this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8488 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Instead of just electrifying vehicles, cities should be investing in alternative methods of transportation. This article is by the Scientific Foresight Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), a EU's own think tank.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Those trains are not comparable to cars, they're comparable to airplanes. The metros and light rails that are intended to replace cars are overwhelmingly more efficient per potential passenger. Comparing a vehicle that is usually run near capacity with a vehicle that almost never has more than one passenger is obtuseness almost to the point of deception.

Bikes don't replace cars. Bikes+trains replace cars. For comparable miles traveled, cars are insanely dangerous. It is utterly unhinged to argue that bikes and cars are equally safe but for the miles traveled, especially as higher bumper heights and decreased visibility are driving pedestrian deaths from cars through the roof.

And none of these touch the fact that cars simply don't fit in cities. You also completely ignored the literal tons of carcinogenic and heavy metal laden microplastics from tires that end up in our oceans. Every human being carrying around multiple tons of metal with them can't possibly be efficient. Large heavy machinery constantly interacting with soft swishy humans can't possibly ever be safe.

Arguing otherwise requires either an epic level of car brain worm or a pay check from the auto industry. I don't know which is worse: people desperately trying to ignore obviously reality, or people willing to sell out their fellow humans and even their future for a few more years of something that was never a good idea to begin with.

[–] AlexS@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Those [fast] trains are not comparable to cars, they’re comparable to airplanes. The metros and light rails that are intended to replace cars are overwhelmingly more efficient per potential passenger.

Local public transport needs about twice as much energy than high-speed trains.

Source: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/texte_156-2020_oekologische_bewertung_von_verkehrsarten_0.pdf

Comparing a vehicle [train] that is usually run near capacity

The average capacity utilization is more like 20%. See the source above or https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2019-02/nahverkehr-oepnv-bus-bahn-zahlen-preise-statistik

Every human being carrying around multiple tons of metal with them can’t possibly be efficient.

Explain to me how a train with 2 metric tonnes per passenger can be efficient?

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are you able to cite something that's not locked behind a pay wall?

[–] AlexS@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

None of these three links is behind a pay wall. (You have to accept the GDPR-banner thou.)

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

In optimal cases, measuring only movement and not taking in to account wasted movement, some EVs can match the efficiency of some trains while moving point to point (assuming none of that movement is wasted). But we know there are some inefficiencies and externalities that decrease that efficiency. Let's see if we can fix them.

Parking is the biggest problem with everyone having a car. Looking for parking is necessarily wasted.

How much traffic stems from cruising for parking? Table 1 summarizes the results of 22 studies of cruising in 15 cities on four continents, dating back to 1927. According to these findings, cruising for parking accounted for between 8 and 74 percent of traffic in the areas studied, and the average time to find a curb space ranged between 3.5 and 15.4 minutes. On average, 34 percent of cars were cruising, and the average time it took to find a space was eight minutes.

https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-4/how-much-traffic-is-cruising-for-parking/

Holy fuck! That's a HUGE amount of waste in a good scenario. Crazy, like 95% of the time cars are parked anyway. This is just insanely poor design. Let's fix that. OK, so the first thing we need to do is find some way to share those vehicles. This would also fix the problem where people keep buying larger and more inefficient EV trucks. How can we do that? Maybe we could have some kind of car share program or something, like lyft and Uber. Oh yeah, those are super inefficient actually and really abusive to their employees. We really need some kind of automated system, like some kind of robotaxi to avoid that car parking problem. OK, so let's make a fleet of autonomous taxis that drive around the city based on some kind of optimized pattern. Great, now we've eliminated (or at least limited) the parking problem.

But you know, it would be easier to share these taxis if we didn't go door to door. Like, maybe we could have well defined routes for these autonomous taxis. Autonomous driving technology is actually really awful and gets confused really easily. It's much easier to travel specific routes anyway. Great, now we have a bunch of cars that travel specific routes so people can share the cars. We drop some inefficacy by not having every car go door to door as well. Excellent.

OK, but now every taxi has a computer on board. They all have to keep track of each other's movements. We're definitely losing some efficiency here. Let's combine some of them. We could cut a few of them up and weld the passenger compartments together to make long taxis. Then we could physically connect a few of the long taxis together so they can have centralized control. Great.

There's still a lot of starting and stopping though to pick everyone up. What if we shared the getting on and getting off time. What if we made some kind of shared taxi stop and then everyone who wanted to get on or off could just wait at the stop and get on and off at the same time. Can't really argue that that wouldn't be better.

You know, if we have these shared routes and shared stops I bet we could get rid of even more of the complexity by just putting the whole thing on a track and getting rid of the whole steering controls. That would take less computers, so it would be more efficient. Oh wow, if we have a track we could also get rid of those heavy metal microplastic spewing tires. OK, so now we've got big metal taxis that are linked together and travel on a track with metal wheels.

I wonder if we could take better advantage of that shared entry and exit stations by running on some kind of schedule. Then a bunch of people could gather together and all get on our off at the same time instead of having to individually call for taxis when it's convenient for them.

Oh, wait, every single one is still carrying it's own battery. It's way more efficient to move electricity itself than moving batteries. Since we're already running on a track, we can take the batteries out and have some kind of central power delivery via maybe overhead cables or something.

OK, so we've made EVs more efficient by making them shared, getting rid of wasted space, eliminating some of the excess from trips, running them on a schedule and a track, making specific stops, and taking out all the extra battery weight. Let's take a look...

Huh. Interesting.

I wonder if we could like... put it in some kind of underground tube and maybe electrify the rails for power delivery instead. You know, to get rid of the problem of it getting stuck in traffic...

Huh. Cool. I guess I accidentally did an Adam Something.

You go back and tell me which of these proposed efficiency improvements actually reduces efficiency and we'll talk.

[–] AlexS@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

Parking is the biggest problem with everyone having a car.

Parking is a problem only in cities. 20% of the population lives rural.

But you know, it would be easier to share these taxis if we didn’t go door to door. Like, maybe we could have well defined routes for these autonomous taxis. … It’s much easier to travel specific routes anyway.

Better than predefined routes is aggregated ride sharing like MOIA. Which is essentially a big taxi.

We drop some inefficacy by not having every car go door to door as well. Excellent.

Excellent? Sort of inconvenient, people have to walk to the nearest station. Especially with groceries. And impractical for the elderly, disabled and small children.

if we have a track we could also get rid of those heavy metal microplastic spewing tires.

Why is particulate matter in trains stations so high?

You go back and tell me which of these proposed efficiency improvements actually reduces efficiency and we’ll talk.

If everything is so efficient, why on earth needs a tram 15 kWh per passenger per 100 km?

[–] revisable677@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I was prepared to read your arguments and even thought to myself I might have to reevaluate some preconceived notions I had.

But even the links and statistics you cited show cars as much more inefficient than buses, trains, trams, and metros.

1000030723