5 ms·

Electric cars 'will not solve transport problem,' report warns

43 points by jonbaer 7y ago

quantummkv 7y ago
This is a very weird article. Isn't the main point of electric cars is to reduce carbon emissions? I don't remember Elon Musk saying that his cars would solve the problem of Urban Sprawl, traffic jams, or parking space? The headline feels like pure clickbait.
- taneq 7y ago
  In other news, solar power will not solve world hunger and satellite TV will do nothing for domestic violence.
- visarga 7y ago
  Also, the problem is ill posed. I don't think road congestion can be solved by making a different car. It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Buses and trains with good schedules are different cars ;) - while this is definitely a social problem, we can address at least part of it with better public transport.
  - maccard 7y ago
    > . It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses. In many places, it's not.cits a lifestyle problem where people value their own perceived convenience without considering any externalities. I live in a small (500k people) city, where the school you go to depends on what part of town you live in. Each school has probably less than a half mile's radius. Yet despite this, a large number of people still drive their kids to school. People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day", despite not considering the cost of fuel, parking in a city centre for a day, and maintenance of their car. They don't use buses because they're "inconvenient" despite tge fact a months bus pass in my city is cheaper than 2 days parking in the city, and all the major artery routes are served at 5-10 minute intervals during peak hours. People living in these kinds of situations won't change unless they're forced to
    - majewsky 7y ago
      > People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day" That's an unfortunate side-effect of trains having timetables. When a train is 5 minutes late, it's really frustrating because a) you don't have any agency, b) you usually cannot see anything related to the reason for the delay, and c) the idle waiting makes the time feel longer. When a car is stuck in traffic for 30 minutes, it doesn't feel like you're losing 30 minutes. It just feels like a force of nature happening to you, and also it feels shorter than waiting for a train for 30 minutes because you're still engaged in the act of driving. You still have some agency because you have the choice of trying to change to that other lane that always feels like it's moving faster.
- dooferlad 7y ago
  Indeed. The writer doesn't even challenge some of the more obvious problems with the comments they have collected e.g. self driving cars causing traffic jams as they look for parking - why would they look? Wouldn't they ask for a space, reserve one based on location, price, charging needs, then drive to it on a route that is less used than ones carrying time sensitive loads (food, people)?
- pmontra 7y ago
  Yes, BBC kind of hijacked the report to state the obvious: an electric car is still a car so if we don't want to litter cities with them we should use different means of transportation. The report also addresses autonomous driving: > The other great technological change under way on the roads is driverless cars. > The report warns this dream could also turn sour as car owners may choose to live many miles from their workplace, using their car as a mobile office while sitting in traffic jams they have helped to create.
- simonCGN 7y ago
  I agree
- stillworks 7y ago
  I have to agree. The article seems like a popularity peice for the politicians involved therein. Also the graph comparing motoring costs to public transport costs is questionable. Personally, we downsized from two car houshold to a single car. Car doing the school, grocery and weekend duty, Tfl for commuting. The car costs about £30 (fuel) per week hauling up to five people at a time. Tfl costs £51 per week per person. If you mix Tfl + Train then it costs £77 per week per person. (Using the Train also has a noticable effect on my mental health, currently fortunate enough to have access to Tfl without relying on Train, hope that continues) It's the amount of people that need to move from A to B which is the problem and not how they move from A to B. If all the people switched to electric cars, it's still ALL the VERY SAME NUMBER of people. Local emissions may go down, but then the energy to charge all those electric vehicles will affect "something somewhere else". If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. In London, being on a bicycle is life threatening. Not saying that motorists and bus drivers are out there to "get 'em", rather there is very little space on the roads. Several times the typical scene is that of a biker being followed by up to ten cars until the cars get an opportunity to overtake. Which happens after several minutes due to lack of space.
  - glennpratt 7y ago
    > If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. As someone who bike commutes 10 miles in the US, this couldn't possibly be the case for me. There is almost never a car impeded by my presence. I spend part of my ride in a bike lane and most of the rest on a bike route through neighborhoods that aren't heavily used for car commuting. Even when there are cars, they quickly have a chance to pass (and inversely in heavy traffic I filter right through them).
    - archi42 7y ago
      It's nice that that's possible for you, but I'm afraid it is not universally possible for everyone and everycity. E.g. bike access to our university (plus institutes etc.) when coming from the city is via narrow but heavy traffic road (to university, a bunch of suburbs, two autobahns), or an adjacent pedestrian path (with a lot of studends and badly trimmed overgrowth), or through the hills with forests and no direct path. The solution here would add & maintain bike lanes (or a stand-alone bike road), but for the above example that would mean deforesting and cutting into 2 or 3 km of hillside. And for the duration of that effort, suspending the primary road between the city and {university, one suburb, one autobahn access} which also happens to be the secondary connection to {two additional suburbs, another autobahn access}.
