BEVs

[maximus meridius]

Do cars equalise mobility as between men and women?

Of course they do. Only on a forum dominated by men would that even be a question.

[Biospace]

...
if the ‘game plan’ is to replace ICVs 1:1 with them over time...

There will be many car-like, van-like, and truck-like objects for the foreseeable future. It will be better if they are BEVs rather than ICEvs. This argument does not depend on 1:1 replacement, only there being some.

Jonathan

I made the point in your National Transport Policy topic that moving much more freight on the railways would reduce carbon and other toxic emissions considerably. HGVs appear to make sense in a system where many so many externalities are under-priced or completely ignored.

I understand how relatively easy it would be to encourage fewer car miles with better public transport, but how would you propose significantly less car ownership - through the economic system or something a little less crude?

[Biospace]

I understand how relatively easy it would be to encourage fewer car miles with better public transport, but how would you propose significantly less car ownership - through the economic system or something a little less crude?

which received a reply here - viewtopic.php?p=1797076#p1797076

How do we measure the benefits of car use?

The traditional way of measuring transport benefits for comparitive purposes has been in terms of time saved, but that is a ‘dodgy measure’ when a tight, symbiotic relationship exists between the mode of transport and the location of origins and destinations. First railways, then to an even greater extent motor vehicles caused big shifts in where people live, and the location of where they want/need to go.

So, if you measure benefits only in time saving that results in an endless road building programme, and an endless dispersion of people, jobs, schools, shops, surgeries etc ….. a sort of lukewarm suburbia filled with bypasses and traffic jams takes over the entire country (does this sound familiar at all).
...
Maybe we shouldn’t attempt to value cars separely from anything else, but look to value, price, and equalise the distribution of mobility.

It is interesting to compare the amount of energy and pollution for a particular car journey compared with that heating and running your home for a day, sailing a boat, cycling, the carbon footprint of a new computer or iPhone and so on.

The cleaning up of vehicle exhaust pipe emissions and the advent of BEVs which most people would be content with has really concentrated minds, to the point people are now questioning whether a wood stove should be permitted in a house which is not offgrid.

Although it's a good thing to be aware of this sort of thing, we should be wary of becoming fundamentalists and over-legislate. Our urban air quality is now many times better than in the middle of the 20th century, yet childhood asthma is much more prevalent today - and I don't believe it's all down to doctors being in the control of pharmaceutical corporations greedy for sales.

[reohn2]

The utility, freedom, security, comfort and protection offered by a motorised, enclosed vehicle, better knows as a car, is impossible to replace, in very many cases. The benefits are to people, individual people. And most people live in towns and cities. To suggest "banning" them is a ludicrous idea.

It's a lot less ludicrous than the present stat of affairs where slow moving traffic pumps out huge volumes of noxious gases in the vicinity of lots of people.
The BEV goes some way to stopping that but until the majority of cars are BEVs which they wont be anywhere near for a long time yet banning cars in cities with only genuine exceptions in favour of decent PT isn't as ludicrous as you think.

Yes, we should use cars less. Yes, viable alternatives should be encouraged and provided. Yes, planning should makes their use less essential.

Then why not go the whole nine yards?

[maximus meridius]

The utility, freedom, security, comfort and protection offered by a motorised, enclosed vehicle, better knows as a car, is impossible to replace, in very many cases. The benefits are to people, individual people. And most people live in towns and cities. To suggest "banning" them is a ludicrous idea.

It's a lot less ludicrous than the present stat of affairs where slow moving traffic pumps out huge volumes of noxious gases in the vicinity of lots of people.
The BEV goes some way to stopping that but until the majority of cars are BEVs which they wont be anywhere near for a long time yet banning cars in cities with only genuine exceptions in favour of decent PT isn't as ludicrous as you think.

Yes, we should use cars less. Yes, viable alternatives should be encouraged and provided. Yes, planning should makes their use less essential.

Then why not go the whole nine yards?

I haven't a clue what you mean by "the whole nine yards".

[Cowsham]

Why do we want to buy and eat newzeland Lamb imported from many thousands of miles away but sell our perfectly good Lamb raised and slaughtered to the highest standards to Tesco for buttons?

Perhaps it's slightly cynical to suggest a small number of people can make a very large sum of money from doing so, if what appears to be the same 'product' can be offered to the public for a few pennies less? But we all know the true cost of shipping is many times the cost in dollars and the most polluting fossil fuels are used to power ships' engines (and the vast freezers).

The thing is, I've yet to eat any lamb from New Zealand which is anywhere near as good as lamb reared locally. Which is odd given their less polluted land.

Why is NewZealand Lamb cheaper? Has it been produced to a high standard?

