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

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I live about a mile from a village that used to have a bus service. Has about 40 houses I think, so about 100 or so residents.

The MPG of a bus will be about 10-20% that of a car at best. Means you need at least 5-10 people per bus journey to make it more sustainable than individuals taking a car. The equation doesn't change if the fuel source changes.

If you have a bus service every hour from that village to Ricktopolis, or to the station that takes you into Rictopolis Central, do you think that would be sustainable?

No, it wouldn't, which is one of the reasons why there's no bus service any more (the economics of providing a bus service being somewhat correlated). You'd need a much, much larger population to justify a sustainable bus service, and that would be called a "town".

Not if no-one has a car to take instead ;-)

By taking a magic bus that comes only where there are enough passengers to make it sustainable?

Maybe a very very small bus, with just three or four seats, and a voluntary driver (to keep down labour costs, and increase flexibility)... dunno what you'd call it though... an 'arc', maybe

Very amusing and a very good point at the same time Brian.

pblakeney

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Pross

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

I thought it was blatantly obvious I was saying it cost nothing to ‘buy’ from the remainder of that post but will remember in future to spell everything out. I’m well aware of how much it costs me to run but as I said many of those costs are fixed whether it sits on the drive or gets used.

Over the years I’ve commuted a 37 mile round trip by bike around 3 times a week all year round when working in Cardiff and travelled by train whenever possible when working in Bristol or Cheltenham. I’ve also worked from home on and off for 15 years (now permanently) but I have still needed a car and the costs that go with that.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

There may be a connection between the purchase price and the maintenance costs. Buy an old crapper - spend more maintaining it

Pross

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if what I typed hadn’t been clear!

Stevo_666

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if what I typed hadn’t been clear!

There is also the small point that many people like driving their cars. It can be fun. Wonder how many say to themselves, 'I'll go for a nice ride on the bus today' ?

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

There may be a connection between the purchase price and the maintenance costs. Buy an old crapper - spend more maintaining it

Only about £100 on maintenance last year. What does the wagon cost you?

pangolin

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.

pangolin

I'm coming around to the opinion that about 60% of these replies only make sense if viewed as trying to wind Rick up.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

If our village had a bus an hour each bus would probably only have one or two people on it.
I suspect Rick's idea of a village is a place with 3-5,000 population about 10 minutes from a large urban area. Somewhere like Sawston (which I would not consider a village).
Bournemouth & Poole (519,000) is the largest urban area near to me, which is 25 miles, then Salisbury (25 miles), Bath (40 miles), or Dorchester (20 miles). The local towns are not big enough to be transport hubs. It would be totally uneconomic to serve all the villages and hamlets by public transport. That is typical of a lot of the counties in England once you move away from the SE and the M62 corridor.
I suspect you need 50,000 population or more in the urban area to make Rick's ideas work. In such areas then sure, improve the public transport options significantly, but they won't replace the car in small towns and villages. Even in the urban areas you need to work out a solution to the weather for the last mile or more.

Would it still be uneconomical if the majority of the inhabitants stopped using their cars?

pblakeney

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.

This is why we get cross point arguing.
If people live in an are where the infrastructure exists (or could exist) then car use can/will be reduced. This does not apply to all. There is no one catch-all solution.

My point from way back is that the choice already exists where it is suitable.
People simply choose not to use it for a multiple of reasons. Address those reasons first.

focuszing723

What about if we genetically modified humans with birds to have wings.

God, I'd love to have wings, fly about and stuff.

Yep, humans with wings.

And regrowth of limbs like lizards and frogs.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if what I typed hadn’t been clear!

There is also the small point that many people like driving their cars. It can be fun. Wonder how many say to themselves, 'I'll go for a nice ride on the bus today' ?

They can just go to a theme park.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Only about £100 on maintenance last year. What does the wagon cost you?

More but its well worth it

Why did you above say £2k a year to maintain your car if you're now claiming £100 a year?

Pross

If we did get to the stage where the level of essential journeys that could only be done by private car were negligible would it still be worthwhile cars still being made? If not who is going to build the cars used as taxis, car clubs, hire cars etc.? I suppose if there is an upsurge in vans for deliveries then it could be van based cars would still be viable I suppose.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If our village had a bus an hour each bus would probably only have one or two people on it.
I suspect Rick's idea of a village is a place with 3-5,000 population about 10 minutes from a large urban area. Somewhere like Sawston (which I would not consider a village).
Bournemouth & Poole (519,000) is the largest urban area near to me, which is 25 miles, then Salisbury (25 miles), Bath (40 miles), or Dorchester (20 miles). The local towns are not big enough to be transport hubs. It would be totally uneconomic to serve all the villages and hamlets by public transport. That is typical of a lot of the counties in England once you move away from the SE and the M62 corridor.
I suspect you need 50,000 population or more in the urban area to make Rick's ideas work. In such areas then sure, improve the public transport options significantly, but they won't replace the car in small towns and villages. Even in the urban areas you need to work out a solution to the weather for the last mile or more.

Would it still be uneconomical if the majority of the inhabitants stopped using their cars?