- icebraining 7y ago
  This is not a response to Elon Musk, but to the UK's government, and in particular its report "The Road to Zero" (meaning zero CO2 emissions), which this report claims relies too much on the conversion of individual cars to EV to achieve its goals.
- ginko 7y ago
  I still think the article has merit. If we just make more CO2 efficient cars without also curbing their use we might end up with more CO2 being produced due to Jevons paradox[1]. I especially worry about autonomous cars since, that would make taking long trips by car more convenient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- eemil 7y ago
  Though I'm a big proponent of pure electric vehicles, we should be acknowledging that they're still a large source of carbon emissions from manufacturing and in some cases electricity used. The most desirable option would be to move away from individually owned automobiles altogether. E-bikes are the way to go. They fill the gap between bike-able distances and those requiring alternate propulsion for many people. And depending on your diet, they're in some cases more environmentally friendly than normal bicycles per distance traveled. That doesn't even matter, since both are an order of magnitude better than the automobile. It's crazy that we're spending thousands to subsidize electric vehicles and mostly ignoring e-bikes.
  - nwah1 7y ago
    I loathe car culture, but bicycles are very dangerous compared to cars, and e-bikes moreso. Motorcycles are approximately 30 times more dangerous than cars, and bicycles about 15 times more dangerous. Goes to figure that e-bikes would be somewhere between those two. Plus, they are not usable in many weather conditions.
    - ginko 7y ago
      Dangerous in what way? It's my understanding that it's mainly cars that are a danger to bicyclists.
      - nwah1 7y ago
        I've injured myself multiple times on bicycles, never as a result of a car, despite traveling a tiny sliver of the distance that I have in a car. I've, thankfully, never been injured in a car accident. I realize this is anecdotal, but there's strong reasons to believe bicycles are dangerous all by themselves. Traveling at high velocities with little protection on only two wheels is a recipe for accidents. I assume velomobiles or recumbent tricycles would be much safer, if one doesn't mind the looks from passerby.
    - harg 7y ago
      That's simply not true. Cycling in many European countries is no more dangerous than being an occupant in a motor vehicle and a significant proportion of cyclist injuries and deaths are caused by motor vehicles. Proper cycling and walking infrastructure combined with a reduction of car usage in cities makes cycling an extremely safe activity. In addition the extra health benefits from physical exercise more than offsets any increase in risk from a collision at a societal level. As for cyling not being usable in many weather conditions - perhaps in extreme winters, but in London there're very few days in the year, if any, that I can't happily ride the 22km round trip to work and back.
- de_watcher 7y ago
  Being in a traffic jam will be more pleasant because of the air quality.
gibolt 7y ago
Build some biking infrastructure, it is super cheap on top of existing roads. Take away a small amount of space from cars and parking between all major common destinations, and bike/pedestrian usage will skyrocket if they feel safe going anywhere nearby.
- safgasCVS 7y ago
  I would love to see London do this - I tried biking in London but it’s too scary for me right now
- kingosticks 7y ago
  It's not quite as simple as that. At best you get cars parking in the bike lane and it's full of broken glass, at worst you have people cycling into a suddenly opened car door. Separating it properly costs a lot more. The Uxbridge Road (London) is due for some improvements but the high costs of doing it properly have meant they are now only doing shorter sections.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  It is so tiring to hear the same silly argument again and again. Roads are already the best biking infrastructure, period. We cyclists don't want to lose our right to use it by being kicked off to segregated bike facilities. We don't need no cyclist apartheid: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid-killed-johannesburgs-cycling-culture- https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid...
  - bildung 7y ago
    This is no either-or situation. In Germany a cyclist has to used a bike lane if available and else uses the road. Kids <= 8 are allowed to cycle on the pedestrian paths.
    - rerx 7y ago
      This is not true. In Germany bike lanes are only required to be used when there is a sign saying so (and when they usable and safe, which you cannot expect, sadly). By default bike lanes are optional.
krtkush 7y ago
Electric vehicles will solve the problem of localized pollution. The cities and dense urban areas will have less pollution and you will be actually be able to walk on the footpath without inhaling fumes from gas guzzling machines.
safgasCVS 7y ago
For me to take the train to work every day from London to Sunbury it works out to just over twenty pounds per day. For what I pay in commute fares is less then leasing and insuring a new car (which also won’t decide 5 minutes beforehand that it won’t be stopping at your station because it needs to make up time). I’m very pro getting people to give up their cars but I don’t see it happening In the U.K. until affordable alternatives exist
- dougmwne 7y ago
  Ouch. I'm curious about the details. Do you have to pay the congestion charge or any tolls when you drive? Do you have free parking at your office? What's the petrol cost of a day's driving? How do the leasing and insurance costs break out daily? I'm asking because when I ran the numbers for myself in a major US city, it turned out that driving was expensive enough that public transit and Uber would have been superior. But then our transit tickets were only a few dollars and most parking downtown was $20 a day.
