5 ms·

The fact that they’re still vastly less efficient than mass public transport, bikes or just walking.

by jamil7 3y ago

JoshTriplett 3y ago
I'd love to see public transit that can go from arbitrary-point to arbitrary-point door to door in the same amount of time as a hailed EV could. I genuinely really would. I've never seen a proposal for such a system, only proposals that are less time-efficient than that.
- cassepipe 3y ago
  You don't go arbitrary to arbitrary, you make the most of the transportation system and you walk/bike the last part. Of course the city has to be designed in a way where it's not a pain.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > You don't go arbitrary to arbitrary Yes, I currently do. Not being able to do that is a downgrade. We can and should do better than telling people to accept a worse solution.
- jamil7 3y ago
  That would be one of the least efficient ways to move people at scale around a city, which just enforces the original point.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    It's more efficient than requiring parking. And define "efficient"? People's time and effort have value, as well, and saving time and effort is a win. If a proposed solution is "it takes longer to get from place to place, and additionally requires walking or biking", many people will rightfully consider that proposal worse.
    - jamil7 3y ago
      > And define "efficient"? Capacity, cost per passenger, environmental impact, space efficiency. How does a hailed EV scale to every person in a city that needs to move around without the massive congestion problems we already see in car dominant cities?
      - JoshTriplett 3y ago
        > Capacity, cost per passenger, environmental impact, space efficiency. Those things certainly have value. (Environmental impact most of all, that one is actually urgent to solve.) People's time and effort also has value. We have different values for the tradeoffs between them. I care about environmental impact; let's have EVs powered by clean power, and let's have them be repairable and upgradeable so that they don't regularly become obsolete waste. I do not care about capacity or space efficiency except insofar as they indirectly cause problems like congestion and sprawl, and both of those may be possible to address in other ways (e.g. eliminating parking, which is why I didn't claim that everyone owning their own EV and most of them sitting unused most of the time is an ideal solution); neither of those is as important as people's time and effort. There are other possible utopias, and other potential ways to handle transit. But I'm always going to start from a premise of "how can we achieve the same or better on human time and effort", rather than telling people they have to accept transportation that takes longer and doesn't actually get them directly to where they're going.
        jamil7 3y ago
        Well, I feel like we probably won't agree here, but we do agree on the environmental sustainability topic and I can't personally advocate for car-centric city planning with that in mind. I think efficiency as it's defined by urban planners and transport experts is, in my opinion, the most useful definition to use in this debate. I also didn't intend to advocate for a single mode of transportation. EVs likely have a place in a public transport network to fill gaps and/or ferry people with mobility issues. But they should exist as complementary strategies to a robust fleet of mass transit systems, bike lanes and footpaths. Again, leaning entirely on cars, even EVs, is going to eventually lead to congestion and sprawl. > But I'm always going to start from a premise of "how can we achieve the same or better on human time and effort" Right, but this only works if only some of the population of a city travels this way. If everyone does, we're back to congestion and traffic jams, which make this mode even less efficient again. > rather than telling people they have to accept transportation that takes longer and doesn't actually get them directly to where they're going. Have you had negative experiences with public transport? Because this isn't really the typical situation in every city. I also didn't mean to tell anyone they had to accept one form of transport. I think you'll find if you provide it, and design it well, people will use it, though.

The fact that they’re still vastly less efficient than mass public transport, bikes or just walking.

by jamil7 3y ago

The fact that they’re still vastly less efficient than mass public transport, bikes or just walking.

I'd love to see public transit that can go from arbitrary-point to arbitrary-point door to door in the same amount of time as a hailed EV could. I genuinely really would. I've never seen a proposal for such a system, only proposals that are less time-efficient than that.

cassepipe 3y ago
You don't go arbitrary to arbitrary, you make the most of the transportation system and you walk/bike the last part. Of course the city has to be designed in a way where it's not a pain.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > You don't go arbitrary to arbitrary Yes, I currently do. Not being able to do that is a downgrade. We can and should do better than telling people to accept a worse solution.
jamil7 3y ago
That would be one of the least efficient ways to move people at scale around a city, which just enforces the original point.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  It's more efficient than requiring parking. And define "efficient"? People's time and effort have value, as well, and saving time and effort is a win. If a proposed solution is "it takes longer to get from place to place, and additionally requires walking or biking", many people will rightfully consider that proposal worse.
  - jamil7 3y ago
    > And define "efficient"? Capacity, cost per passenger, environmental impact, space efficiency. How does a hailed EV scale to every person in a city that needs to move around without the massive congestion problems we already see in car dominant cities?
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > Capacity, cost per passenger, environmental impact, space efficiency. Those things certainly have value. (Environmental impact most of all, that one is actually urgent to solve.) People's time and effort also has value. We have different values for the tradeoffs between them. I care about environmental impact; let's have EVs powered by clean power, and let's have them be repairable and upgradeable so that they don't regularly become obsolete waste. I do not care about capacity or space efficiency except insofar as they indirectly cause problems like congestion and sprawl, and both of those may be possible to address in other ways (e.g. eliminating parking, which is why I didn't claim that everyone owning their own EV and most of them sitting unused most of the time is an ideal solution); neither of those is as important as people's time and effort. There are other possible utopias, and other potential ways to handle transit. But I'm always going to start from a premise of "how can we achieve the same or better on human time and effort", rather than telling people they have to accept transportation that takes longer and doesn't actually get them directly to where they're going.
      - jamil7 3y ago
        Well, I feel like we probably won't agree here, but we do agree on the environmental sustainability topic and I can't personally advocate for car-centric city planning with that in mind. I think efficiency as it's defined by urban planners and transport experts is, in my opinion, the most useful definition to use in this debate. I also didn't intend to advocate for a single mode of transportation. EVs likely have a place in a public transport network to fill gaps and/or ferry people with mobility issues. But they should exist as complementary strategies to a robust fleet of mass transit systems, bike lanes and footpaths. Again, leaning entirely on cars, even EVs, is going to eventually lead to congestion and sprawl. > But I'm always going to start from a premise of "how can we achieve the same or better on human time and effort" Right, but this only works if only some of the population of a city travels this way. If everyone does, we're back to congestion and traffic jams, which make this mode even less efficient again. > rather than telling people they have to accept transportation that takes longer and doesn't actually get them directly to where they're going. Have you had negative experiences with public transport? Because this isn't really the typical situation in every city. I also didn't mean to tell anyone they had to accept one form of transport. I think you'll find if you provide it, and design it well, people will use it, though.