Sad to say, I know of more than one fairly hardened stockman/shepherd who has spent time on New Zealand sheep farms and had to end their stay prematurely, unable to tolerate the widespread abuse of the animals. I've heard tales almost defying belief which I wouldn't recount to most people. But NZ sheep farmers are very happy to relate how proud they are to pen in some animals, haul out two or three and kill and dismember them in full view of the rest.

Humans are an odd lot.

Was speaking to a farmer last week and asked him why new Zealand Lamb -- what's so special about it?

He said there's nothing special about it -- ours is much better then told me that his cows get shipped to Scotland to be processed then they can be passed off as Aberdeen Angus beef -- there's nothing special about that either.

Also "Angus" typed on my T9 keypad comes up as " bogus " first default on the predictive text, you have to select Angus from the list. So it's really Aberdeen bogus beef.

[Biospace]

The utility, freedom, security, comfort and protection offered by a motorised, enclosed vehicle, better knows as a car, is impossible to replace, in very many cases. The benefits are to people, individual people. And most people live in towns and cities. To suggest "banning" them is a ludicrous idea.

It's a lot less ludicrous than the present stat of affairs where slow moving traffic pumps out huge volumes of noxious gases in the vicinity of lots of people.
The BEV goes some way to stopping that but until the majority of cars are BEVs which they wont be anywhere near for a long time yet banning cars in cities with only genuine exceptions in favour of decent PT isn't as ludicrous as you think.

The BEV completely eradicates exhaust gases from idling internal combustion engines, it doesn't "go some way to stopping that".

Stop start, slow moving traffic is where BEVs offer the singest biggest improvement over the ICEv. Having said that, the pollution from exhaust pipes of more recent cars and motorbikes is many, many times lower than a few years ago.

Some of the worst concentrations of exhaust pollution used to accumulate in car interiors (carrried in on the ventilation system) but exhausts have been cleaned so much that today that I've read it's the VOCs emitted from synthetic materials on the inside of the car, together with tyre and brake particulates which are now causing as much concern in cabins.

[reohn2]

The utility, freedom, security, comfort and protection offered by a motorised, enclosed vehicle, better knows as a car, is impossible to replace, in very many cases. The benefits are to people, individual people. And most people live in towns and cities. To suggest "banning" them is a ludicrous idea.

It's a lot less ludicrous than the present stat of affairs where slow moving traffic pumps out huge volumes of noxious gases in the vicinity of lots of people.
The BEV goes some way to stopping that but until the majority of cars are BEVs which they wont be anywhere near for a long time yet banning cars in cities with only genuine exceptions in favour of decent PT isn't as ludicrous as you think.

Yes, we should use cars less. Yes, viable alternatives should be encouraged and provided. Yes, planning should makes their use less essential.

Then why not go the whole nine yards?

I haven't a clue what you mean by "the whole nine yards".

The whole nine yards(US term)=all the way ie; ban the cars in city centres.

[reohn2]

The BEV completely eradicates exhaust gases from idling internal combustion engines, it doesn't "go some way to stopping that"......

The problem is that unless ALL cars are BEVs,which they won't even be a majority for a loonnnggg time yet,they still cause jams and therefore hold up ICE vehicles so inadvertently cause pollution.
OTOH,no cars = very light traffic,inturn = far less pollution as PT moves far quicker and = more road room for bicycles and motorcycles.

[maximus meridius]

It's a lot less ludicrous than the present stat of affairs where slow moving traffic pumps out huge volumes of noxious gases in the vicinity of lots of people.
The BEV goes some way to stopping that but until the majority of cars are BEVs which they wont be anywhere near for a long time yet banning cars in cities with only genuine exceptions in favour of decent PT isn't as ludicrous as you think.


Then why not go the whole nine yards?

I haven't a clue what you mean by "the whole nine yards".

The whole nine yards(US term)=all the way ie; ban the cars in city centres.

I see.

The geographical extent of your proposed ban seems to have contracted substantially now. Perhaps you have had a chance to consider whether it would work, or what the consequences might be. Here's what you originally wrote:

what's you thoughts on banning cars in total,with a few genuine exceptions,from towns and cities?

Cars in towns are OK now, it seems. Also cities too, except the "centres". I'd be fascinated to know what the difference between a town and a city is. You've obviously given this considerable thought, will it be based on population or area? Presence of a cathedral? Royal Charter? Where does the "centre" start and finish?

These "genuine exceptions"? Who are they? Who are these lucky deserving car users?

[reohn2]

I haven't a clue what you mean by "the whole nine yards".

The whole nine yards(US term)=all the way ie; ban the cars in city centres.

