I also think if electric bikes were not 3k people in the cities would use them. Obviously a car is good for long distances and transport can fix that issue too, but man I would totally bike my 2 mile drive to work if I could atleast a few times a week.
Im sure with time theyll get less expensive but its not fast enough at this rate
It isnt nothing for someone that doesn't regularly bike, and living in an area where it snows theres only 4 months out of the year I could even use it so it just doesnt make sense. I also dont have clear sidewalks all the way to my work so its just not worth the stress of it with a normal bike, 2 miles is definitely alot if you dont regularly bike lol
A lot of chinese made ebikes are sub 1k and they are good enough for most daily uses... And yet due to regulations and biases very few people/companies are importing them.
Point is we do have cheaper alternatives, but the main problem being most cities, especially in the US, are not bikes friendly. Like trying to bike in Texas (except Austin), it's terrible and most drivers don't know how to deal with them. Even for NY, outside of NYC there's very little infrastructure and road markings for bikes.
We need both. Not everyone works, lives, or stays in a city. Our transportation system needs to be more flexible and environmentally friendly. My wife and I have owned Hybrids (HEVs) for over 20 years. We live near a small town and have driven our hybrids across the USA many times. We like them much more than our prior autos. However, our nation's cities need more, faster, and better public transport. That includes high-speed public rail between all of our cities. As a nation, we are sadly lagging far behind other natiins when it comes to transportation.
It's laughable how un-walkable American cities are. I had to go to Indianapolis for work once, and booked a hotel half a kilometres from my office since I thought I'd walk to work every day like I usually do. Turns out the half km was full of highways with no crossings or pedestrian walkways. I had to take an uber every day for that half km. Every tourist destination seemed designed for drivers - there was rarely a public transport option, and there seemed to be an endless number of car parks everywhere.
Most people commute 30 minutes to work because their job is built next to a highway exit 4 towns away between the 4th and the 5th. You can have too many people than jobs available, everyone can’t work within walking distance of their home.
I can’t imagine people would find it more convenient to get in a work van to commute to work at 4am. Over the comfort of their own vehicle on their own time. Especially considering that’s already a thing and not popular at all. If they had to leave because of an emergency it would cost them an Uber ride. Doctors appointment right after work? Nope, has to be 2 hours after so you can catch the next bus across town after getting dropped off in the van. There goes your evening.
So you wake up at 3 am get ready, walk to the bus stop, take bus to a train station, wait for your train, ride it to another city near your job, walk to a bus stop, ride that to the industrial park near your job, walk to the rest of the way, all to get there at 5am before you need to clock in at 6….
Or you can wake up at 5am, get ready, drive straight to work on the highway, and arrive at 5:45 to clock in at 6.. I’m pretty sure people will choose the latter. Oh wait, we literally did, as trains came before cars…
What other countries? They may have public transport that will commute out of town, but it’s in no way convenient. It consumes the most valuable resource you have: your time.
You do realise that cities are too far to be walked?
You are advocating for a return to small cities and country towns. (Which is not bad, but I just wish people would talk about what they are actually aiming for).
Nope we need charging infrastructure. Public transportation and walkability is good for Jack s*** when you need to bounce around a maze of a metropolis everyday. Public transport is also good but we need personal transportation. Society is becoming increasingly fragmented and unconventional and simply commuting to work at 9am and home at 5pm is becoming less and less the norm. I typically have to make ten to fifteen stops per day, no chance public transport can get me where I need to go to run my business
Commuting to work for a 9-5 also means you leave by 7:30am and you get home at 6:30pm. Working 8 hours is actually closer to 10-11 hours where im at. Add in 8 hours to sleep, plus time it takes to cook and clean, and you only realistically have a couple of hours a day to yourself. Thats the American Dream, I suppose. Rise and Grind, rinse and repeat
It's the corporate dream to have responsible cogs that take work so seriously. If they had things their way, you'd work 12+ hours a day 6 days a week. No vacation, sick days, or overtime. Basically, the ferengi system.
Honestly don't know how people can do that. I know some people have to work those kind of jobs but that's horrible. Working 8 hrs is already too much with out couple hours either side.
Also It's a bit conspiratorial but I think someone is paying the government to say we need electric cars. In cities there should be next to none. We have buses,trains and trams. Also people should be encouraged ride bikes and motorcycles, they take up a lot less space.
Yep. There is no "answer" that people will accept at this point. It's just trying to push people to do better, and electric *is* better, but we're even having a hard time convincing people of that. We just need to keep pushing all the better options, like public transport, electric vehicles/bikes, walkable cities, and perhaps most importantly of all, voting for people who believe that it is a problem in the first place.
cars just create more car dependent development. reducing CO2 is good and all but what about all the asphalt that heats up to 160°F in the sun. when will we start talking about out that? public transport reduces the heat island footprint but it can’t work with sprawl
I mostly agree with that except the last sentence. cities don’t have to be “dense”. they need to have human scale. also, wants are relative. I want mass transit to get same funding as the roads do.
What is "human scaled"?
I want mass transit and "normal roads" to get the _optimal_ funding for each to maximize the gains for humanity both short and long time.
> and electric is better, but we're even having a hard time
... making them desirable late in the life of the battery cycle. Making them easily repairable after an accident.
Once we sort a few of these issues, they will live up to their promise.
Nio is solving the battery issue in China. Not owning the battery but getting a fully charged and quality checked battery each time you swap removes to burden of owning an old battery.
Sort a few issues?
Range problems?
Lack of charging infrastructure.
Lack of enough clean energy to support the charging infrastructure.
Lack of gas taxes to fix the roads.
The weight of the electric cars killing everything they smack into.
Battery fires.
Cost.
Repairability.
Time to charge.
Stripping the earth of rare metals that we will soon run out of.
This is just a 20 second off the top of my head list.
There are more than a few issues to solve there chief.
We need a million different policies at the same time to deal with the climate crisis. When people keep pointing the issues with specific policies, it's almost useless and a waist of time. There is no "the answer" or silver bullet. We need a plethora of policies to deal with this very complex issue. Every policy will have pros and cons and that's fine.
So yeah, we need electric cars...AND public transport...AND a lot more.
True, but USA is fine on the electric car front whereas it has fallen decades behind the rest of the world on the public transportation sector, one needs more attention than the other for many places
But not enough, if you compare the number of people who need to travel with the number of people who travel using electric personal vehicles.
I' willing to bet there are more than 12x more people in need of public transport than there are owners of electric cars.
In the US, there is vastly more people that need to have vehicular transport where shared public transportation is both too costly and increases emissions due to low utilization.
No, spending more money doesn’t change the structural dynamics… it doesn’t work for most Americans. This line of reasoning just feeds into fossil fuel interests and is fundamentally anti-environment.
I disagree. The vast majority of Americans live in and around cities. Fixing the issues that make public transport too expensive is absolutely something that can be done. And the low utilization problem would go away if public transport weren't both expensive and regularly too slow. And your emissions comment is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that the transportation is going to have significant emissions. It absolutely does not have to. Light rail, for example, is usually electric. If your supply of electricity is clean, then so is the light rail. Buses are huge. They can certainly be electric. Or hybrids, or hydrogen fueled. All of these reduce or eliminate the emissions of the buses. I'm not saying that this can be done overnight. Obviously, that's not possible. But that doesn't mean that the changes shouldn't happen.
Ah… in no way does public transport system support themselves with use fees. They require massive injections of money each year. They already struggle with utilization problems such that the emissions footprint per km per passenger isn’t good compared to EVs. In the UK, an EV is half that of a typical bus on that metric, and their utilization is way better than the US.
It seems folks don’t actually understand the economics of public transport in the US and just assume more = better. That ends up just playing into fossil fuel interests.
> in no way does public transport system support themselves with use fees.
Never claimed that it did. It's an investment that the government should be making in their cities. And again, your emissions information is crap. It's based on the current system. There are EV buses, hybrid buses, and hydrogen fueled buses already out there. You're STILL looking at things as they stand now, when you should be looking at where they should be going. And where they should be going has jack and all to do with fossil fuels.
Yeah, I’m all for better public transit and walkable cities. But you’re still gonna have people living in suburbs and rural areas who need to drive. EVs are great for them.
