How would YOU get more EVs on the road

cnocbui

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

KCross

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

A noble idea but the reality is a bit different though, isnt it?

The premise of the thread is to get EV's on the road in place of petrol/diesel. That wont happen without some intervention in the short-medium term.

Once EV's are accepted and consumers are buying them by default, then you can remove the incentives. If you leave things as they are nothing will change. Maybe you think thats OK?

Its a fine balance between encouraging consumers to "make the right decision" and interfering in the market.

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

Governments are in that business whether you like it or not - and that's not exclusive to Ireland. The UK made exactly the same mistake ref. diesel policy. Governments are there to legislate and to implement strategic policy for the good of the citizens of the country (aspirationally at least!).

Provision of infrastructure is the reason we all pay taxes. They need to support a fledgling EV infrastructure - to facilitate it taking on a life of it's own - which it will do with that assistance and development of the tech (the latter which by all accounts is in hand).

unkel

unkel wrote: »

They're right. €10k subsidy on a new EV is ridiculous. Terrible value for money for the government too. The likes of me paying €3k per year in motor tax and excise plus VAT on my fuel......................

I'm saying thanks anyway for the €10k

Did you not have to buy a Leaf or something similar though to get this €10k?

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

err, we have a whole taxation policy that applies to motoring , to every aspect of motoring

taxation is precisely a form of " market " ( and social ) engineering as it forces buyer/consumer behaviour

your argument therefore holds no logic as we are already in the situation


consumers are never " free to make their own decisions " because taxation is a fact of life

cnocbui

KCross wrote: »

A noble idea but the reality is a bit different though, isnt it?

The premise of the thread is to get EV's on the road in place of petrol/diesel. That wont happen without some intervention in the short-medium term.

Once EV's are accepted and consumers are buying them by default, then you can remove the incentives. If you leave things as they are nothing will change. Maybe you think thats OK?

Its a fine balance between encouraging consumers to "make the right decision" and interfering in the market.

You see, you are a perfect example of why this market engineering is such a bad idea. EV's aren't even remotely close to being practical or convenient for everyone; they do not have adequate range, they take too long to recharge and they cost too much, because if you are talking about all vehicles being EV, then the government has no option but to cease subsidising them and will actually have to tax them just as much as the vehicles they are replacing because the revenue is needed.

Intervention is what got us into this current diesel madness. Yes, I do think things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

cnocbui

BoatMad wrote: »

err, we have a whole taxation policy that applies to motoring , to every aspect of motoring

taxation is precisely a form of " market " ( and social ) engineering as it forces buyer/consumer behaviour

your argument therefore holds no logic as we are already in the situation


consumers are never " free to make their own decisions " because taxation is a fact of life

Er, duh!

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre. If we had had that instead of gormlyism, we wouldn't be in this bad situation with regard to the preponderance of diesel vehicles.

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

Ok, so you do believe in intervention - but only when you believe it to be right?


EV's are very close to being practical and convenient for everyone. Through implementation of some of the ideas presented in this very thread, they would become even more practical and convenient for more people. Furthermore, its acknowledged by all that the tech already exists - new iterations of EV's are on the way to deliver greater range, etc.

As regards price, all new cars are damned expensive. You can buy into an EV at various pricepoints. I didn't spend a fortune.

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

You see, you are a perfect example of why this market engineering is such a bad idea. EV's aren't even remotely close to being practical or convenient for everyone; they do not have adequate range, they take too long to recharge and they cost too much, because if you are talking about all vehicles being EV, then the government has no option but to cease subsidising them and will actually have to tax them just as much as the vehicles they are replacing because the revenue is needed.

Intervention is what got us into this current diesel madness. Yes, I do think things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

You premise is flawed as it presupposes that we somehow started of with a level playing field

In the early days of motoring, petrol was very cheap and the cars were very dear. but the rising economy and the practical advantages of private motoring over the PT that everyone had been using, meant that there was a huge swing to private motoring

The Gov of the day around they world responded by investing billions of taxpayers money in new roads to allow higher speeds and easier motoring


hence we have had Gov intervention from the very beginning


as we progressed through the recession of the 80s and " charlie Haughty , we are living beyond our means ", we began to dramatically raise taxes on motoring

This had the effect of spuring a quest for better economy and a trend towards buying smaller cars

another Gov intervention

Then we had the " well intentioned " Green initiative, but this was more spurred through the difference in diesel price then motor tax. and diesel is kept cheaper because of its influence in commercial road haulage . ( there was a still born project to introduce yellow commercial diesel in Europe )

Again more intervention in holding down costs to commercial users, that spilled into buying patterns amongst joe public

SO, we " are where we are". the current private fleet is a direct result of decades of " Gov intervention " .

promoting EVs is no different. There is a real and present issue with the level off pollutants from all forms of ICE. Its a policy of the state to reduce that pollution

The resulting subsidy is entirely consistent with that aim

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

Er, duh!

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre. If we had had that instead of gormlyism, we wouldn't be in this bad situation with regard to the preponderance of diesel vehicles.

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre.

On the other hand , living in the real world........ taxation is merely a means of raising revenue and is balanced by what can be raised for a given level of " pain" , nothing about taxation is equitable or reasonable/logical

cnocbui

isnottheword wrote: »

Ok, so you do believe in intervention - but only when you believe it to be right?


