Only 5% of next car purchasers expect to buy all electric cars-Road and Track.

vantexan

Well-Known Member
if you drive for 5 minutes and take public transit for 40 minutes it does not defeat the purpose but no car would be better. you still have 40 minutes to surf the web instead of not crashing your car.

btw when i google ireland and pick different locations across the country to galway it looks like you can take public transit anywhere to that city. its not as fast as a car, sometimes its pretty close like within 10 minutes. so i dont know if your theory holds up. economist richard wolff says public transit is the true solution.
You walk out of your house and immediately get in your car. Drive directly to your destination. When finished for the day you immediately get in your car and stop at a couple of locations to pick up things. Then get out at home.

Park-and-rides are large parking lots where people leave their cars all day and take direct buses down to a central station where they get on bus route nearest their destination. But what if their destination requires them to change buses yet again? What if they need to go somewhere 3 miles from their home that requires them to walk 3 blocks to local bus stop, wait for next bus, which then drops them off 2 blocks from their destination? And what if all of the above is in bad weather?

There's a reason people prefer cars. They are much more efficient for the driver to get from point A to point B in most cases. If you dispute that you're either disingenuous or in denial.

People living in rural areas who work in a town of 15,000 5 miles away. Do you think the government is going to saturate the countryside surrounding that town with bus routes to pick up a few people at a time? What if.they work at a town of 8000 that's 7 miles on the other side of that town of 15000? They'd have to ride into the town of 15000. Wait for and catch an express bus to the town of 8000. Then catch the local bus that puts them out a block from their job. And repeat that going home.

You're only talking about mass transit in big cities. It's an option for those it's convenient for but if it's not convenient most will opt for a car. It's also an option for those who can't afford a car. And believe me the vast majority of them are dreaming of owning a car someday. Cars give freedom to move about. Public transit is just an uncomfortable, inconvenient option that must be endured.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
You walk out of your house and immediately get in your car. Drive directly to your destination. When finished for the day you immediately get in your car and stop at a couple of locations to pick up things. Then get out at home.

Park-and-rides are large parking lots where people leave their cars all day and take direct buses down to a central station where they get on bus route nearest their destination. But what if their destination requires them to change buses yet again? What if they need to go somewhere 3 miles from their home that requires them to walk 3 blocks to local bus stop, wait for next bus, which then drops them off 2 blocks from their destination? And what if all of the above is in bad weather?

There's a reason people prefer cars. They are much more efficient for the driver to get from point A to point B in most cases. If you dispute that you're either disingenuous or in denial.

People living in rural areas who work in a town of 15,000 5 miles away. Do you think the government is going to saturate the countryside surrounding that town with bus routes to pick up a few people at a time? What if.they work at a town of 8000 that's 7 miles on the other side of that town of 15000? They'd have to ride into the town of 15000. Wait for and catch an express bus to the town of 8000. Then catch the local bus that puts them out a block from their job. And repeat that going home.

You're only talking about mass transit in big cities. It's an option for those it's convenient for but if it's not convenient most will opt for a car. It's also an option for those who can't afford a car. And believe me the vast majority of them are dreaming of owning a car someday. Cars give freedom to move about. Public transit is just an uncomfortable, inconvenient option that must be endured.
cars arent more efficient

for example in rush hour theyre way less efficient. you could be on your phone or reading a book.

secondly theyre more expensive than transit.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
cars arent more efficient

for example in rush hour theyre way less efficient. you could be on your phone or reading a book.

secondly theyre more expensive than transit.
That's only in rush hour in a big city. What about the rest of the day when you want to get somewhere in a big city? What if you want to go somewhere on a weekend? Do you realize how many businesses, like restaurants, would suffer if people have to take public transit to get to them? As usual you haven't thought out all the ramifications of herding everyone onto public transportation. It's a poor substitute for cars.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
That's only in rush hour in a big city. What about the rest of the day when you want to get somewhere in a big city? What if you want to go somewhere on a weekend? Do you realize how many businesses, like restaurants, would suffer if people have to take public transit to get to them? As usual you haven't thought out all the ramifications of herding everyone onto public transportation. It's a poor substitute for cars.
80% of people live in big cities.

ppl will have more disposable cash for restaraunts.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
80% of people live in big cities.

ppl will have more disposable cash for restaraunts.
80% of people live in metropolitan areas. That's a big city or even not so big city and its surrounding suburbs. A lot of those places don't have the severe rush hour traffic you find in the biggest cities. And if you were king you'd take away all cars which means the 20% who live in small towns or rural areas are screwed.

Who cares if you have more disposable cash if it takes you 1 to 2 hours to get to the restaurant you want to go to that would've taken 20 minutes by car and then you have to repeat that to get home? You want to go to a Little League game? Go to the mall? Go to church? We haven't begun to scratch the surface of how inconvenient public transit is. It only makes sense in extremely high population centers like NYC. Even then a lot of residents still want a car.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
1741606352173.png
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
80% of people live in metropolitan areas. That's a big city or even not so big city and its surrounding suburbs. A lot of those places don't have the severe rush hour traffic you find in the biggest cities. And if you were king you'd take away all cars which means the 20% who live in small towns or rural areas are screwed.

Who cares if you have more disposable cash if it takes you 1 to 2 hours to get to the restaurant you want to go to that would've taken 20 minutes by car and then you have to repeat that to get home? You want to go to a Little League game? Go to the mall? Go to church? We haven't begun to scratch the surface of how inconvenient public transit is. It only makes sense in extremely high population centers like NYC. Even then a lot of residents still want a car.
we have rush hour here the whole 90 minutes on the freeway at least. i cant comment on the outer cities, i would guess yes.

the government should be investing in battery tech. cars are too inefficient. mine is 2500 lbs or so. a electric bike insulated from the elements with heat is probably all most people need. otherwise public transit.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
we have rush hour here the whole 90 minutes on the freeway at least. i cant comment on the outer cities, i would guess yes.

the government should be investing in battery tech. cars are too inefficient. mine is 2500 lbs or so. a electric bike insulated from the elements with heat is probably all most people need. otherwise public transit.
An electric bike insulated....with heat? Haven't seen one of those.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
i see one for 40 miles, one for 50 miles.

the biggest one is 225 miles.
You see what for 225 miles? Yes there are a few ebikes that'll do that under ideal conditions. Weight of the rider, weight of the bike, hills, temperature, wind resistance are all factors that can bring mileage way down. Sorry, there's no easy fix to your problem.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
You see what for 225 miles? Yes there are a few ebikes that'll do that under ideal conditions. Weight of the rider, weight of the bike, hills, temperature, wind resistance are all factors that can bring mileage way down. Sorry, there's no easy fix to your problem.
an e bicycle for 225 miles. you wont have to worry about battery pretty soon. if the govt invested more in battery tech, we'd have better batteries.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
an e bicycle for 225 miles. you wont have to worry about battery pretty soon. if the govt invested more in battery tech, we'd have better batteries.
Why would the government be responsible for investing in batteries tech? Wouldn’t that be the companies trying to make them business? After all, they’re the ones that are going to profit.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
an e bicycle for 225 miles. you wont have to worry about battery pretty soon. if the govt invested more in battery tech, we'd have better batteries.
Have you seen the cost of ebikes that can do 225 miles? And as I pointed out in the cold those batteries drain quickly. And if somehow you could add a heating device inside an enclosed frame the weight of the enclosure, the wind resistance it would have, and the heater itself would drain the battery in no time. All the research in the world won't change that.
 
Top