4 ms·

> They’re (in most cases substantially) more expensive, less energy dense by mass and volume, and require planning for refuelling (especially if used in areas o

> They’re (in most cases substantially) more expensive, less energy dense by mass and volume, and require planning for refuelling (especially if used in areas outside of main city centres or for long driving, or if you live in an apartment without access to a charger at home). The most popular BEVs already cost less than the average new car and the price will continue to decline as long as battery prices do. Ranges of ~300 miles are common, meanwhile the average commute is 42 miles, so charging at home is sufficient for the vast majority of usage and is more convenient than buying gas. Apartments will install chargers as electric vehicles become more common. For long trips, you begin your day having charged overnight and then add 200 miles of range at a supercharger in 15 minutes. That 500 miles is more than 8 hours of driving at 60MPH and it cost you 15 minutes. For people who make such long trips on a regular basis there will be cars with larger batteries and more range so that "overnight plus once in the middle" gets back to being just overnight. > Not to mention most grids being nowhere near able to support the entire population of car drivers fast-charging their cars during rush hour. This is the least interesting problem. Upgrading power grids is a known process involving only widely deployed existing technologies. > The real solution is public transit Public transit doesn't work in the suburbs, the majority of the population lives in suburban or rural areas and changing that would take decades of new housing construction which is currently prohibited by law.

lazyasciiart 2y ago
Why wouldn’t it work in the suburbs?
- Qwertious 2y ago
  Current suburbs are quite low-density due to roads and front-yards pointlessly wasting space. It works fine with Japanese-style suburbs, but car-centric suburbs need those front yards to cut down on the sound of fast-moving cars directly outside the house (and reducing speed limits in suburbs down to 5 or 10 is utterly unthinkable for most people), and they also need a 2-car garage with another 2 car spots on the driveway and then another 3 spots on the curb, in case they need to park 7 cars at once for some reason and all their neighbours do too.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    It works in plenty of Australian suburbs, which seem pretty car centric. I don’t know how they compare to Japanese suburbs.
    - Qwertious 2y ago
      Australian housing prices are literally some of the highest in the world; we're in the middle of a housing crisis. It might "work" in that sense that with sufficient mineral exports, we haven't gone bankrupt yet, but it's horrifically inefficient. Sydney housing prices are higher than in Tokyo.
      - lazyasciiart 2y ago
        That’s totally irrelevant to whether you can implement public transit in a suburb. If you were actually talking about Australian suburbs in your first comment then you were wrong.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Why wouldn’t it work in the suburbs? The number of cars per hour during most of the day on a suburban street is commonly around one. If a bus runs that frequently it would have one passenger and all you've done is replace one midsized car with one large bus at significant expense. If the bus runs less frequently than that it would have zero passengers because people will buy a car and drive it themselves rather than wait that long for a bus. This is already being somewhat generous by assuming that people would be willing to wait the balance of an hour for a bus. For mass transit to actually work you want service every five or ten minutes.

lazyasciiart 2y ago

Why wouldn’t it work in the suburbs?

Qwertious 2y ago
Current suburbs are quite low-density due to roads and front-yards pointlessly wasting space. It works fine with Japanese-style suburbs, but car-centric suburbs need those front yards to cut down on the sound of fast-moving cars directly outside the house (and reducing speed limits in suburbs down to 5 or 10 is utterly unthinkable for most people), and they also need a 2-car garage with another 2 car spots on the driveway and then another 3 spots on the curb, in case they need to park 7 cars at once for some reason and all their neighbours do too.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  It works in plenty of Australian suburbs, which seem pretty car centric. I don’t know how they compare to Japanese suburbs.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    Australian housing prices are literally some of the highest in the world; we're in the middle of a housing crisis. It might "work" in that sense that with sufficient mineral exports, we haven't gone bankrupt yet, but it's horrifically inefficient. Sydney housing prices are higher than in Tokyo.
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      That’s totally irrelevant to whether you can implement public transit in a suburb. If you were actually talking about Australian suburbs in your first comment then you were wrong.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Why wouldn’t it work in the suburbs? The number of cars per hour during most of the day on a suburban street is commonly around one. If a bus runs that frequently it would have one passenger and all you've done is replace one midsized car with one large bus at significant expense. If the bus runs less frequently than that it would have zero passengers because people will buy a car and drive it themselves rather than wait that long for a bus. This is already being somewhat generous by assuming that people would be willing to wait the balance of an hour for a bus. For mass transit to actually work you want service every five or ten minutes.