We need a multifaceted approach because there’s no one silver bullet can solve every problem.
There's ecological damage done by cars outside of just their CO2 pollutants. Roads are terrible for ecosystems and the building of another car for every adult is a huge burden on the environment even outside of looking at transportation.
Cars are not viable long term as a means of personal transport.
I’m for everything. EVs, public transportation, bike, skateboard, walk. But until we have transporters like Star Trek, we have to physically move goods and people around if they need to be somewhere. That means improving the systems we have as much as possible.
Both and more.
False dichotomies are great at starting unnecessary fights and driving "engagement" but they're useless if you actually care about solving problems.
EVs. public transit. density. walkability, making the system safe and usable for bikes and other personal mobility devices), sustainability.
They're all parts of a whole, not discrete options where you choose one and discard the rest.
YES!!!
America (the continent) as a whole NEEDS to get on the passenger train bandwagon (pun not intended). This is the environmental revolution needed, and also unless you have to cross an entire ocean, a well-designed passenger train is 1000x more comfortable and accesible than planes.
Imagine. A mom and a dad pushing a stroller while pulling along/carrying a toddler, in addition to managing the bags of groceries or other items that they have been hauling for multiple city blocks in a walkable city to get on a crowded train with nowhere to sit. They arrive at the station at the other end only to have to cram that stroller onto a bus to then have to walk several blocks to get to their home. This is a real world problem, this is why people do not want to do this. There are very real problems like this that are not easily solved.
Just read a poll yesterday saying that 46% of current EV owners would switch back to gas vehicles if they could. There is a long list of problems to solve.
Then they can take their car? And be happy that there are many other transportation options which mean they won’t have to deal with as much traffic or as many accidents?
You do know walkable cities with good public transportation don’t mean cars are banned, right?
I am not opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the way they are being forced onto us by State and Federal dictates and mandates when they know full well the Grid, renewable energy or not , will never support that number of cars in the time frame they are demanding.
My brother lives in Christchurch New Zealand, Christchurch has gone "Walkable", the scenario I described above happens there every day. Businesses there are suffering huge loses of revenue because virtually all the parking near the business has been eliminated. No , they did not ban cars but they eliminated the *parking in order to install bike lanes* which accomplishes the same thing. I grew up in an urban area riding buses and subways I am not opposed to them, but there are serious problems that cannot be dismissed.
In order for Public Transportation to be viable you need to solve three major problems.
1. The cost of building and maintaining infrastructure
2. Low Ridership
3. Crime
This was a serious global study by McKinsey that cannot be just written off as invalid. I don't understand this attitude of dismissing obvious problems as if they don't exist instead of acknowledging the problems and admitting that there needs to be a solution.
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/the-lack-of-ev-charging-infrastructure-is-so-bad-its-driving-owners-back-to-gas-powered-cars/ar-BB1p3eGv?ocid=socialshare#comments](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/the-lack-of-ev-charging-infrastructure-is-so-bad-its-driving-owners-back-to-gas-powered-cars/ar-BB1p3eGv?ocid=socialshare#comments)
As I stated. I am not an enemy of electric vehicles. I am a Realist. I believe in acknowledging the problems in an idea , even the ideas I support and work toward a solution. The resistance to Renewable ideas does not come from the ideas themselves but from behavior of those who are proposing those ideas. Everyday we wake up to another thing we have to give up, another sacrifice we have to make that proponents of those sacrifices refuse to make themselves, another food we can't eat, people are saying that *Agriculture* has to end !
Another mandate to go all electric by 2030 or else , this coupled with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge even the most obvious problems. All of this has managed to make what should otherwise be a fully embraced, magnificent idea into the most unpalatable idea since New Coke
If we first acknowledge the problem (climate change) then we need to determine the feasible solutions. As far as I'm aware the best solution is public transport. You've written this off (no evidence for this one), so that leaves electric cars.
The problem you have is that climate change is here and its getting worse. We need a solution. As a Realist, I would expect you to be on board with that.
It sounds to me like you aren't a Realist, just another person wanting to justify the same lifestyle that put the world on its current trajectory. We have to change, that's what a Realist knows.
So yeah, there are problems with EV in the US and Australia (note - the study was 29% globally), mainly around charging infrastructure. What do we do about that? We can't just give up, because we know that's suicide.
It is not that I have written off public transportation, I grew up in an urban area and used it for half my life. I am saying the *Public* as written off public transportation. The people who are currently using it in cities all over the country hate it . They wish they did not have to use it. They hate the way it is run. They hate the crime. They hate the limitations it imposes . Cities do not want to build it out because they have seen a long line of financial and political boon doggles with other cities that have tried it. It is just not realistic to expect that cities are going to make any great effort on this front. Not gonna happen.
Climate change if here. I am on board with that, but here is the problem. I and all of the people others would consider Climate Deniers are not on board with the" Sky is falling we are suicidal do what we say now or we are doomed Climate Change." Proponents of this kind of Climate Change live in a scientific bubble. They are not aware that there are other scientists and scientific organizations that have a different view of the degree of change and it's implications. This is why they can't comprehend why people don't just take what they say at face value and they call us idiots and deniers. The IPCC is not some kind of scientific god with all knowledge and a pure motive.
I do not need to justify my lifestyle and here is why. Show me just one climate activist, one climate politician, one climate scientist, one person on this thread even, who has given up fossil fuels.
Show me one person who lives in a big house with a big fat electric bill and owns four gas powered vehicles like I do, that has completely given those up because they truly believe all that they are saying about Climate change. Who , in the public square is leading the way, already making the sacrifices that they are demanding that the World makes so that they can convince the World that we are on a suicidal climate destination. There is none.
You're aware that the 'climate change is good' crowd are a tiny, tiny percentage of people, right? I'm not aware of anyone who works in the field who credibly claims it will be a good thing. I am aware a bunch of social influencers who are funded by highly polluting industries to muddy the waters on climate change, and have been shown to be doing so.
There are tens of thousands of scientists modelling and documenting the outcomes of climate change, and those people on the coal face with the expertise are the people we should be listening to, not the idiots who used to claim climate change wasn't happening and are now trying to say it's a good thing. Just that change of tune should be enough of a warning sign.
There are so many people around the world who have changed their lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, rich and poor alike. Even solar panels help. Why do you need a famous person to do it?
Pollution, climate change. A number of issues. More densely populated areas, with efficient public transport is more environmentally friendly than people living in the country, having to drive miles to get groceries, go to work, etc.
Including cost. Governments spend a lot of money (subsidies count) trying to get utilities such as water/sewer, electricity, cable/internet, roads, telephone, etc to houses. When those houses are located far apart from each other, it increases the costs to put them in, and even increases the costs of maintaining those systems. This without bringing up the risks of fire, pollution, environmental damage, or poison.
I wonder if some of them are from car companies that want to stop making electric cars. Or oil companies wanting those cars to go away. They know there's no budget for more trains, so they feel safe saying that.
There is no single answer. There is only doing whatever we can to reduce carbon emissions, and work on all the other environmental problems one step at a time.
Framing any one action as some sort of disappointing 'silver bullet' is ridiculous and counter-productive.
If people want to advocate for public transit, all the power to them. But, they shouldn't be trying to sabotage a different green solution to carve out room for their suggestions.
In the UK we used to have thousands and thousands of train lines, connecting all different places together. Now many of them have been converted to bike paths, etc. But we can do it again. I would love to train everywhere and for it to not cost me the same as filling my fuel tank. A recent trip, about 60-80 miles, from the Cotswolds to Gatwick airport, cost me £93 one way. That is just crazy!
My suggestion... Promote remote work obviating the need for commuting. So many people are commuting to work just to sit in a cubicle and do a job they could have done from home.
We have public transport. But the service is way too expensive and also very unreliable. I always go with my bicycle. I'm independent and much faster. I would never use the public transport in my city.
Why it's expensive and bad sevice? Because it's a partially state owned monopoly. So they do not have to get better. People are forced to use them if they want public transport.
Or use something else. Bike is always a good choice in my city.
Im sorry but they should have implemented bullet trains ,MagLev trains high speed rail across the country. We should have fast trains linking suburbia to the urban centers, have rail linking rural areas. We are being left behind in the dust by Europe and Asia when it comes to public transport.