Yes. And that is what you keep missing.
270 houses in the village, so a little over 600 population. Some are retired, some wfh, some travel to work but in multiple different directions and distances and differing work times, some are school age.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If our village had a bus an hour each bus would probably only have one or two people on it.
I suspect Rick's idea of a village is a place with 3-5,000 population about 10 minutes from a large urban area. Somewhere like Sawston (which I would not consider a village).
Bournemouth & Poole (519,000) is the largest urban area near to me, which is 25 miles, then Salisbury (25 miles), Bath (40 miles), or Dorchester (20 miles). The local towns are not big enough to be transport hubs. It would be totally uneconomic to serve all the villages and hamlets by public transport. That is typical of a lot of the counties in England once you move away from the SE and the M62 corridor.
I suspect you need 50,000 population or more in the urban area to make Rick's ideas work. In such areas then sure, improve the public transport options significantly, but they won't replace the car in small towns and villages. Even in the urban areas you need to work out a solution to the weather for the last mile or more.

Would it still be uneconomical if the majority of the inhabitants stopped using their cars?

Can they still use their tractors?

focuszing723

Would you go for small flappy (quick beat) or long slender soaring wings?

I think I rather have soaring wings, but they'd be a faff to fold up when going legged.

focuszing723

Thread over if we had wings.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

87% of British Columbia's power is hydroelectric. Austria 57%. Switzerland 61%. I don't know how much of that capacity is susceptible to pump storage, but given the right geography, it seems possible that it could be a solution to storing renewable energy.

Power storage with water probably isn't a large part of any solution here, which is why I mentioned hydrogen. We store and transport methane for power generation and hydrogen isn't that much more difficult (leaks are the main issue, because it is such a small molecule, but it is achievable). A bigger challenge is turning that hydrogen into electricity because although you can burn it to generate power the same way, its not as energy dense as methane and that isn't the most efficient way to get electricity from hydrogen. But there is ultimately money to be made so given time large scale fuel cell energy generation would happen.

The fact a historically awful Tory government full of ostriches hasn't made progress in the few tens of seconds since the last time it ate itself is hardly relevant.

A hydroelectric plant can be used as storage simply by varying the flow. That's why the UK's interconnector with Norway is helpful. It still requires nature to do its thing which is why you have named countries with mountains.

I have posted a lot in support of hydrogen. I was mostly taking issue with your usage of trivial. For example, there are proposal to use old salt mines, but it's far from easy and is mostly without precedent.

Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.

The technology for batteries is more advanced than for hydrogen even if the concept for hydrogen is simple. There are no big electrolysers at the moment.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

I'm coming around to the opinion that about 60% of these replies only make sense if viewed as trying to wind Rick up.

Only 60?

focuszing723

Slated as the first large-scale pumped hydro storage scheme to be built in the UK for more than 30 years, Utility Week Innovate digs into plans to deliver up to 1.5GW and 30GWh of storage by 2030 at Coire Glas.

It’s forecast that SSE Renewables’ Coire Glas pumped storage plant – located in Scotland’s Great Glen between Fort William and Inverness – will create enough storage capacity to power three million homes for up to 24 hours when operational. More than doubling Britain’s existing capacity.

https://utilityweek.co.uk/inside-1bn-pumped-hydro-plans-to-more-than-double-britains-electricity-storage/#:~:text=The project is expected to,than 500m above, storing energy.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pangolin said:

Pross said:

pangolin said:

OK so we've established cars are basically free.

Who said that?

Pross said:

FWIW my car cost me nothing

Pross said:

Running costs have been minimal

It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).

Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.

Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.

The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.

Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.

This is why we get cross point arguing.
If people live in an are where the infrastructure exists (or could exist) then car use can/will be reduced. This does not apply to all. There is no one catch-all solution.

My point from way back is that the choice already exists where it is suitable.
People simply choose not to use it for a multiple of reasons. Address those reasons first.

The reason is have collectively chosen to prioritise private car drivers over public transport users in everywhere but the biggest cities. That's a policy design. The reason places like Holland, which despite protestations has a similar density to large parts of the UK, can have tonnes of cyclists and far fewer car journeys is directly a result of policy decisions.

If you refuse to provide appropriate cycling infrastructure, so most people are literally too frightened to ride a bike, and you don't put in the investment required to make public transport usable, of course people will invest their money so they don't have to rely on that.

So I disagree that we've ended up in this situation because it's the optimal situation. It's only optimal for the policy decisions that have been made.

If the £2k a year everyone spends on car upkeep was instead spent on improving cycling infrastructure, bus routes and rail routes, I suspect there would be a material improvement all round - and those bus routes would look more appealing to run.

focuszing723

There would have to be a law against sky $h1tt1ng though.

focuszing723

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qxS6chga8

MattFalle

none of us here can underrstand wtaf Rickis do obsessed with getting everything delivered instead g to the shop yourself.

we genuinly struggle to seemore than 3 good points of getting stuff delivered over popping fown to the shops - being a lazybastard is one of them

if he honestly thinks MF is waiting in to get somrone to drliver 20 Marlboro Red, 3 things of milk and a handfull of other its he's sorrly mistaken

rick_chasey

Interestingly, it looks like they're going to include a congestion charge here in the 'bridge which is £5 a day for using your car, even if you live there.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

There would have to be a law against sky $h1tt1ng though.

Isn't that already an issue with planes?
https://youtu.be/xOeDM3FSnpI

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Only about £100 on maintenance last year. What does the wagon cost you?

More but its well worth it

Why did you above say £2k a year to maintain your car if you're now claiming £100 a year?

I didn't....

Pross

This is quite a good idea on paper from Transport for Wales, basically a cross between a bus service and taxi

https://www.fflecsi.wales/

Unfortunately they have stopped the service in my area though which isn’t a surprise as I used to regularly see the minibuses driving around and they were nearly always empty. I think it has a some fundamental flaws which don’t help a) I never saw any publicity explaining how the system worked b) the flexible route means that you don’t really know how long the journey is going to take.