  - safgasCVS 7y ago
    Wow that’s London-expensive parking. So the normal congestion charge is around £11 per day but because I’m a resident and live in a congestion zone it’s £1 pound. However the CC only applies to the most central parts of London so many people don’t have to pay it. Daily fuel works out to £4.5 and my office has free parking. My Annual insurance for a newish Mazda 3 is £500 and while I bought my car outright i think a lease on a similar car would be around £220pm. B
    - dougmwne 7y ago
      Thanks! So you're looking at roughly £15 a day in overall costs. (Maybe a touch more when you add in maintenance and repairs.) It's interesting that if you had to pay the congestion charge or for parking, the scales would easily tip twards the train. So in conclusion, it's really too bad the transit tickets in London are so expensive since it's clearly pushing a lot of people to drive instead.
baxtr 7y ago
$type cars ‘will not solve’ transport problem, others warn
Copenjin 7y ago
The transport problem (that is not just the problem of emissions) can only be solved through rigorous planning. A planning that involves all aspects (direct or indirect) of the multi-faceted problem of mobility. But hey, who has time for plannin'.
- steve_gh 7y ago
  The UK Govt actually. There is a current call for Future Mobility plans - the Govt is putting a lot of money (£90M IIRC) into a tender process, to select 3 local authorities to develop future mobility plans over the next 10 years, integrating public transport, EV and EV charging, electric bikes, last mile solutions etc.
Causality1 7y ago
Cities should absolutely be doing everything in their power to make it safer and easier to get around without a car. For me personally, any city urban enough for public transportation to exist at all is too crowded. My sweet spot is having no buses but still having dozen good restaurants within a ten minute drive.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > to get around without a car... within a ten minute drive. I don't understand.
  - Causality1 7y ago
    The first part refers to large, dense cities. The kind where you can hear your neighbors and getting around on foot is practical.
kingosticks 7y ago
> They should also incentivise local councils to build housing developments that are easy to access without a car. This is becoming more and more normal in and around London. Developers build blocks of flats (increasingly tall blocks) without any parking at all, and the councils do not provide any resident parking permits for those living in the new flats. Because they simply don't have the space to do so. Whilst not having a car in London can work (I don't have one), it's a total non-starter for many, especially those with kids. So now there's a load of new homes built, which looks great on paper for the council, but they are totally useless homes for many people.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Self driving taxis will be a lot cheaper than normal taxis and self driving electric taxis will be cheaper still. Basically that takes the two most expensive cost factors out of the equation (humans and petrol). This could become so cheap that even people owning a car might prefer it for short distances; or for their daily commute. Self driving cars potentially also increase the road capacity as cars would be able to coordinate their moves and make more efficient use of the road. So, that's two ways electrical and autonomous vehicles could contribute to reducing road congestion, which is what this article seems to be about. People letting their car drive around for hours because they can't find a parking space sounds a bit far fetched. Self parking cars could park on the edge of a city though and pick the driver up when needed. This would also enable autonomous charging and address that issue.
- eirki 7y ago
  I agree with your second point (self-driving cars might make more efficient use of roads), but I don't see how cheaper taxis is going to reduce road congestion?
  - jillesvangurp 7y ago
    It gets rid of parked cars, people looking for parking, etc. Also, you can service a dense city with a relatively small amount of taxis ensure they are not ridiculous SUVs, etc. And of course they can coordinate their actions and make better use of the roads as well. Then finally, if people would share rides, it gets even better.
    - Someone 7y ago
      But if taking a car gets cheaper, people who now walk, cycle, or take a bus will start taking cars. Also, with self-driving cars that are cheaper, I expect that people who now drive a car to the suburbs will move further out of town to get cheaper housing because a) driving is cheaper and b) self-driving would mean they can do things on their commute (work, watch Netflix, etc) I think the uncomfortable truth is that, to fight climate change, we must give up some luxuries. Flying, driving a car, electricity, low priced almost disposable clothing, electronics gadgets, etc. must get more expensive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Arn_Thor 7y ago
The accuracy of that headline depends on what problem we're talking about
jfoster 7y ago
It's similar to the way fixing a leaking pipe doesn't help with electricity. Electrification alone doesn't solve every problem. Elon Musk seems to be taking on all of the cited problems, though. Electrification helps with emissions. Autonomy helps with parking spaces. Boring Company helps with traffic. If he's successful, we'll be whizzing around in silent and emissions-free self-driving Tesla pods that use Boring Co tunnels to travel at ridiculously fast speed. Sounds cool.
reacweb 7y ago
Oil is a precious finite resource that is misspent because it is too cheap. Electric cars reduces our waste of oil and reduce pollution in towns.
holri 7y ago
Sure, it does not make sense to use 2 tons mass and 10 m2 for transportation of 80 kg and 0,25m2. Electric does not change this inefficiency.
sunstone 7y ago
While this is true, self driving electric cars will definitely make a big dent in some of these problems.