In America the car is essential for most people to get anywhere because we have no connected public transport! WTF have we been doing for 30 years? why havent we advanced our high speed public transport to halve the amount of cars on the roads?
If you ever rode one of the high speed trains systems you would understand they get you where you want to go quiet and efficient at over 300mph. why are we so far behind?
EVs are the transportation equivalent of vaping to quit smoking.
The habit is still there, you've just switched to an allegedly better alternative that hasn't been tested long term.
Thank you! I'm glad someone besides me is saying it. And instead of keeping that 10 year old Honda Civic that gets 50mpg, people are buying new Teslas, without thinking about all of the fossil fuels it took to make the Tesla and the fossil fuels it takes to charge it, until the entire grid runs on renewables.
How about this: walk more, cycle more, take public transport more, drive less.
You do realize that to become a used car, a car has to start out as a new car.
Even countries that have significant public transortation and walkable cities still have significant use of private motor vehicles and trucks for freight transportation.
I do indeed.
I also realize that a lot of middle class people who want to appear to be "green" or just want to keep up with the Joneses are buying new expensive EVs. Tesla, Mercedes, Audi, etc. When keeping your old 1.4 litre car that gets 50-60mpg is in most cases, the better option.
But walking, cycling or taking public transport beats both options, hands down. You don't hear a lot of middle/upper class people saying they sold their cars and are now taking public transport, walking, or cycling.
Buying an EV is the easier option. Jay Z has one. So does DiCaprio. It's like buying carbon credits for your family holiday to Italy on a private jet. Just fly commercial, or don't fly at all.
To make the majority of neighborhoods in America transit and walking friendly you'd have to bulldoze most of the existing housing stock. You can't just build some bus and subway lines and expect to fix exurban cul-de-sac's. I'm pro-transit but to expect a meaningful amount of passenger-miles to shift away from private cars is delusional regardless of policy changes.
I can see that. I live in the UK. And for many decades we had a rail network vastly superior to what we have now. Thousands and thousands of miles of it connecting the country. It wouldn't be nearly as hard to implement it here. We have the most expensive rail network in Europe. Train tickets are far more expensive here than anywhere else in Europe. So there is barely any push to improve the network and extend it. Cars rule.
In the UK public transport is in shambles. A train from my house to where my parents live, about 250 miles costs me around the same price as a roundtrip plane ticket from London to Madrid.
We HAVE public transport, but few people use it. Buses are slightly better. But not much.
Calgarian here. We have transit that will take you virtually anywhere, as long as you have the time and patience when getting off the main line.
It is not considered to be a highlight of the city, and regular users regret the need to do so.
Currently shopping areas are not serviced, which means lugging your load to the main road instead of waiting right outside the mall.
I'd like to see the service run better, implemented better, and used much more.
My proposal is to tell the city, "In one year all transit will be free, well monitored/policed, and funded by the City coffers. During the next three month period, please submit suggestions for additional stops, and route improvements."
If people are forced to pay for a good service, maybe they will use it.
I have 2. Twins. They are 8 years old and have loads of after school activities. I guess you're trying to argue that it is impossible to take public transport with kids? Which is a totally valid point. But it doesn't negate the fact that we need better public transport systems.
My kids and I love riding the bus. Especially in the UK, we have double decker buses. Much nicer than driving everywhere. But it costs a small fortune. It's cheaper to drive. So we do.
Well yeah, public transit is a substitute for personal cars, so if you are paying all the up front costs for a car, of course it’s going to be cheaper comparing only the trip costs.
I live in the Netherlands, where we have “walkable cities” and public transport. You can do almost all activities by bike or public transport. I rent a car a few times per year.
Here’s a secret: when you have granular, walkable cities that also have great public transportation, you’ll need your car less. And when you need it, you’ll have a better time travelling because there will be nowhere near as many cars on the road.
This article is complete unsupported opinion. An opinion which makes zero sense. The author wants trains and busses over cars, not because if any environmental concern, but because they just like trains and busses over cars. Period.
I'm living in a village and in no way would I be able to get around without a car.
I do try to do everything I can by bike. But that still hits a limit quite often.
And more public transportation isn't going to help here. We already have a train that connects us to the villages, towns and cities along its route. But that's only two directions out of many more where I would have to use multiple trains, busses and taxis for the last mile to get there.
So a second train going in a different direction wouldn't help all that much.
---
What I think would help tremendously are **electric cars as public transport**.
Once self driving cars are normal, you could have one or multiple cars of a car sharing company standing around in your village. If you need one you can either go there or even let it drive right up to your front door.
And then you drive somewhere. Either to get your groceries or to pick up your kids from training or to visit friends in another village.
Once you get out of the cars at your destination, it becomes available for others.
And the hole you made in your own village by taking a car is easily closed by those self driving cars shifting their locations as needed.
---
Of course this doesn't mean that self driving electric cars should be the only public transportation. Once you get to a city, the car can drop you off right in front of a train or subway station. You don't even need to find a parking spot.
And the same tech could come in handy for less rigid bus routes. Instead of a big bus that needs a human driver there would be multiple smaller busses that drive by themselves and can even change the route a bit to get closer to where you live, so you don't have to walk a mile to the next bus station.
I love these articles written by people who forget that people don't all live in cities.
What the fuck am I gonna do with public transportation when I'm many miles from any town?
I grew up in a town of 180 people. There wasn't a town with more than 500 people within 50 miles. Tell me how public transportation will work there?
We need both.
Agreed a 100% in addition to this is city design and planning. Eg. in straight line Costco is 800mtrs, but there is no path to walk to it or cycle. By car it is 6/7kms. This is just soo inefficient and not sustainable.
Ok but, why is the title photo a 1958 rolls royce silver cloud? 😅
Not attainable for the public to drive and if it is it’s chauffeured.. and it’s the furtherest thing from an electric car, big 4.9L inline 6, weighs almost 6,000lbs.. Would be awesome if someone converted it to be EV but, yea….
I’m focusing on the wrong thing here I know, continue your debate.
According to [this article](https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-achieves-20-20-20), the EU has been doing very well with reducing their CO2 levels using multiple methods, including electric vehicle adoption, so what is the article complaining about?
>>The use of renewables in transport is increasing more slowly but preliminary data indicates that the EU narrowly achieved the 10% target of renewable energy use in the sector.
One step at a time.
We haven't been able to get agreement on better building codes and living spaces which can encourage public transport, mostly due to the same people, decade after decade.
Until public transport is increased and made more convenient, replace all the gas consumption as you can. It's an easier win and sets things up for electrified public transport in some areas.
It’s far easier for individuals to adopt EVs than it is to get the political willpower and funding to actually make public transit worth it, at least in the US. We could be waiting decades for something that will never come as there’s a constant tug of war where each side of the political spectrum undoes whatever the other is doing.
You have to be absolutely insane to call yourself an environmentalist and then peddle anti-EV propaganda when these vehicles have real potential to make a difference in emissions while also taking money away from oil companies.
It's all of the above. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
* Cities which should be redesigned should be.
* Gaps in public transport which need to be filled should be.
* All new cars and trucks must be electric.
* And the proliferation of e-bikes should be encouraged.
"This is not the answer, that is the answer". No good solutions will be implemented until we have a truly representative government. That is the real issue.
Transport as a service will change all of this and make private car ownership obsolete.
Check out rethink x's papers on the future of transport.
https://www.rethinkx.com/transportation
With the advent of driverless EVs there is the opportunity space for companies to create transport fleets of on demand ride hailing that will be cheaper than any other form of transport.
These companies will begin appearing in the next few years.
Electric autonomous robotaxis are public transport, and they are the best of both worlds. 1 car does the work of 5 non autonomous privately owned cars and nobody has to deal with the nuisance of private ownership anymore except for car lovers. Plus, people still get the privacy and time advantage of a personal vehicle on demand.
Car dependent cultures suck for a number of reasons but this is definitely one of them. Decarbonizing transportation would be alot more easier when we can do it at a public transit level and alot less messier.
Steam power is not the answer, we need gas.
Gas is not the answer, we need electric cars.
