what they should think.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

I'm not either - the point I am making is that there is considerable overlap between what you consider to be "acceptable" and what you do not. Which helps us to circle right back to the absurdities that others have pointed out about you about your initially very polarised line of argumentation.

Genuinely, i am baffled when i am talking about an entire system everyone seems hell bent on making it a rural vs city thing, and can't distinguish between their current experiences of non-private car travel in a system where that is the main means of travel and one where it isn't.

The system is *everything*. All of it. No system for people will be perfect for all individuals, and no system will be exclusively one thing.

Obviously. It's absolutely mad that that needs spelling out. That is totally a given.

I feel like I'm being straw manned because people are assuming I'm so thick that I can't conceive of people travelling in the rural world. FFS, it's really not hard to conceive. I have actually lived in a village for half my life.

Come on.

OK, so articulate how travel in a rural environment can be better without private cars to do at least part of journeys than with.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

FA, I'm not interested in a competition for who is greener. I'm thinking about the entire transport system as a whole and how it needs to adjust to a denser population by the day that is increasingly intolerant of fossil fuel burning.

Clearly there are other factors like housing etc that impact how far people travel daily, but let's assume they're roughly constant and we look at where the collective investment goes on what and how to get people around more efficiently. On all levels. Time, resources, money, number of people the system can move about easily, the lot.

I'm not either - the point I am making is that there is considerable overlap between what you consider to be "acceptable" and what you do not. Which helps us to circle right back to the absurdities that others have pointed out about you about your initially very polarised line of argumentation.

Genuinely, i am baffled when i am talking about an entire system everyone seems hell bent on making it a rural vs city thing, and can't distinguish between their current experiences of non-private car travel in a system where that is the main means of travel and one where it isn't.

The system is *everything*. All of it. No system for people will be perfect for all individuals, and no system will be exclusively one thing.

Obviously. It's absolutely mad that that needs spelling out. That is totally a given.

I feel like I'm being straw manned because people are assuming I'm so thick that I can't conceive of people travelling in the rural world. FFS, it's really not hard to conceive. I have actually lived in a village for half my life.

Come on.

OK, so articulate how travel in a rural environment can be better without private cars to do at least part of journeys than with.

I mean firstly, a better transport system would service the rural communities better, especially villages etc.

To give an illustrative example, my MIL lives in a village which used to have buses every 10 minutes either into town or the surrounding villages.

Now there's one every hour and it's unreliable, so everyone uses a car - problem for her, as she can't drive for health reasons, so she has to rely on lifts. That's mad. Busses would be able to travel faster and more efficiently because they're not snarled up behind private cars anyway.

For the further afield, shopping is done by delivery, and travel is done by I guess taxi to the nearest hub, or I guess a private car but let's assume there's nowhere to park?

I mean, clearly you've chosen to live somewhere where your primary way of getting around is private car, so obviously a move away from that is going to be more costly for you. Had that not been an option you probably wouldn't have moved there in the first place.

I'd be curious if you added the cost of your car over the years, how much more expensive it would be than taxis and delivery. If it's less than 4 figures...? Assuming you'd want to use your bike a little more too.

Pross

I think your penultimate paragraph is what caused the reaction (I think you’ve actually toned it down a bit above from what you originally said).

FWIW my car cost me nothing, I was given it by my old boss (it was his old personal car) when I went to work for him as they couldn’t provide a company car. I’ve now had it over 5 years. I appreciate that is highly unusual though.

The best way of reducing car use is to get rid of your kids, I’ve gone from using a tank of fuel a week to one every 2-3 weeks since my youngest went to Uni!

rick_chasey

Your car has not cost you nothing. Tax, servicing, MOT, wear and tear, fuel, parking, all costs money.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

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.

I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.

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.

So you are effectively arguing that cars are unsustainable because they take up too much space, and journey times are too long?

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?

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.

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.

The "carrot" approach to reducing car journeys is fine.

The batpoo crazy "stick" approach of making living rurally impossible, is not, however because there is a level of personalised transportation that is sustainable (for everyone, not just rural dwellers).

In your mind what is that level?

F*** me. What is this chip on the shoulder of all the country dwelling townies.

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

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.

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.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

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?

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.

All things being equal, if it is colder outside, one will spend more on hearing. Scotland is colder than Cambridge.

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.

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure there's any point me arguing with your invented version of what I wrote.

BTW, it's not that difficult to build a house that requires no heating at all even in the frozen wastes of Scotland.

Are you doing that forum thing where someone inserts their own agenda into some other discussion, then getting huffy?

No.

As far as I can see, RC has somewhat clumsily pointed out the bleeding obvious that car use for most of us (who live in urban areas) will need to reduce our use of cars. A bunch of country dwellers are then jumping in to argue that it's *impossible* because they might need to pick up a Christmas tree or something when RC wasn't talking about the minority who live in the sticks. I've already commented that there is still lots of room for improvement in urban areas where public transport infrastructure already exists. If you do live in the sticks and largely work from home, then as you point out, travel emissions and congestion are non-issues but the sustainability of your home is something that should be addressed.