43 points by jonbaer 7y ago

This is a very weird article. Isn't the main point of electric cars is to reduce carbon emissions? I don't remember Elon Musk saying that his cars would solve the problem of Urban Sprawl, traffic jams, or parking space? The headline feels like pure clickbait.

taneq 7y ago
In other news, solar power will not solve world hunger and satellite TV will do nothing for domestic violence.
visarga 7y ago
Also, the problem is ill posed. I don't think road congestion can be solved by making a different car. It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Buses and trains with good schedules are different cars ;) - while this is definitely a social problem, we can address at least part of it with better public transport.
- maccard 7y ago
  > . It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses. In many places, it's not.cits a lifestyle problem where people value their own perceived convenience without considering any externalities. I live in a small (500k people) city, where the school you go to depends on what part of town you live in. Each school has probably less than a half mile's radius. Yet despite this, a large number of people still drive their kids to school. People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day", despite not considering the cost of fuel, parking in a city centre for a day, and maintenance of their car. They don't use buses because they're "inconvenient" despite tge fact a months bus pass in my city is cheaper than 2 days parking in the city, and all the major artery routes are served at 5-10 minute intervals during peak hours. People living in these kinds of situations won't change unless they're forced to
  - majewsky 7y ago
    > People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day" That's an unfortunate side-effect of trains having timetables. When a train is 5 minutes late, it's really frustrating because a) you don't have any agency, b) you usually cannot see anything related to the reason for the delay, and c) the idle waiting makes the time feel longer. When a car is stuck in traffic for 30 minutes, it doesn't feel like you're losing 30 minutes. It just feels like a force of nature happening to you, and also it feels shorter than waiting for a train for 30 minutes because you're still engaged in the act of driving. You still have some agency because you have the choice of trying to change to that other lane that always feels like it's moving faster.
dooferlad 7y ago
Indeed. The writer doesn't even challenge some of the more obvious problems with the comments they have collected e.g. self driving cars causing traffic jams as they look for parking - why would they look? Wouldn't they ask for a space, reserve one based on location, price, charging needs, then drive to it on a route that is less used than ones carrying time sensitive loads (food, people)?
pmontra 7y ago
Yes, BBC kind of hijacked the report to state the obvious: an electric car is still a car so if we don't want to litter cities with them we should use different means of transportation. The report also addresses autonomous driving: > The other great technological change under way on the roads is driverless cars. > The report warns this dream could also turn sour as car owners may choose to live many miles from their workplace, using their car as a mobile office while sitting in traffic jams they have helped to create.
simonCGN 7y ago
I agree
stillworks 7y ago
I have to agree. The article seems like a popularity peice for the politicians involved therein. Also the graph comparing motoring costs to public transport costs is questionable. Personally, we downsized from two car houshold to a single car. Car doing the school, grocery and weekend duty, Tfl for commuting. The car costs about £30 (fuel) per week hauling up to five people at a time. Tfl costs £51 per week per person. If you mix Tfl + Train then it costs £77 per week per person. (Using the Train also has a noticable effect on my mental health, currently fortunate enough to have access to Tfl without relying on Train, hope that continues) It's the amount of people that need to move from A to B which is the problem and not how they move from A to B. If all the people switched to electric cars, it's still ALL the VERY SAME NUMBER of people. Local emissions may go down, but then the energy to charge all those electric vehicles will affect "something somewhere else". If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. In London, being on a bicycle is life threatening. Not saying that motorists and bus drivers are out there to "get 'em", rather there is very little space on the roads. Several times the typical scene is that of a biker being followed by up to ten cars until the cars get an opportunity to overtake. Which happens after several minutes due to lack of space.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  > If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. As someone who bike commutes 10 miles in the US, this couldn't possibly be the case for me. There is almost never a car impeded by my presence. I spend part of my ride in a bike lane and most of the rest on a bike route through neighborhoods that aren't heavily used for car commuting. Even when there are cars, they quickly have a chance to pass (and inversely in heavy traffic I filter right through them).