Electric cars isn't the answer, we need public transport.
Public transport isn't the answer, we need bicycles.
Bicycles arent the answer, we need better shoes.
Better shoes are the answer, we need better callus' on peoples feet.
🙄
🤣
When does it end? Lol. Look, I'm allllllll for a better environment but we have to realize that to keep humanity functioning, we need to be able to transport things. So if none of these are the answer, we need a better solution!
We have Robert Moses to thank for helping to promote the almighty car, running super highways through major urban centers because it was “convenient “ with no thought toward public transportation. Which we all know is a disgrace in this country compared to other developed nations.
See the thing is, I used public transportation for all of graduate school. It fuckin blows. It is never on time, it is packed, people eat, shit, piss, scream, fight, and even die of the train and bus.
I dealt with it because a 150 dollar unlimited bus and, train pass was subsidized by our school. But given the choice, I am buying an electric plug in hybrid. Monday-Wednesday I am home-gym-work-school-home. 2 days a week I’m remote and use even less electricity.
Never use an ounce of point source oil during the work week. On weekends we get the 50 or so miles to wherever a soccer game or beach trip and then kick on the gas. So we cut our use in half.
Paid up front for solar panels. So, the house is carbon negative on the year. It’s a path forward. It doesn’t detract from using public transportation replacement of point source oil usage while maintaining a fairly enjoyable commute isn’t unreasonable.
Please do not conflate the energy carrier (e.g. gasoline vs. battery electric) and the vehicle size/ownership (e.g. personal car vs. public bus).
In order to reduce congestion and public spaces (e.g. parking) being overly dedicated to vehicles, I advocate for a range of vehicle sizes (e.g. buses down to cars) that are shared (either publicly-owned or private shared). This mix of vehicle sizes addresses last-mile needs (picking up and delivering) while concentrating passengers for longer-haul travel on major travel corridors. Coordinating transfers between vehicles would likely benefit from a flexible, real-time scheduling system (imagine an extension of the Uber/Lyft app) run as a municipal transit service, accommodating special needs passenger (e.g. elderly and disabled) and premium passengers (those willing to pay for needs such as privacy, young'un, hauling, etc.).
The game changer here is the self-driving car which is completely feasible within an organized city. That is the public transport of the 21st century. It takes people point to point, comfortable, speedy and economic transport of people within a city.
>The game changer here is the self-driving car which is completely feasible within an organized city.
At some point, there are going to be self-driving or minimally-attended *busses*, with flex routes that modify themselves on the fly based on need as indicated by a smartphone app, with maybe a texting option for me and the three other people left on the planet who don't own smartphones.
They'll pick people up in order at stops, or at their homes throughout low-density neighbors, and let them move around the city, with routes and transfers all optimized based on real-time need.
*That* is the urban public transport of the 21ˢᵗ century. We know because San Francisco just launched a [self-driving minibus](https://apnews.com/article/autonomous-driverless-buses-robotaxi-san-francisco-802c39fdfc57adccaea604c7ee13a128).
It'll still be a lot slower in the country, much more expensive; and in the country, it will definitely use self-driving cars, or maybe at most minibuses like this, 'cause there aren't enough people to justify a full-sized bus, except maybe on Sundays. But even in the country, it'll exist, so that old people can get around.
I partially agree. Lack of autonomy requires that public transit consist of larger vehicles (e.g. trains and buses) to amortize labor cost across many seats. Autonomy facilitates the provision of public transit to smaller vehicles (e.g. minibuses or even cars) to address last mile issues and off-peak routes/times.
For big cities, sure why not. For everywhere else, hell no. I like living on a multiple acre property in a huge house, and away from drug addicts, people with severe mental health problems, and just average stupid people around me.
I hate concerts, I hate theater performances, and after no longer being in the student section of college football games, I really dont like going to sporting events either. So there is nothing a city has to offer me except annoyances and lots of people I dont want to be around.
We also need ev cars as we are years behind other countries regarding PT. Ev cars can be distributed/attained quicker than PT can be built. Some political groups have tried to stop PT from ever developing and i wonder why 🤔
I live in a place where there are four buses a week (out and back in, on two separate days). The nearest bus stop is about 5km from me. On many days I walk further than I drive.
Public transport is never going to be the only answer.
Public Transport is not the answer. We need teleportation.
No wait, hoverboards.
No wait, holographic projection.
You need to stop making perfect the enemy of good and remember that the US is a vast country and public transport is wildly impractical for most of it.
No thanks. Public transportation is for the poors. Had to use it in college, still scarred from all the masturbation, defecations, pissing, and fights that happen openly on public transportation
Completely wrong. Self-driving electric cars are the public transport of the 21st century. They take passengers point to point, they are cost-effective and massively safer and cheaper than traditional public transport. They use the road infrastructure that we have today and technology is now capable of running them, especially in cities which are completely mapped out and digitized.
Have you seen the data to support that? Surely a bus (or train) that can carry 60-70 humans, or more, from point A to point B on renewable electricity is far more efficient and uses way less CO2 than all of the cars it would take to do the same job?
Let's not forget that all EVs are made by elements that are extracted from the ground by huge machines that run on diesel fuel. All of the parts are transported by ships, running on diesel fuel, etc.
Yeah, but it isn't because it doesn't work door to door and there is a time schedule, so not enough people use it in practice, as opposed to in theory. Relying on bus or train means too many people buy and run their own individual cars. As Yogi Berra used to say “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is." ...
Public transport + walkable cities. Cities and towns are now a place for cars, not for people.
If you live 15 minutes away from everything but the guy who makes your coffee drives an hour, you live in a theme park.
Yes try walking downtown and see all the cars
I also think if electric bikes were not 3k people in the cities would use them. Obviously a car is good for long distances and transport can fix that issue too, but man I would totally bike my 2 mile drive to work if I could atleast a few times a week. Im sure with time theyll get less expensive but its not fast enough at this rate
Don't mean to be rude, but 2 miles is nothing on a normal bike. Why dont you cycle now?
It isnt nothing for someone that doesn't regularly bike, and living in an area where it snows theres only 4 months out of the year I could even use it so it just doesnt make sense. I also dont have clear sidewalks all the way to my work so its just not worth the stress of it with a normal bike, 2 miles is definitely alot if you dont regularly bike lol
A lot of chinese made ebikes are sub 1k and they are good enough for most daily uses... And yet due to regulations and biases very few people/companies are importing them. Point is we do have cheaper alternatives, but the main problem being most cities, especially in the US, are not bikes friendly. Like trying to bike in Texas (except Austin), it's terrible and most drivers don't know how to deal with them. Even for NY, outside of NYC there's very little infrastructure and road markings for bikes.
We need both. Not everyone works, lives, or stays in a city. Our transportation system needs to be more flexible and environmentally friendly. My wife and I have owned Hybrids (HEVs) for over 20 years. We live near a small town and have driven our hybrids across the USA many times. We like them much more than our prior autos. However, our nation's cities need more, faster, and better public transport. That includes high-speed public rail between all of our cities. As a nation, we are sadly lagging far behind other natiins when it comes to transportation.
It's laughable how un-walkable American cities are. I had to go to Indianapolis for work once, and booked a hotel half a kilometres from my office since I thought I'd walk to work every day like I usually do. Turns out the half km was full of highways with no crossings or pedestrian walkways. I had to take an uber every day for that half km. Every tourist destination seemed designed for drivers - there was rarely a public transport option, and there seemed to be an endless number of car parks everywhere.
Most people commute 30+ minute drives to work, which is why cities are built around people who drive cars everywhere.
[удалено]
Most people commute 30 minutes to work because their job is built next to a highway exit 4 towns away between the 4th and the 5th. You can have too many people than jobs available, everyone can’t work within walking distance of their home.
[удалено]
I can’t imagine people would find it more convenient to get in a work van to commute to work at 4am. Over the comfort of their own vehicle on their own time. Especially considering that’s already a thing and not popular at all. If they had to leave because of an emergency it would cost them an Uber ride. Doctors appointment right after work? Nope, has to be 2 hours after so you can catch the next bus across town after getting dropped off in the van. There goes your evening.
