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

rick_chasey

SUVs are the low hanging fruit re weight, not what type of propulsion you’re using

Pross

kingstongraham said:

I find it difficult to believe that cars have no effect on the creation and expansion of potholes.

In addition to stresses from vehicles potholes are often down to poor construction or poor specification and then once water gets in it will get worse and worse if not fixed. Around these parts there are country lanes falling apart that despite only getting a handful of vehicles a day driving them. Council's haven't got money to fix them and they don't get prioritised due to lack of use. The track, as it is now, that I walk the dogs along appears to just be unbound stone these days whereas when I first moved here it was (just about) still asphalt. My street is a lightly trafficked cul-de-sac so gets nothing heavier than the bin lorry, I suspect it is the original road that has been there around 50 years and the points where it is failing are mainly around the joints and where various trenches have been cut over the years.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

SUVs are the low hanging fruit re weight, not what type of propulsion you’re using

If EVs become the only show in town then every car is going to be around the same weight as a current SUV.

However, more importantly, road wear is apparently equal to the fourth power of the axle load on the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Which isn't very good news for buses which weigh around 10x as much as a car...

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

SUVs are the low hanging fruit re weight, not what type of propulsion you’re using

What about electric SUVs?

photonic69

To Hell with the lot of you! I'm getting a Unimog. Fed up with these potholed roads that are only going to get worse. And when there is too much traffic on the roads I'll just veer off and cut through hedges a fields. Sorted.

I should also manage to get the weekly shop in the back as well as space for the bikes. With the wheels still on.

Stevo_666

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

It really doesn't, as you point out yourself the deterioration in roads is down to lack of maintenance. Skipping the proper minor maintenance regime means that the problem gets worse and worse but a minor increase in vehicle mass is negligible. The following is an explanation from the Kent CC design information.

"Vehicle Wear Factor
Vehicle wear factors are dependant upon the total vehicle weight and its distribution on the vehicle, which affects the load on each axle. Tyre size and pressure and axle configuration affect the load pattern on the structural layers but are not considered for overall structural pavement design in the UK. A Standard 8T axle is said to have a wear factor of 1.0. Axle Loads and their wear factors have been found to have a fourth power law, in that Wear @ 0.0002 x [Axle Load] 4

Typical wear factors are as follows:
1T .0002
5T 0.15
8T 1.0
10T 2.3
13T 6.5
From this it can be seen that the wear factor for a car is negligible compared to a commercial vehicle, it is for this reason that they are ignored in structural calculations."

If I understand your tech here, then you can essentially ignore (say) 30 cars carrying one person each - from a road wear perspective - yet whack all of those people in a single public transport thing such as a 15 ton bus, and suddenly you have a road wear and maintenance problem?

Looks like it. Now which idiot said we should all take the bus?

Pross

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

It really doesn't, as you point out yourself the deterioration in roads is down to lack of maintenance. Skipping the proper minor maintenance regime means that the problem gets worse and worse but a minor increase in vehicle mass is negligible. The following is an explanation from the Kent CC design information.

"Vehicle Wear Factor
Vehicle wear factors are dependant upon the total vehicle weight and its distribution on the vehicle, which affects the load on each axle. Tyre size and pressure and axle configuration affect the load pattern on the structural layers but are not considered for overall structural pavement design in the UK. A Standard 8T axle is said to have a wear factor of 1.0. Axle Loads and their wear factors have been found to have a fourth power law, in that Wear @ 0.0002 x [Axle Load] 4

Typical wear factors are as follows:
1T .0002
5T 0.15
8T 1.0
10T 2.3
13T 6.5
From this it can be seen that the wear factor for a car is negligible compared to a commercial vehicle, it is for this reason that they are ignored in structural calculations."

If I understand your tech here, then you can essentially ignore (say) 30 cars carrying one person each - from a road wear perspective - yet whack all of those people in a single public transport thing such as a 15 ton bus, and suddenly you have a road wear and maintenance problem?