  - archi42 7y ago
    It's nice that that's possible for you, but I'm afraid it is not universally possible for everyone and everycity. E.g. bike access to our university (plus institutes etc.) when coming from the city is via narrow but heavy traffic road (to university, a bunch of suburbs, two autobahns), or an adjacent pedestrian path (with a lot of studends and badly trimmed overgrowth), or through the hills with forests and no direct path. The solution here would add & maintain bike lanes (or a stand-alone bike road), but for the above example that would mean deforesting and cutting into 2 or 3 km of hillside. And for the duration of that effort, suspending the primary road between the city and {university, one suburb, one autobahn access} which also happens to be the secondary connection to {two additional suburbs, another autobahn access}.
icebraining 7y ago
This is not a response to Elon Musk, but to the UK's government, and in particular its report "The Road to Zero" (meaning zero CO2 emissions), which this report claims relies too much on the conversion of individual cars to EV to achieve its goals.
ginko 7y ago
I still think the article has merit. If we just make more CO2 efficient cars without also curbing their use we might end up with more CO2 being produced due to Jevons paradox[1]. I especially worry about autonomous cars since, that would make taking long trips by car more convenient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
eemil 7y ago
Though I'm a big proponent of pure electric vehicles, we should be acknowledging that they're still a large source of carbon emissions from manufacturing and in some cases electricity used. The most desirable option would be to move away from individually owned automobiles altogether. E-bikes are the way to go. They fill the gap between bike-able distances and those requiring alternate propulsion for many people. And depending on your diet, they're in some cases more environmentally friendly than normal bicycles per distance traveled. That doesn't even matter, since both are an order of magnitude better than the automobile. It's crazy that we're spending thousands to subsidize electric vehicles and mostly ignoring e-bikes.
- nwah1 7y ago
  I loathe car culture, but bicycles are very dangerous compared to cars, and e-bikes moreso. Motorcycles are approximately 30 times more dangerous than cars, and bicycles about 15 times more dangerous. Goes to figure that e-bikes would be somewhere between those two. Plus, they are not usable in many weather conditions.
  - ginko 7y ago
    Dangerous in what way? It's my understanding that it's mainly cars that are a danger to bicyclists.
    - nwah1 7y ago
      I've injured myself multiple times on bicycles, never as a result of a car, despite traveling a tiny sliver of the distance that I have in a car. I've, thankfully, never been injured in a car accident. I realize this is anecdotal, but there's strong reasons to believe bicycles are dangerous all by themselves. Traveling at high velocities with little protection on only two wheels is a recipe for accidents. I assume velomobiles or recumbent tricycles would be much safer, if one doesn't mind the looks from passerby.
  - harg 7y ago
    That's simply not true. Cycling in many European countries is no more dangerous than being an occupant in a motor vehicle and a significant proportion of cyclist injuries and deaths are caused by motor vehicles. Proper cycling and walking infrastructure combined with a reduction of car usage in cities makes cycling an extremely safe activity. In addition the extra health benefits from physical exercise more than offsets any increase in risk from a collision at a societal level. As for cyling not being usable in many weather conditions - perhaps in extreme winters, but in London there're very few days in the year, if any, that I can't happily ride the 22km round trip to work and back.
de_watcher 7y ago
Being in a traffic jam will be more pleasant because of the air quality.