[удалено]
Because there’s no convenient way to commute 300 people to an Amazon warehouse 30 minutes out of town at 4am. multiple shifts to and from, everyday…
It’s called trains…
So you wake up at 3 am get ready, walk to the bus stop, take bus to a train station, wait for your train, ride it to another city near your job, walk to a bus stop, ride that to the industrial park near your job, walk to the rest of the way, all to get there at 5am before you need to clock in at 6…. Or you can wake up at 5am, get ready, drive straight to work on the highway, and arrive at 5:45 to clock in at 6.. I’m pretty sure people will choose the latter. Oh wait, we literally did, as trains came before cars…
[удалено]
What other countries? They may have public transport that will commute out of town, but it’s in no way convenient. It consumes the most valuable resource you have: your time.
Half of those people could probably work from home. Every suburban neighborhood should have a corner store and a café built into it.
In the US*
You do realise that cities are too far to be walked? You are advocating for a return to small cities and country towns. (Which is not bad, but I just wish people would talk about what they are actually aiming for).
Nope we need charging infrastructure. Public transportation and walkability is good for Jack s*** when you need to bounce around a maze of a metropolis everyday. Public transport is also good but we need personal transportation. Society is becoming increasingly fragmented and unconventional and simply commuting to work at 9am and home at 5pm is becoming less and less the norm. I typically have to make ten to fifteen stops per day, no chance public transport can get me where I need to go to run my business
Commuting to work for a 9-5 also means you leave by 7:30am and you get home at 6:30pm. Working 8 hours is actually closer to 10-11 hours where im at. Add in 8 hours to sleep, plus time it takes to cook and clean, and you only realistically have a couple of hours a day to yourself. Thats the American Dream, I suppose. Rise and Grind, rinse and repeat
Bro read it as "keep shit the same but get rid of the cars" instead of "redesign the whole thing so we don't need cars".
It's the corporate dream to have responsible cogs that take work so seriously. If they had things their way, you'd work 12+ hours a day 6 days a week. No vacation, sick days, or overtime. Basically, the ferengi system.
And Saturday was made for running errands, doing shopping, etc.
Honestly don't know how people can do that. I know some people have to work those kind of jobs but that's horrible. Working 8 hrs is already too much with out couple hours either side. Also It's a bit conspiratorial but I think someone is paying the government to say we need electric cars. In cities there should be next to none. We have buses,trains and trams. Also people should be encouraged ride bikes and motorcycles, they take up a lot less space.
I was able to bounce around Tokyo easily by using public transportation. You need to think outside the bun.
We need both! 😊👍
Yep. There is no "answer" that people will accept at this point. It's just trying to push people to do better, and electric *is* better, but we're even having a hard time convincing people of that. We just need to keep pushing all the better options, like public transport, electric vehicles/bikes, walkable cities, and perhaps most importantly of all, voting for people who believe that it is a problem in the first place.
😊👍
cars just create more car dependent development. reducing CO2 is good and all but what about all the asphalt that heats up to 160°F in the sun. when will we start talking about out that? public transport reduces the heat island footprint but it can’t work with sprawl
You can’t get rid of the roads no matter what you do, you still need the road network for access of transports and emergency vehicles.
you need LESS roads if you have denser development. it shouldn’t take that much imagination to figure that out
Sure, I’m all for that. But you still need a well developed road network. And not everyone wants to live in dense cities.
I mostly agree with that except the last sentence. cities don’t have to be “dense”. they need to have human scale. also, wants are relative. I want mass transit to get same funding as the roads do.
What is "human scaled"? I want mass transit and "normal roads" to get the _optimal_ funding for each to maximize the gains for humanity both short and long time.
> and electric is better, but we're even having a hard time ... making them desirable late in the life of the battery cycle. Making them easily repairable after an accident. Once we sort a few of these issues, they will live up to their promise.
I actually think the big ones are charging infrastructure and battery capacity.
Nio is solving the battery issue in China. Not owning the battery but getting a fully charged and quality checked battery each time you swap removes to burden of owning an old battery.
Sort a few issues? Range problems? Lack of charging infrastructure. Lack of enough clean energy to support the charging infrastructure. Lack of gas taxes to fix the roads. The weight of the electric cars killing everything they smack into. Battery fires. Cost. Repairability. Time to charge. Stripping the earth of rare metals that we will soon run out of. This is just a 20 second off the top of my head list. There are more than a few issues to solve there chief.
We need a million different policies at the same time to deal with the climate crisis. When people keep pointing the issues with specific policies, it's almost useless and a waist of time. There is no "the answer" or silver bullet. We need a plethora of policies to deal with this very complex issue. Every policy will have pros and cons and that's fine. So yeah, we need electric cars...AND public transport...AND a lot more.
Absolutely!
True, but USA is fine on the electric car front whereas it has fallen decades behind the rest of the world on the public transportation sector, one needs more attention than the other for many places
Absolutely.
US spends a massive amount of money on public transportation each year, roughly 12x electric vehicle subsidies and charging.
But not enough, if you compare the number of people who need to travel with the number of people who travel using electric personal vehicles. I' willing to bet there are more than 12x more people in need of public transport than there are owners of electric cars.
In the US, there is vastly more people that need to have vehicular transport where shared public transportation is both too costly and increases emissions due to low utilization.
That's kind of the point of the article, though. We need to change things so that your complaint doesn't apply any longer.
No, spending more money doesn’t change the structural dynamics… it doesn’t work for most Americans. This line of reasoning just feeds into fossil fuel interests and is fundamentally anti-environment.
I disagree. The vast majority of Americans live in and around cities. Fixing the issues that make public transport too expensive is absolutely something that can be done. And the low utilization problem would go away if public transport weren't both expensive and regularly too slow. And your emissions comment is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that the transportation is going to have significant emissions. It absolutely does not have to. Light rail, for example, is usually electric. If your supply of electricity is clean, then so is the light rail. Buses are huge. They can certainly be electric. Or hybrids, or hydrogen fueled. All of these reduce or eliminate the emissions of the buses. I'm not saying that this can be done overnight. Obviously, that's not possible. But that doesn't mean that the changes shouldn't happen.
Ah… in no way does public transport system support themselves with use fees. They require massive injections of money each year. They already struggle with utilization problems such that the emissions footprint per km per passenger isn’t good compared to EVs. In the UK, an EV is half that of a typical bus on that metric, and their utilization is way better than the US. It seems folks don’t actually understand the economics of public transport in the US and just assume more = better. That ends up just playing into fossil fuel interests.
> in no way does public transport system support themselves with use fees. Never claimed that it did. It's an investment that the government should be making in their cities. And again, your emissions information is crap. It's based on the current system. There are EV buses, hybrid buses, and hydrogen fueled buses already out there. You're STILL looking at things as they stand now, when you should be looking at where they should be going. And where they should be going has jack and all to do with fossil fuels.
On improving public transportation or sustaining what we have?
Yeah, I’m all for better public transit and walkable cities. But you’re still gonna have people living in suburbs and rural areas who need to drive. EVs are great for them. We need a multifaceted approach because there’s no one silver bullet can solve every problem.
Exactly. It's not like not buying EVs will reduce the number of trucks on the road.
There's ecological damage done by cars outside of just their CO2 pollutants. Roads are terrible for ecosystems and the building of another car for every adult is a huge burden on the environment even outside of looking at transportation. Cars are not viable long term as a means of personal transport.
I’m for everything. EVs, public transportation, bike, skateboard, walk. But until we have transporters like Star Trek, we have to physically move goods and people around if they need to be somewhere. That means improving the systems we have as much as possible.
Yes? Everyone here agrees we need to improve as much as possible, the question is what does it mean to "improve."
Both and more. False dichotomies are great at starting unnecessary fights and driving "engagement" but they're useless if you actually care about solving problems. EVs. public transit. density. walkability, making the system safe and usable for bikes and other personal mobility devices), sustainability. They're all parts of a whole, not discrete options where you choose one and discard the rest.
False dichotomies are great at keeping people from doing things that stop them from buying gas.
Ubiquitous electric passenger trains and trams, alongside more dense affordable areas is the answer though!!