I see.

The geographical extent of your proposed ban seems to have contracted substantially now. Perhaps you have had a chance to consider whether it would work, or what the consequences might be. Here's what you originally wrote:

what's you thoughts on banning cars in total,with a few genuine exceptions,from towns and cities?

Cars in towns are OK now, it seems. Also cities too, except the "centres". I'd be fascinated to know what the difference between a town and a city is. You've obviously given this considerable thought, will it be based on population or area? Presence of a cathedral? Royal Charter? Where does the "centre" start and finish?

These "genuine exceptions"? Who are they? Who are these lucky deserving car users?

My proposal is for large towns and cities,sorry for any confusion on your part.
The cars allowed into large towns and cities would be those who can't use public transport eg; blue badge users or those with a genuine need,not want,to use a car in such places.


PS,be as sarcastic as you like it's all water off a ducks back to me mister.

[the snail]

Where does the "centre" start and finish?

These "genuine exceptions"? Who are they? Who are these lucky deserving car users?

I would look to cities like Amsterdam for an example of the direction we should be heading. I assume the exceptions would be blue badge holders, and others who have a genuine necessity.

[Nearholmer]

Pedestrianising town and city centres is a common thing to do, and many cities go a step further in attempting to control the car-plague, by doing things like very heavily restricting parking and requiring use of “park and ride” from the outskirts, so one view of what Reohn2 is mooting is that it would be no more than an extension (by places and/or by extent at each place) of that, so decidedly non-radical.

It’s worth reflecting on why towns and cities already do this sort of thing: because an excess of cars per unit of road space makes places bl@@dy horrible to be in, whereas without them those same locations become pleasant, quiet, relaxing, breathable places.

[reohn2]

Pedestrianising town and city centres is a common thing to do, and many cities go a step further in attempting to control the car-plague, by doing things like very heavily restricting parking and requiring use of “park and ride” from the outskirts, so one view of what Reohn2 is mooting is that it would be no more than an extension (by places and/or by extent at each place) of that, so decidedly non-radical.

It’s worth reflecting on why towns and cities already do this sort of thing: because an excess of cars per unit of road space makes places bl@@dy horrible to be in, whereas without them those same locations become pleasant, quiet, relaxing, breathable places.

My thoughts exactly,town and city roads and streets are for people not clogged up with unnecessary (usually one ocupant) cars not wanting to walk five yards to their favourite shops.
Some folk,it seems,want all their own way and a bag to put it in.

[Biospace]

Pedestrianising town and city centres is a common thing to do, and many cities go a step further in attempting to control the car-plague, by doing things like very heavily restricting parking and requiring use of “park and ride” from the outskirts, so one view of what Reohn2 is mooting is that it would be no more than an extension (by places and/or by extent at each place) of that, so decidedly non-radical.

It’s worth reflecting on why towns and cities already do this sort of thing: because an excess of cars per unit of road space makes places bl@@dy horrible to be in, whereas without them those same locations become pleasant, quiet, relaxing, breathable places.

my emboldening

While the process of banning cars from entire cities and towns is no different from the pedestrianisation of city centres, the results would be completely different.

I've some experience of York closing its city centre to motor traffic. Common sense meant private cars had been restricted from tiny streets for many years previously, but around a couple of decades ago the centre was all but closed to cars. Despite some large open spaces and wide streets crossing through the centre, they hadn't been used much as through routes for years, but mostly to collect those with larger and heavier shopping, older shopworkers and shoppers and for those visiting restaurants.

With the filthy exhaust emissions at the time the improvement was mostly from slightly cleaner air in the centre, although a gridlocked inner ring road was only a quarter of a mile away - air quality was often still low. However, not everything was an improvement. As tourists were heading back to their cars or rooms, the rapid emptying of the streets after shop closing times left room for the increase in size of large gangs of youths and drunks who were now making good use of the extra space. I've seen families with young children looking scared, shocked and intimidated as the centre has changed rapidly when shops close, from tourists to drinkers.

Alongside this unwelcome change has been the permanent closure of so many long-established and good quality shops, in part due to high rents, but largely because locals stopped shopping in York's centre once they were expected to drive out of town to a large carpark, then take a bus back in, with long walks with shopping back to the bus. Long-established high quality shops have all vanished, to be replaced mostly with trinket shops, theme bars and cafés.

A town or city which hardly any locals use becomes an empty shell, more theme park with some old buildings than bustling centre. I'm not blaming the pedestrianisation of York for all of what has happened, but it has played a good part in the changes. There was considerably more bicycle traffic through the centre when it was open to all traffic than there is today. Large changes in traffic movements through trading areas need careful thought and planning.