gibolt 7y ago

Build some biking infrastructure, it is super cheap on top of existing roads. Take away a small amount of space from cars and parking between all major common destinations, and bike/pedestrian usage will skyrocket if they feel safe going anywhere nearby.

safgasCVS 7y ago
I would love to see London do this - I tried biking in London but it’s too scary for me right now
kingosticks 7y ago
It's not quite as simple as that. At best you get cars parking in the bike lane and it's full of broken glass, at worst you have people cycling into a suddenly opened car door. Separating it properly costs a lot more. The Uxbridge Road (London) is due for some improvements but the high costs of doing it properly have meant they are now only doing shorter sections.
anonymou2 7y ago
It is so tiring to hear the same silly argument again and again. Roads are already the best biking infrastructure, period. We cyclists don't want to lose our right to use it by being kicked off to segregated bike facilities. We don't need no cyclist apartheid: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid-killed-johannesburgs-cycling-culture- https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid...
- bildung 7y ago
  This is no either-or situation. In Germany a cyclist has to used a bike lane if available and else uses the road. Kids <= 8 are allowed to cycle on the pedestrian paths.
  - rerx 7y ago
    This is not true. In Germany bike lanes are only required to be used when there is a sign saying so (and when they usable and safe, which you cannot expect, sadly). By default bike lanes are optional.

krtkush 7y ago

Electric vehicles will solve the problem of localized pollution. The cities and dense urban areas will have less pollution and you will be actually be able to walk on the footpath without inhaling fumes from gas guzzling machines.

safgasCVS 7y ago

For me to take the train to work every day from London to Sunbury it works out to just over twenty pounds per day. For what I pay in commute fares is less then leasing and insuring a new car (which also won’t decide 5 minutes beforehand that it won’t be stopping at your station because it needs to make up time). I’m very pro getting people to give up their cars but I don’t see it happening In the U.K. until affordable alternatives exist

dougmwne 7y ago
Ouch. I'm curious about the details. Do you have to pay the congestion charge or any tolls when you drive? Do you have free parking at your office? What's the petrol cost of a day's driving? How do the leasing and insurance costs break out daily? I'm asking because when I ran the numbers for myself in a major US city, it turned out that driving was expensive enough that public transit and Uber would have been superior. But then our transit tickets were only a few dollars and most parking downtown was $20 a day.
- safgasCVS 7y ago
  Wow that’s London-expensive parking. So the normal congestion charge is around £11 per day but because I’m a resident and live in a congestion zone it’s £1 pound. However the CC only applies to the most central parts of London so many people don’t have to pay it. Daily fuel works out to £4.5 and my office has free parking. My Annual insurance for a newish Mazda 3 is £500 and while I bought my car outright i think a lease on a similar car would be around £220pm. B
  - dougmwne 7y ago
    Thanks! So you're looking at roughly £15 a day in overall costs. (Maybe a touch more when you add in maintenance and repairs.) It's interesting that if you had to pay the congestion charge or for parking, the scales would easily tip twards the train. So in conclusion, it's really too bad the transit tickets in London are so expensive since it's clearly pushing a lot of people to drive instead.