Assuming the buses weren't already running on the road anyway then yes.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s an opinion column so you’re not gonna get all that analysis.

It’s more he’s an obvious petrolhead and a pro-car chap and in that context it was fairly well balanced

I thought it was a good article.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the current electric car pathway is massively flawed for the reasons he mentions.

Heavy which will lead to more tyre use and wear on infrastructure. Then the requirements for manufacturing a battery which has a very poor lifespan. It’s not sustainable.

The impact of car use on road infrastructure is negligible to the extent that you don’t even consider the amount of cars using the road over its lifetime when designing the thickness the construction. It is based entirely on HGV use (other than on minor residential streets where it is really down to the minimum thicknesses the various layers can be laid to).

So, I’d need to do more research to back the claims up but…

I have definitely read that some infrastructure such as multi storey car parks may be stressed beyond their design expectations. They may not be well reasoned arguments so I’m not hanging my hat on them.

Roads are generally maintained to a minimal standard these days, increased weight on the majority of vehicles will inevitably increase maintenance as there is no wiggle room left to let them degrade more than is already allowed.

I have also read that the next pollutant in the cross hairs for cars is rubber particles from tyre wear. The increase in weight will increase this wear.

I’m not anti electric, i considered buying on many occasions, it’s just I am seeing more and more issues beyond just the lack of charging infrastructure which is the obvious practical limitation.

The battery making and recycling issue can’t just be swept under the carpet even if the total emissions are theoretically less. It’s a new issue that is being ignored.

One of Atkinsons points is about lifecycle and getting longer life out of an existing car. If anything, the decreasing range of a 3 year old battery will encourage exactly the opposite.

It really doesn't, as you point out yourself the deterioration in roads is down to lack of maintenance. Skipping the proper minor maintenance regime means that the problem gets worse and worse but a minor increase in vehicle mass is negligible. The following is an explanation from the Kent CC design information.

"Vehicle Wear Factor
Vehicle wear factors are dependant upon the total vehicle weight and its distribution on the vehicle, which affects the load on each axle. Tyre size and pressure and axle configuration affect the load pattern on the structural layers but are not considered for overall structural pavement design in the UK. A Standard 8T axle is said to have a wear factor of 1.0. Axle Loads and their wear factors have been found to have a fourth power law, in that Wear @ 0.0002 x [Axle Load] 4

Typical wear factors are as follows:
1T .0002
5T 0.15
8T 1.0
10T 2.3
13T 6.5
From this it can be seen that the wear factor for a car is negligible compared to a commercial vehicle, it is for this reason that they are ignored in structural calculations."

If I understand your tech here, then you can essentially ignore (say) 30 cars carrying one person each - from a road wear perspective - yet whack all of those people in a single public transport thing such as a 15 ton bus, and suddenly you have a road wear and maintenance problem?

Assuming the buses weren't already running on the road anyway then yes.

We'll need a lot more buses in Ricktopia.

Pross

Pros and cons though, you could save on the quantity of road infrastructure and concentrate on the quality.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Pros and cons though, you could save on the quantity of road infrastructure and concentrate on the quality.

Which roads do you plan on closing?

rjsterry

Who knew that armchair road engineering was a thing 😆

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

SUVs are the low hanging fruit re weight, not what type of propulsion you’re using

If EVs become the only show in town then every car is going to be around the same weight as a current SUV.

However, more importantly, road wear is apparently equal to the fourth power of the axle load on the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Which isn't very good news for buses which weigh around 10x as much as a car...

Not sure a few extra potholes are going to have a material impact on global climate change. Think we might be focusing on a trivial point.

kingstongraham

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

SUVs are the low hanging fruit re weight, not what type of propulsion you’re using

If EVs become the only show in town then every car is going to be around the same weight as a current SUV.