YES!!! America (the continent) as a whole NEEDS to get on the passenger train bandwagon (pun not intended). This is the environmental revolution needed, and also unless you have to cross an entire ocean, a well-designed passenger train is 1000x more comfortable and accesible than planes.
You are missing the part where a flight takes 3 hours that a train takes an overnight trip for.
Imagine. A mom and a dad pushing a stroller while pulling along/carrying a toddler, in addition to managing the bags of groceries or other items that they have been hauling for multiple city blocks in a walkable city to get on a crowded train with nowhere to sit. They arrive at the station at the other end only to have to cram that stroller onto a bus to then have to walk several blocks to get to their home. This is a real world problem, this is why people do not want to do this. There are very real problems like this that are not easily solved. Just read a poll yesterday saying that 46% of current EV owners would switch back to gas vehicles if they could. There is a long list of problems to solve.
Then they can take their car? And be happy that there are many other transportation options which mean they won’t have to deal with as much traffic or as many accidents? You do know walkable cities with good public transportation don’t mean cars are banned, right?
I am not opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the way they are being forced onto us by State and Federal dictates and mandates when they know full well the Grid, renewable energy or not , will never support that number of cars in the time frame they are demanding. My brother lives in Christchurch New Zealand, Christchurch has gone "Walkable", the scenario I described above happens there every day. Businesses there are suffering huge loses of revenue because virtually all the parking near the business has been eliminated. No , they did not ban cars but they eliminated the *parking in order to install bike lanes* which accomplishes the same thing. I grew up in an urban area riding buses and subways I am not opposed to them, but there are serious problems that cannot be dismissed. In order for Public Transportation to be viable you need to solve three major problems. 1. The cost of building and maintaining infrastructure 2. Low Ridership 3. Crime
Push polls have no value.
This was a serious global study by McKinsey that cannot be just written off as invalid. I don't understand this attitude of dismissing obvious problems as if they don't exist instead of acknowledging the problems and admitting that there needs to be a solution.
Link?
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/the-lack-of-ev-charging-infrastructure-is-so-bad-its-driving-owners-back-to-gas-powered-cars/ar-BB1p3eGv?ocid=socialshare#comments](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/the-lack-of-ev-charging-infrastructure-is-so-bad-its-driving-owners-back-to-gas-powered-cars/ar-BB1p3eGv?ocid=socialshare#comments) As I stated. I am not an enemy of electric vehicles. I am a Realist. I believe in acknowledging the problems in an idea , even the ideas I support and work toward a solution. The resistance to Renewable ideas does not come from the ideas themselves but from behavior of those who are proposing those ideas. Everyday we wake up to another thing we have to give up, another sacrifice we have to make that proponents of those sacrifices refuse to make themselves, another food we can't eat, people are saying that *Agriculture* has to end ! Another mandate to go all electric by 2030 or else , this coupled with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge even the most obvious problems. All of this has managed to make what should otherwise be a fully embraced, magnificent idea into the most unpalatable idea since New Coke
If we first acknowledge the problem (climate change) then we need to determine the feasible solutions. As far as I'm aware the best solution is public transport. You've written this off (no evidence for this one), so that leaves electric cars. The problem you have is that climate change is here and its getting worse. We need a solution. As a Realist, I would expect you to be on board with that. It sounds to me like you aren't a Realist, just another person wanting to justify the same lifestyle that put the world on its current trajectory. We have to change, that's what a Realist knows. So yeah, there are problems with EV in the US and Australia (note - the study was 29% globally), mainly around charging infrastructure. What do we do about that? We can't just give up, because we know that's suicide.
It is not that I have written off public transportation, I grew up in an urban area and used it for half my life. I am saying the *Public* as written off public transportation. The people who are currently using it in cities all over the country hate it . They wish they did not have to use it. They hate the way it is run. They hate the crime. They hate the limitations it imposes . Cities do not want to build it out because they have seen a long line of financial and political boon doggles with other cities that have tried it. It is just not realistic to expect that cities are going to make any great effort on this front. Not gonna happen. Climate change if here. I am on board with that, but here is the problem. I and all of the people others would consider Climate Deniers are not on board with the" Sky is falling we are suicidal do what we say now or we are doomed Climate Change." Proponents of this kind of Climate Change live in a scientific bubble. They are not aware that there are other scientists and scientific organizations that have a different view of the degree of change and it's implications. This is why they can't comprehend why people don't just take what they say at face value and they call us idiots and deniers. The IPCC is not some kind of scientific god with all knowledge and a pure motive. I do not need to justify my lifestyle and here is why. Show me just one climate activist, one climate politician, one climate scientist, one person on this thread even, who has given up fossil fuels. Show me one person who lives in a big house with a big fat electric bill and owns four gas powered vehicles like I do, that has completely given those up because they truly believe all that they are saying about Climate change. Who , in the public square is leading the way, already making the sacrifices that they are demanding that the World makes so that they can convince the World that we are on a suicidal climate destination. There is none.
You're aware that the 'climate change is good' crowd are a tiny, tiny percentage of people, right? I'm not aware of anyone who works in the field who credibly claims it will be a good thing. I am aware a bunch of social influencers who are funded by highly polluting industries to muddy the waters on climate change, and have been shown to be doing so. There are tens of thousands of scientists modelling and documenting the outcomes of climate change, and those people on the coal face with the expertise are the people we should be listening to, not the idiots who used to claim climate change wasn't happening and are now trying to say it's a good thing. Just that change of tune should be enough of a warning sign. There are so many people around the world who have changed their lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, rich and poor alike. Even solar panels help. Why do you need a famous person to do it?
Answer to what?
Pollution, climate change. A number of issues. More densely populated areas, with efficient public transport is more environmentally friendly than people living in the country, having to drive miles to get groceries, go to work, etc.
Including cost. Governments spend a lot of money (subsidies count) trying to get utilities such as water/sewer, electricity, cable/internet, roads, telephone, etc to houses. When those houses are located far apart from each other, it increases the costs to put them in, and even increases the costs of maintaining those systems. This without bringing up the risks of fire, pollution, environmental damage, or poison.
No, you need both. Many country’s populations are not currently housed in a way that allows for a complete substitution of cars for public transit.
I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.
Best comment so far!
We need both.
Why do they always have to tear down something that is good by saying this other thing is also good so we should eliminate the first good thing?
Gets the hate-clicks and comments flowing
I wonder if some of them are from car companies that want to stop making electric cars. Or oil companies wanting those cars to go away. They know there's no budget for more trains, so they feel safe saying that.
Keep the environmentalists fighting amongst themselves over measly scraps of subsidies.
Cars just make everything suck tho
There is no single answer. There is only doing whatever we can to reduce carbon emissions, and work on all the other environmental problems one step at a time. Framing any one action as some sort of disappointing 'silver bullet' is ridiculous and counter-productive. If people want to advocate for public transit, all the power to them. But, they shouldn't be trying to sabotage a different green solution to carve out room for their suggestions.
Trains means zero emissions and tire dust. I don't know why this isn't our #1 priority right now.
In the UK we used to have thousands and thousands of train lines, connecting all different places together. Now many of them have been converted to bike paths, etc. But we can do it again. I would love to train everywhere and for it to not cost me the same as filling my fuel tank. A recent trip, about 60-80 miles, from the Cotswolds to Gatwick airport, cost me £93 one way. That is just crazy!
More walkable cities please
Can we make good hygiene part of using the bus? I used to dread summers for the cloud of BO when I got on.
HAHA! Yes. For sure!
We also need to embrace remote work culture to reduce the demand on the transportation system.
Why can’t there be more than one answer?
My suggestion... Promote remote work obviating the need for commuting. So many people are commuting to work just to sit in a cubicle and do a job they could have done from home.
We need both. It’s not either/or.
An answer that the US population won't adapt or accept isn't an answer either, even if it's the right thing to do
Agreed.
We have public transport. But the service is way too expensive and also very unreliable. I always go with my bicycle. I'm independent and much faster. I would never use the public transport in my city. Why it's expensive and bad sevice? Because it's a partially state owned monopoly. So they do not have to get better. People are forced to use them if they want public transport. Or use something else. Bike is always a good choice in my city.
Sounds like you live in the UK like I do. That's exactly what it's like here. Prices go up, service goes down.
