WetEV wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pmMoved from https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p592530
Yet cycling gives reasonable range and speed for the average 10 mile drive. Why don't more people cycle? Maybe perhaps "value in transportation" is more subjective than objective. Both cycling and walking when reasonable distance is both cheaper and has health benefits. But many people don't do it, even in nice weather. I don't know why. Do you?GRA wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pmIn places where they can't afford cars or public transport, and walking takes too long, lots of them. As the U. S. has a high median income, more people can afford to drive (and we can afford the roads and other support infrastructure to make driving quick and convenient).
Sure. One of the transportation values that most Americans rate highly is lack of physical effort required. Even if the average person were able to peddle a bike at 70 mph, this would still apply. Which is one of the major reasons we have an obesity epidemic in this country. This is cultural, as it doesn't apply to all countries, e g. the Netherlands or Denmark:
Even if we were to build bike and pedestrian infrastructure comparable to theirs, it would take a cultural shift before it was fully used.
Another transportation value is weather protection, as a factor in comfort - we're used to being able to choose our own climate, regardless of what the natural weather is. That too is somewhat cultural. We know that large numbers of people are willing to ride in inclement weather, provided they ride routinely.
Another critical factor is the safety issue, both actual and perceived. I've been involved in my own city's updating of our bike and pedestrian plan, and one of the things every survey of the large demographic group of potential riders referred to as "interested but concerned" shows is that absent completely separate bike paths, they will not ride in or next to fast moving car traffic unless there is physical protection between it and them. Which is why cities like mine have begun to copy measures that countries with high bike ridership such as those above have long had, either at-grade bike lanes protected by a line of parked cars or concrete islands, or else above-grade lanes akin but next to sidewalks. Some riders are also willing to ride in a bike lane with a buffer zone protected by no more than flexible posts, but if you want to get a mass increase in riders you need physical instead of mainly psychological barriers.
It's been 52 years since I was first allowed to ride in fast-moving street traffic; I do it all the time and I've long since internalized the risk. I'm a member of the demographic group most willing to ride in traffic, adolescent males and people like me who started to ride in traffic as adolescent males, and have never stopped. Even so, I've noticed that when I ride in the small but growing number of protected bike lanes that are appearing around here I'm much more relaxed, not needing to maintain my usual hyper vigilance to avoid the next idiot who tries to kill me because they think looking at their cell phone or some other distraction is more important than watching the road and avoiding an accident. I also find the lanes just protected by buffer zones with or without posts somewhat more relaxing, as it at least provides more space for someone to notice they're drifting out of their lane before they hit me.
Give the other potential rider demographic groups the infrastructure that allows them to be safe and feel that way, and bike ridership goes way up.
BTW, as a result of Covid and related measures (closure of streets to car traffic), need to replace other forms of exercise and get outdoors, U.S. bike sales went through the roof. No doubt the majority of new riders have reverted or will revert to their cars as restrictions have eased, but some of them will continue to ride.
WetEV wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pmLet me clue you in on something. Most people live in households larger than one driver. Median drivers per house hold is 1.89.GRA wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pmWhat you're really saying is that people who can afford to buy cars do so for more than one reason, many of them unrelated to utilitarian transportation. I've never disputed that. OTOH, I suspect a lot of Corollas were bought in the PNW in 2011. Do you suppose that people didn't buy iMiEVs because they imposed too many limitations on the vehicle's flexibility? At the time, if I had needed a car just for commuting, an iMiEV might have been fine, provided I had somewhere to charge it. But I'd need another car for every trip beyond its capabilities, which is virtually all of them in my case. And given the dearth of public charging in 2011, an iMiEV would be inadequate for most trips for most people.
Average cars per driver is almost exactly one.
https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_ ... trends.pdf
With two drivers and two cars, one a iMiEV and one something else, the household would have a lower cost and more convenient commuting car, and a car for the other trips beyond the iMiEV's capabilities.
I'm well aware of household demographics. Yet the second car was far more likely to be a Civic or Corolla than an iMiEV or even more appropriately a Smart (whether ICE or BEV). Few people buy cars for their typical use; they buy cars based on what's been called the "Occasional Use Imperative", the maximum foreseeable use case. In the case of short range BEVs there's almost no difference between routine use and the maximum capability cases, and most people spending tens of thousands on a car find that unacceptable, or "inadequate transportation value for their dollar". You can argue with them until you're blue in the face, but as long as they're spending their money you're unlikely to convince them otherwise. Which is why soccer moms are rumbling around in 4WD Yukons instead of far cheaper and more efficient minivans.
WetEV wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pmYou don't drive the short trips to make a PHEV worthwhile. You should drive an ICE. You are likely one of the last people to convert to BEVs due to your very unusual driving pattern, and you will switch mostly because you must.GRA wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pmYup, or a low-AER (~25 mile) PHEV, or (given adequate fueling infrastructure) an FCEV. At the moment a BEV represents a colossal time suck and route restriction on my trips, even if the charging infrastructure were 100% reliable as gas stations essentially are. I went 3 for 11 in my attempts to activate QCs on my recent Bolt trip, and would have been stranded 200+ miles from home if I hadn't had access to L2s that didn't require activation.WetEV wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:52 am
Almost the reverse of the average American usage. 85% trip miles under 100 miles.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... fig4_5.cfm
GRA should drive an ICE.
On a strict money basis you're correct re PHEVs. There are other reasons to drive a PHEV, though. In my case it would allow me to control local emissions when I choose, and I would use the battery tactically to eliminate emissions while driving the 2-3 miles to and from the local freeways, in small towns I pass through, in large concentrations of people, near those who are exposed to idling ICEs at close proximity for hours every day e.g. park rangers at entrance stations, areas where pollution concentrates (the Yosemite Valley Loop is 14 miles), and so on. If something like the RAV4 Prime or even better a slightly smaller Voltec AWD CUV with less AER (20-30 mi.) and a lower price in consequence had been available in 2016, buying one would have been justifiable because I'd get enough years of use out of it. If the Niro PHEV were AWD I might have accepted it despite its smaller than desired seats-up cargo space. Now, I figure I'm <= 5 years to having a ZEV option that can meet many if not most of my requirements, so a PHEV no longer meets my value for money test. If I were sure that ZEV wouldn't arrive until say 2030, my judgement would be different.
I know that's your opinion, and we'll see. I'm cool with either.
WetEV wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pmYes, trucking might not be hydrogen. There is a chance of it, as trucking infrastructure can have fairly definable routes, get high and predictable usage needed to pay it off, and hand off to BEV truck for local delivery into areas with no hydrogen infrastructure. But that might not happen. Trains make take over these routes. Or even BEV trucks. And other than "main line trucking", infrastructure is too expensive and likely will always be so, and BEVs are just more convenient for local deliveries and 99% of the trips of the average driver.
Nah, long range trucking isn't going away. While we'll shift some freight to trains, especially as decreases in coal and oil shipments free up capacity, trains are just too slow for some freight, and current BEV trucks impose unacceptable weight limits and time penalties for long haul.