However, more importantly, road wear is apparently equal to the fourth power of the axle load on the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Which isn't very good news for buses which weigh around 10x as much as a car...

Not sure a few extra potholes are going to have a material impact on global climate change. Think we might be focusing on a trivial point.

They won't, but the buses won't be able to go far if they mess up the roads. That said, it's a hypothetical point because Ricktopia won't happen.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

And for your collar bone.

photonic69

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

Monorail, Monorail, Monorail...... less rails, thus cheaper.

Pross

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

Monorail, Monorail, Monorail...... less rails, thus cheaper.

Walt Disney offered to fund one in LA back in the 1950s but was shouted down by the car lobby (if the tour guide wasn’t full of BS when I was there 30 years ago).

Edit - Quora says it’s partial BS. He was in favour of it but didn’t offer to pay for it.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

And for your collar bone.

Must be stronger gravity in Edinburgh. People seem to cope with the trams in Croydon.

Moonio_returned

photonic69 said:

To Hell with the lot of you! I'm getting a Unimog. Fed up with these potholed roads that are only going to get worse. And when there is too much traffic on the roads I'll just veer off and cut through hedges a fields. Sorted.

I should also manage to get the weekly shop in the back as well as space for the bikes. With the wheels still on.

That’s the spirit!! 😂

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Sounds like a pro tram argument.

Loadsa studies say trams are best bang for your buck

And for your collar bone.

Must be stronger gravity in Edinburgh. People seem to cope with the trams in Croydon.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15908637.200-cyclists-killed-injured-city-trams-edinburgh/

I'm not one of them, but they can't all be stupid.

First.Aspect

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-at-croydon-station-slipped-on-tram-tracks-and-fell-into-path-of-a-bus-inquest-hears-9771861.html

rick_chasey

You wonder how the Dutch manage in its two biggest cities eh?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

You wonder how the Dutch manage in its two biggest cities eh?

I'm guessing the cycle routes don't cross the lines at an angle.
"Don't cross the streams."

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

You wonder how the Dutch manage in its two biggest cities eh?

You do rabbit on about how wonderful the Dutch are at all this. Have you checked statistics? Netherlands - population a bit under 18 million - has been averaging over 650 traffic related deaths per year the last few.

The UK with population a bit over 67 million seems to be running about 1500 deaths per year.

Bit more than double the number of deaths for almost quadruple the population.

I’d hazard a guess the UK drivers do more miles per year on average on the roads than the Dutch as well.

Maybe the Dutch aren’t so fabulous at it after all?

rick_chasey

I’d be more inclined to argue if i was talking about car drivers.

Alas.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

You wonder how the Dutch manage in its two biggest cities eh?

https://www.brusselstimes.com/301707/cyclists-and-tram-tracks-a-recipe-for-disaster

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272358662_Injuries_Due_to_Wedging_of_Bicycle_Wheels_in_On-road_Tram_Tracks

First.Aspect

I know this is confirmation bias, but by the same token trams aren't a panacea and you are kidding yourselves if you think they don't come with consequences.

Trolley busses, on the other hand, don't need engines or batteries and so can be relatively light boxes in which large numbers of people can be carried.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-at-croydon-station-slipped-on-tram-tracks-and-fell-into-path-of-a-bus-inquest-hears-9771861.html

Consideration of interaction between cycle routes and tram lines is of course a valid point. That said, we accept far higher casualty rates on roads without trams as just one of those unavoidable things. I don't think it's a valid argument against trams.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-at-croydon-station-slipped-on-tram-tracks-and-fell-into-path-of-a-bus-inquest-hears-9771861.html

Consideration of interaction between cycle routes and tram lines is of course a valid point. That said, we accept far higher casualty rates on roads without trams as just one of those unavoidable things. I don't think it's a valid argument against trams.

Cost is, though. Following the daft decision to remove tracks in the first place, in the UK they can be bustard expensive to reinstall. Compare that to some electric cables overhead...