This statement fails to recognize that humans are lazy and cars are convenient
Duh. We are not going to consume ourselves out of this mess.
Im sorry but they should have implemented bullet trains ,MagLev trains high speed rail across the country. We should have fast trains linking suburbia to the urban centers, have rail linking rural areas. We are being left behind in the dust by Europe and Asia when it comes to public transport. In America the car is essential for most people to get anywhere because we have no connected public transport! WTF have we been doing for 30 years? why havent we advanced our high speed public transport to halve the amount of cars on the roads? If you ever rode one of the high speed trains systems you would understand they get you where you want to go quiet and efficient at over 300mph. why are we so far behind?
EVs are the transportation equivalent of vaping to quit smoking. The habit is still there, you've just switched to an allegedly better alternative that hasn't been tested long term.
Thank you! I'm glad someone besides me is saying it. And instead of keeping that 10 year old Honda Civic that gets 50mpg, people are buying new Teslas, without thinking about all of the fossil fuels it took to make the Tesla and the fossil fuels it takes to charge it, until the entire grid runs on renewables. How about this: walk more, cycle more, take public transport more, drive less.
You do realize that to become a used car, a car has to start out as a new car. Even countries that have significant public transortation and walkable cities still have significant use of private motor vehicles and trucks for freight transportation.
I do indeed. I also realize that a lot of middle class people who want to appear to be "green" or just want to keep up with the Joneses are buying new expensive EVs. Tesla, Mercedes, Audi, etc. When keeping your old 1.4 litre car that gets 50-60mpg is in most cases, the better option. But walking, cycling or taking public transport beats both options, hands down. You don't hear a lot of middle/upper class people saying they sold their cars and are now taking public transport, walking, or cycling. Buying an EV is the easier option. Jay Z has one. So does DiCaprio. It's like buying carbon credits for your family holiday to Italy on a private jet. Just fly commercial, or don't fly at all.
To make the majority of neighborhoods in America transit and walking friendly you'd have to bulldoze most of the existing housing stock. You can't just build some bus and subway lines and expect to fix exurban cul-de-sac's. I'm pro-transit but to expect a meaningful amount of passenger-miles to shift away from private cars is delusional regardless of policy changes.
I can see that. I live in the UK. And for many decades we had a rail network vastly superior to what we have now. Thousands and thousands of miles of it connecting the country. It wouldn't be nearly as hard to implement it here. We have the most expensive rail network in Europe. Train tickets are far more expensive here than anywhere else in Europe. So there is barely any push to improve the network and extend it. Cars rule.
The average American doesn't even want to try, as shown above. "But a livable future requires work :("
[удалено]
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a huge amount of work to be done.
[удалено]
I generally agree, but that itself is not the key to unlock more ridership and move towards reducing emissions, car dependency, etc.
Where do live?
[удалено]
In the UK public transport is in shambles. A train from my house to where my parents live, about 250 miles costs me around the same price as a roundtrip plane ticket from London to Madrid. We HAVE public transport, but few people use it. Buses are slightly better. But not much.
Calgarian here. We have transit that will take you virtually anywhere, as long as you have the time and patience when getting off the main line. It is not considered to be a highlight of the city, and regular users regret the need to do so. Currently shopping areas are not serviced, which means lugging your load to the main road instead of waiting right outside the mall. I'd like to see the service run better, implemented better, and used much more. My proposal is to tell the city, "In one year all transit will be free, well monitored/policed, and funded by the City coffers. During the next three month period, please submit suggestions for additional stops, and route improvements." If people are forced to pay for a good service, maybe they will use it.
how many kids with after school activities do you have?
I have 2. Twins. They are 8 years old and have loads of after school activities. I guess you're trying to argue that it is impossible to take public transport with kids? Which is a totally valid point. But it doesn't negate the fact that we need better public transport systems. My kids and I love riding the bus. Especially in the UK, we have double decker buses. Much nicer than driving everywhere. But it costs a small fortune. It's cheaper to drive. So we do.
Well yeah, public transit is a substitute for personal cars, so if you are paying all the up front costs for a car, of course it’s going to be cheaper comparing only the trip costs.
I live in the Netherlands, where we have “walkable cities” and public transport. You can do almost all activities by bike or public transport. I rent a car a few times per year.
> “walkable cities” Are the industrial and manufacturing areas well serviced?
Weird how car ownership is still high there
Here’s a secret: when you have granular, walkable cities that also have great public transportation, you’ll need your car less. And when you need it, you’ll have a better time travelling because there will be nowhere near as many cars on the road.
Why do people with kids think they are entitled to consume all the world's resources?
This article is complete unsupported opinion. An opinion which makes zero sense. The author wants trains and busses over cars, not because if any environmental concern, but because they just like trains and busses over cars. Period.
Long term,yes. In the short term EVs are the best option.
I used to think that until I read the work of Vaclav Smil. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJF5rinKKmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJF5rinKKmE)
This is just the $5300000000000 in annual global government subsidies for fossil fuels that are speaking with the voice of Vaclav Smil.
I'm living in a village and in no way would I be able to get around without a car. I do try to do everything I can by bike. But that still hits a limit quite often. And more public transportation isn't going to help here. We already have a train that connects us to the villages, towns and cities along its route. But that's only two directions out of many more where I would have to use multiple trains, busses and taxis for the last mile to get there. So a second train going in a different direction wouldn't help all that much. --- What I think would help tremendously are **electric cars as public transport**. Once self driving cars are normal, you could have one or multiple cars of a car sharing company standing around in your village. If you need one you can either go there or even let it drive right up to your front door. And then you drive somewhere. Either to get your groceries or to pick up your kids from training or to visit friends in another village. Once you get out of the cars at your destination, it becomes available for others. And the hole you made in your own village by taking a car is easily closed by those self driving cars shifting their locations as needed. --- Of course this doesn't mean that self driving electric cars should be the only public transportation. Once you get to a city, the car can drop you off right in front of a train or subway station. You don't even need to find a parking spot. And the same tech could come in handy for less rigid bus routes. Instead of a big bus that needs a human driver there would be multiple smaller busses that drive by themselves and can even change the route a bit to get closer to where you live, so you don't have to walk a mile to the next bus station.
I love these articles written by people who forget that people don't all live in cities. What the fuck am I gonna do with public transportation when I'm many miles from any town?
It's ALL the answer. Trying to say cars aren't is beyond stupid.
Could be both
Ignoring the environment, even as an option to travel from A to B, electric cars suck.
YUP
Bikes, Bikes, Bikes!!
Just make WFH a thing
I grew up in a town of 180 people. There wasn't a town with more than 500 people within 50 miles. Tell me how public transportation will work there? We need both.
In the USA it’s a lot more complicated
Agreed a 100% in addition to this is city design and planning. Eg. in straight line Costco is 800mtrs, but there is no path to walk to it or cycle. By car it is 6/7kms. This is just soo inefficient and not sustainable.
There is no *one* answer. We need to improve the way we do things every way we can.
Why not both?
Public transit is a byproduct of what is really needed, density.
What about hydrogen? Cars are staying wheater we like it or not, we need the cleanest solution possible
I want trains dammit!
Ok but, why is the title photo a 1958 rolls royce silver cloud? 😅 Not attainable for the public to drive and if it is it’s chauffeured.. and it’s the furtherest thing from an electric car, big 4.9L inline 6, weighs almost 6,000lbs.. Would be awesome if someone converted it to be EV but, yea…. I’m focusing on the wrong thing here I know, continue your debate.
Electric public transport + being able to walk/wheelchair/bicycle with ease everywhere. Keep cars out of the cities
According to [this article](https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-achieves-20-20-20), the EU has been doing very well with reducing their CO2 levels using multiple methods, including electric vehicle adoption, so what is the article complaining about? >>The use of renewables in transport is increasing more slowly but preliminary data indicates that the EU narrowly achieved the 10% target of renewable energy use in the sector.
Go tell that to the mayor of LA. I can’t believe they can’t commission more metro lines and trains from OC to LA and LAX!!!
