MadRhino said:The main factors of road cost and environment impact are weight, size, and mileage.
People believe in Zero Emission as the ultimate solution but it is not. Environment impact of an electric car vs a combustion car, is not so much better. Our problem is that we use way too much resources for transportation, and that we are traveling way too much mileage.
Raisedeyebrows said:It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?
wturber said:If we were willing to go a bit slower, we could use less massive vehicles and probably have a net gain in safety and use fewer resources. So in that sense, yes, shorter distances would improve things. And lighter slower vehicles are more effective with shorter distances.
Chalo said:Raisedeyebrows said:It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?
When bicycles arose, there was much outrage because they went too fast. I'm sure there were a few hooligans and jackasses who made that impression-- at the beginning, bicycles were only for rich fux after all. But how times have changed.
Are you saying the same thing about trains a century ago? Because early steam engines had efficiencies of about 2%; modern gas vehicles approach 40%, and modern EV's approach 90% efficiency (and 50% well to wheels.)Sunder said:One day a future generation will look back on us and say "I can't believe they were willing to spend the energy to move 1800kg of metal and plastic, just to get a 60kg person from A to B without getting wet. What a wasteful generation"
Yep. And with time those cars will get smaller, lighter and more efficient (following the same trend they are now.) And fewer people will drive them, although that won't decrease the number of car trips - they will just do more car sharing via Uber and the like.Sometimes for amusement while waiting for a bus, or a light to change, and I see how many cars have either more than 1 person in them, or obviously for tools/goods. it's usually about 1 in 10. the rest are sole occupancy.
billvon said:And with time those cars will get smaller, lighter and more efficient (following the same trend they are now.)
wturber said:Chalo said:Raisedeyebrows said:It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?
When bicycles arose, there was much outrage because they went too fast. I'm sure there were a few hooligans and jackasses who made that impression-- at the beginning, bicycles were only for rich fux after all. But how times have changed.
No. Horse and buggy had significant problems compared to the automobile. If it had been pretty good we'd have stayed with it. But primitive automobiles eventually took over. (By comparison, a modern car would seem almost magical.) Horses created major sanitation problems in towns and cities and travel was significantly restricted. Neither horse or buggies were particularly comfortable. And maintenance and expense was pretty significant. Never mind the outrage you'd hear from PETA,
And while we typically use cars wastefully by frequently only carrying one passenger, the reality is that their purchase usually includes other intended uses. Their versatility is typically pretty important to they buyer. They are purchased for their versatility and convenience - their ability to haul more people, travel long distance easily, easily carry cargo/groceries, protect passengers not only from a simply rain shower, but snow, sleet, hail and extremely hot weather. Let's not kid ourselves about the auto going away. It will merely evolve as will purchasing priorities.
liveforphysics said:Today super rich people still ride horses, though mostly for recreational purposes.
billvon said:Are you saying the same thing about trains a century ago? Because early steam engines had efficiencies of about 2%; modern gas vehicles approach 40%, and modern EV's approach 90% efficiency (and 50% well to wheels.)
Hmm. Modern trains are pretty heavy. A six car Amtrak train plus engine weighs about 1.1 million pounds. Older trains are heavier and seat fewer people (no aluminum, plastics, foams, high strength steel, single level) so let's say 1.5 million pounds for a 1920 six car train. You might see an average of 350 people on a six car train. (60 people per car, about 3/4 full.) That's 4300 pounds a person.Sunder said:Nothing to do with the efficiency of energy conversion. If trains a century ago were running with only one person in them at a time, yes, I would have said that was shockingly wasteful.
billvon said:Hmm. Modern trains are pretty heavy. A six car Amtrak train plus engine weighs about 1.1 million pounds. Older trains are heavier and seat fewer people (no aluminum, plastics, foams, high strength steel, single level) so let's say 1.5 million pounds for a 1920 six car train. You might see an average of 350 people on a six car train. (60 people per car, about 3/4 full.) That's 4300 pounds a person.Sunder said:Nothing to do with the efficiency of energy conversion. If trains a century ago were running with only one person in them at a time, yes, I would have said that was shockingly wasteful.
You were saying that a vehicle carrying one person and weighing 3960 pounds was shockingly wasteful. In that case, I imagine you are glad we got away from trains.
https://m.drive.com.au/motor-news/suvs-sales-overtake-passenger-cars-for-the-first-time-20170303-guq24l.htmlSales of high-riding SUVs have overtaken conventional cars for the first time in Australian automotive history
craneplaneguy said:One thing about modern cars, electric or ICE powered, they are WAY safer then cars even 10 years ago, much less 20, 30 or more. The added safety features are a major cause of weight gain though. I read the accident reports religiously, and it's pretty amazing the spectacular wrecks that people more or less walk away from nowadays.
Sounds like a modern, lightweight train. Great! But I was responding to your claims about trains a century ago not being shockingly wasteful.Sunder said:Hmm, not sure if you're being a bit selective with your choice of train. The Warratah trains in Sydney weigh 880,000 pounds and carry 900 people seated, probably around 1200 including standing.