baxtr 7y ago

$type cars ‘will not solve’ transport problem, others warn

Copenjin 7y ago

The transport problem (that is not just the problem of emissions) can only be solved through rigorous planning. A planning that involves all aspects (direct or indirect) of the multi-faceted problem of mobility. But hey, who has time for plannin'.

steve_gh 7y ago
The UK Govt actually. There is a current call for Future Mobility plans - the Govt is putting a lot of money (£90M IIRC) into a tender process, to select 3 local authorities to develop future mobility plans over the next 10 years, integrating public transport, EV and EV charging, electric bikes, last mile solutions etc.

Causality1 7y ago

Cities should absolutely be doing everything in their power to make it safer and easier to get around without a car. For me personally, any city urban enough for public transportation to exist at all is too crowded. My sweet spot is having no buses but still having dozen good restaurants within a ten minute drive.

perfunctory 7y ago
> to get around without a car... within a ten minute drive. I don't understand.
- Causality1 7y ago
  The first part refers to large, dense cities. The kind where you can hear your neighbors and getting around on foot is practical.

kingosticks 7y ago

> They should also incentivise local councils to build housing developments that are easy to access without a car. This is becoming more and more normal in and around London. Developers build blocks of flats (increasingly tall blocks) without any parking at all, and the councils do not provide any resident parking permits for those living in the new flats. Because they simply don't have the space to do so. Whilst not having a car in London can work (I don't have one), it's a total non-starter for many, especially those with kids. So now there's a load of new homes built, which looks great on paper for the council, but they are totally useless homes for many people.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Self driving taxis will be a lot cheaper than normal taxis and self driving electric taxis will be cheaper still. Basically that takes the two most expensive cost factors out of the equation (humans and petrol). This could become so cheap that even people owning a car might prefer it for short distances; or for their daily commute. Self driving cars potentially also increase the road capacity as cars would be able to coordinate their moves and make more efficient use of the road. So, that's two ways electrical and autonomous vehicles could contribute to reducing road congestion, which is what this article seems to be about. People letting their car drive around for hours because they can't find a parking space sounds a bit far fetched. Self parking cars could park on the edge of a city though and pick the driver up when needed. This would also enable autonomous charging and address that issue.

eirki 7y ago
I agree with your second point (self-driving cars might make more efficient use of roads), but I don't see how cheaper taxis is going to reduce road congestion?
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  It gets rid of parked cars, people looking for parking, etc. Also, you can service a dense city with a relatively small amount of taxis ensure they are not ridiculous SUVs, etc. And of course they can coordinate their actions and make better use of the roads as well. Then finally, if people would share rides, it gets even better.
  - Someone 7y ago
    But if taking a car gets cheaper, people who now walk, cycle, or take a bus will start taking cars. Also, with self-driving cars that are cheaper, I expect that people who now drive a car to the suburbs will move further out of town to get cheaper housing because a) driving is cheaper and b) self-driving would mean they can do things on their commute (work, watch Netflix, etc) I think the uncomfortable truth is that, to fight climate change, we must give up some luxuries. Flying, driving a car, electricity, low priced almost disposable clothing, electronics gadgets, etc. must get more expensive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Arn_Thor 7y ago

The accuracy of that headline depends on what problem we're talking about

jfoster 7y ago

It's similar to the way fixing a leaking pipe doesn't help with electricity. Electrification alone doesn't solve every problem. Elon Musk seems to be taking on all of the cited problems, though. Electrification helps with emissions. Autonomy helps with parking spaces. Boring Company helps with traffic. If he's successful, we'll be whizzing around in silent and emissions-free self-driving Tesla pods that use Boring Co tunnels to travel at ridiculously fast speed. Sounds cool.

reacweb 7y ago

Oil is a precious finite resource that is misspent because it is too cheap. Electric cars reduces our waste of oil and reduce pollution in towns.

holri 7y ago

Sure, it does not make sense to use 2 tons mass and 10 m2 for transportation of 80 kg and 0,25m2. Electric does not change this inefficiency.

sunstone 7y ago

While this is true, self driving electric cars will definitely make a big dent in some of these problems.