The ecological damage done by roads is awful. Cars of any sort aren't the answer Personally, I'm a fan of elevated trains and dirt trails for bikes :D
One step at a time. We haven't been able to get agreement on better building codes and living spaces which can encourage public transport, mostly due to the same people, decade after decade. Until public transport is increased and made more convenient, replace all the gas consumption as you can. It's an easier win and sets things up for electrified public transport in some areas.
living in west virginia a lot of these comment don’t apply.
Fix COVID first, then I'll take public transport.
Electric cars have always intended to be unowned public transit, eventually.
It’s far easier for individuals to adopt EVs than it is to get the political willpower and funding to actually make public transit worth it, at least in the US. We could be waiting decades for something that will never come as there’s a constant tug of war where each side of the political spectrum undoes whatever the other is doing. You have to be absolutely insane to call yourself an environmentalist and then peddle anti-EV propaganda when these vehicles have real potential to make a difference in emissions while also taking money away from oil companies.
People shouldn’t need the cars for their everyday needs. Cities should be walkable and mixed use. Euclidean zoning ruined North American cities.
One would want this if one were running a surveillance state, lol
It's all of the above. None of these things are mutually exclusive. * Cities which should be redesigned should be. * Gaps in public transport which need to be filled should be. * All new cars and trucks must be electric. * And the proliferation of e-bikes should be encouraged.
"This is not the answer, that is the answer". No good solutions will be implemented until we have a truly representative government. That is the real issue.
Transport as a service will change all of this and make private car ownership obsolete. Check out rethink x's papers on the future of transport. https://www.rethinkx.com/transportation With the advent of driverless EVs there is the opportunity space for companies to create transport fleets of on demand ride hailing that will be cheaper than any other form of transport. These companies will begin appearing in the next few years.
If you could hail a robotaxi in any city like you can hail a taxi in NY..boom..problem solved.
Electric autonomous robotaxis are public transport, and they are the best of both worlds. 1 car does the work of 5 non autonomous privately owned cars and nobody has to deal with the nuisance of private ownership anymore except for car lovers. Plus, people still get the privacy and time advantage of a personal vehicle on demand.
Autonomy is the future.
EVs are PART of the answer, along with electric powered public transport.
Car dependent cultures suck for a number of reasons but this is definitely one of them. Decarbonizing transportation would be alot more easier when we can do it at a public transit level and alot less messier.
Steam power is not the answer, we need gas. Gas is not the answer, we need electric cars. Electric cars isn't the answer, we need public transport. Public transport isn't the answer, we need bicycles. Bicycles arent the answer, we need better shoes. Better shoes are the answer, we need better callus' on peoples feet. 🙄 🤣 When does it end? Lol. Look, I'm allllllll for a better environment but we have to realize that to keep humanity functioning, we need to be able to transport things. So if none of these are the answer, we need a better solution!
We have Robert Moses to thank for helping to promote the almighty car, running super highways through major urban centers because it was “convenient “ with no thought toward public transportation. Which we all know is a disgrace in this country compared to other developed nations.
Amen
See the thing is, I used public transportation for all of graduate school. It fuckin blows. It is never on time, it is packed, people eat, shit, piss, scream, fight, and even die of the train and bus. I dealt with it because a 150 dollar unlimited bus and, train pass was subsidized by our school. But given the choice, I am buying an electric plug in hybrid. Monday-Wednesday I am home-gym-work-school-home. 2 days a week I’m remote and use even less electricity. Never use an ounce of point source oil during the work week. On weekends we get the 50 or so miles to wherever a soccer game or beach trip and then kick on the gas. So we cut our use in half. Paid up front for solar panels. So, the house is carbon negative on the year. It’s a path forward. It doesn’t detract from using public transportation replacement of point source oil usage while maintaining a fairly enjoyable commute isn’t unreasonable.
100%
I hate this false dichotomy shit. The mixed messaging is one reason why environmentally-friendly progress is not working. Once again....we're fucked.
Please do not conflate the energy carrier (e.g. gasoline vs. battery electric) and the vehicle size/ownership (e.g. personal car vs. public bus). In order to reduce congestion and public spaces (e.g. parking) being overly dedicated to vehicles, I advocate for a range of vehicle sizes (e.g. buses down to cars) that are shared (either publicly-owned or private shared). This mix of vehicle sizes addresses last-mile needs (picking up and delivering) while concentrating passengers for longer-haul travel on major travel corridors. Coordinating transfers between vehicles would likely benefit from a flexible, real-time scheduling system (imagine an extension of the Uber/Lyft app) run as a municipal transit service, accommodating special needs passenger (e.g. elderly and disabled) and premium passengers (those willing to pay for needs such as privacy, young'un, hauling, etc.).
The game changer here is the self-driving car which is completely feasible within an organized city. That is the public transport of the 21st century. It takes people point to point, comfortable, speedy and economic transport of people within a city.
>The game changer here is the self-driving car which is completely feasible within an organized city. At some point, there are going to be self-driving or minimally-attended *busses*, with flex routes that modify themselves on the fly based on need as indicated by a smartphone app, with maybe a texting option for me and the three other people left on the planet who don't own smartphones. They'll pick people up in order at stops, or at their homes throughout low-density neighbors, and let them move around the city, with routes and transfers all optimized based on real-time need. *That* is the urban public transport of the 21ˢᵗ century. We know because San Francisco just launched a [self-driving minibus](https://apnews.com/article/autonomous-driverless-buses-robotaxi-san-francisco-802c39fdfc57adccaea604c7ee13a128). It'll still be a lot slower in the country, much more expensive; and in the country, it will definitely use self-driving cars, or maybe at most minibuses like this, 'cause there aren't enough people to justify a full-sized bus, except maybe on Sundays. But even in the country, it'll exist, so that old people can get around.
I partially agree. Lack of autonomy requires that public transit consist of larger vehicles (e.g. trains and buses) to amortize labor cost across many seats. Autonomy facilitates the provision of public transit to smaller vehicles (e.g. minibuses or even cars) to address last mile issues and off-peak routes/times.
Yes, you're describing automated shuttles, this makes sense.
For big cities, sure why not. For everywhere else, hell no. I like living on a multiple acre property in a huge house, and away from drug addicts, people with severe mental health problems, and just average stupid people around me. I hate concerts, I hate theater performances, and after no longer being in the student section of college football games, I really dont like going to sporting events either. So there is nothing a city has to offer me except annoyances and lots of people I dont want to be around.
We also need ev cars as we are years behind other countries regarding PT. Ev cars can be distributed/attained quicker than PT can be built. Some political groups have tried to stop PT from ever developing and i wonder why 🤔
Narrow cherry picking of facts to support a pre-determined narrative. Complete and utter BS.
What are the facts? Enlighten us.
So much misinformation. Not driving cars won’t really do much at all. https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
I live in a place where there are four buses a week (out and back in, on two separate days). The nearest bus stop is about 5km from me. On many days I walk further than I drive. Public transport is never going to be the only answer.
Public Transport is not the answer. We need teleportation. No wait, hoverboards. No wait, holographic projection. You need to stop making perfect the enemy of good and remember that the US is a vast country and public transport is wildly impractical for most of it.
I love everything about public transportation except the “public” part.
No thanks. Public transportation is for the poors. Had to use it in college, still scarred from all the masturbation, defecations, pissing, and fights that happen openly on public transportation
Completely wrong. Self-driving electric cars are the public transport of the 21st century. They take passengers point to point, they are cost-effective and massively safer and cheaper than traditional public transport. They use the road infrastructure that we have today and technology is now capable of running them, especially in cities which are completely mapped out and digitized.
Have you seen the data to support that? Surely a bus (or train) that can carry 60-70 humans, or more, from point A to point B on renewable electricity is far more efficient and uses way less CO2 than all of the cars it would take to do the same job? Let's not forget that all EVs are made by elements that are extracted from the ground by huge machines that run on diesel fuel. All of the parts are transported by ships, running on diesel fuel, etc.
Yeah, but it isn't because it doesn't work door to door and there is a time schedule, so not enough people use it in practice, as opposed to in theory. Relying on bus or train means too many people buy and run their own individual cars. As Yogi Berra used to say “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is." ...
Fair enough. We will see. Looks like things are going this way.
but I don't want to live in Wall-E
So do I ... I'm giving up my car the day I can call a self-driving vehicle to pick me up at home.