EV's are very close to being practical and convenient for everyone. Through implementation of some of the ideas presented in this very thread, they would become even more practical and convenient for more people. Furthermore, its acknowledged by all that the tech already exists - new iterations of EV's are on the way to deliver greater range, etc.

As regards price, all new cars are damned expensive. You can buy into an EV at various pricepoints. I didn't spend a fortune.

Can you not read and comprehend? "a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes" That amounts to the undoing of intervention, or are you just trying to be 'cute'?

No EV's are not close to being practical for everyone, that is a lie. I actually love the idea of having an EV, but it has to be affordable and practical - which they aren't and can't be without a revolution in battery technology, which we haven't got yet. EV's are currently the swimmer who has dived into the pool before the gun has gone off.

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played

No, I don't believe it is...

VRT is a substantial part of the retail price the customer pays for the vehicle, and it being based on CO2 figures highly promotes diesels. Diesels are equally economical around Europe, but it is Ireland that have the smallest price difference between petrol and diesel cars.

You have to be a very heavy user to offset that difference elsewhere, while in Ireland it takes only two-three years of medium usage. It is helped by motortax rates as well.

cnocbui

BoatMad wrote: »

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played



On the other hand , living in the real world........ taxation is merely a means of raising revenue and is balanced by what can be raised for a given level of " pain" , nothing about taxation is equitable or reasonable/logical

[snip]

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

Can you not read and comprehend?

cnocbui wrote: »

Búll5hít

I think you need to stop back-seat modding.

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

cnocbui

isnottheword wrote: »

I think you need to cool off

This is a discussion forum (and part of the richness of it is that people will present different opinions) - not a sandpit.

A spade is a spade. When people state as fact bald and blatent untruths, then that isn't really discussion either.

But you are right, I shall leave you to your socialist ideals and your EV paradise and will withdraw.

Have fun with your threads on planning how to get from A to B and recounting how many hours you spend waiting for your practical vehicles to recharge and how careful you were with your speed, hills and the heater - yes I have read those threads.

Happy motoring/waiting.

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

Búll5hít

leaving aside , you complete inability to articulate a counter argument .

It is the case that fuel pricing combined with better economy is the major reason diesels gained a foothold in Europe and particulary in Ireland and Portugal , where fuel price differences are not as marked or in fact diesel is dearer, diesels remain a minority , even though they have better economy and often tax advantages due to lower co2

equally its only now after many years of buying diesels that diesels in irelsn are close to 36% of the national fleet , with petrol having nearly a 2:1 advantage

what is different is in recent years new car Diesel purchases have led petrol 70:30

source http://www.acea.be/statistics/article/Passenger-Car-Fleet-by-Fuel-Type

The average in Europe is 40:60 to petrol


The key factor that attracted buyers in ireland , was the significant difference in fuel prices , coupled with the better economy of diesels at the time

This is allied to the fact that few buyers perform TCO calculations on car purchases seemingly separating mentality the purchase cost of the car , from the running costs , ( as most diesels for lower mileage consumers work out dearer )

Hence the surge in diesels in later years , but as I say , we are still below 40% overall

Little can be attributed to the green parties initiative, as modern petrol and diesels are all closer together in tax bands.

BoatMad

A spade is a spade. When people state as fact bald and blatent untruths, then that isn't really discussion either.

I can returned with statistics and argument, you have added nothing to support a misguided view

I should add , that the Green party initiative which resulted in the change to co2 based motor tax , was predominantly designed to forced owners of older cars to buy newer ones , not necessarily diesels

`there was then a boom sale period in the irish car market as a result as the owners if older high capacity engined cars ( diesel or petrol ) were " convinced" to replace them. The rush to diesel however was a function of the difference in running costs , attributed to a lower price per litre , ( around 10 cents ) as a result of petrol only budget changes and then later diesel increases

cros13

cnocbui wrote: »

Can you not read and comprehend? "a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes" That amounts to the undoing of intervention, or are you just trying to be 'cute'?

Change your tone or corrective action will be taken, your choice.

BoatMad

goz83 wrote: »

Brilliant idea. Won't happen though

nor I suspect would the EV night rate go down below the current rate which by European standards is already quite low. Ireland has an unusual mix, with less night usage then many european countries ( less 24h heavy industries etc )

BoatMad

grogi wrote: »

No, I don't believe it is...

VRT is a substantial part of the retail price the customer pays for the vehicle, and it being based on CO2 figures highly promotes diesels. Diesels are equally economical around Europe, but it is Ireland that have the smallest price difference between petrol and diesel cars.

You have to be a very heavy user to offset that difference elsewhere, while in Ireland it takes only two-three years of medium usage. It is helped by motortax rates as well.

The difference between diesel and petrol is very pronounced in Ireland, in many countries the pricing is the same and in some cases diesel is dearer

The VFT advantages are largely lost to the irish buyers, and diesels are still dearer anyway. The problem is car buyers seperate purchase price from running costs , rather then doing TCO and comparing ( along with comparing cost of credit )

The result has been a shift to diesel

as I stated elsewhere its only a recent issue, 60% of road traffic is petrol , however its the new car purchases that are heavily skewed

KCross

cnocbui wrote: »

You see, you are a perfect example of why this market engineering is such a bad idea. EV's aren't even remotely close to being practical or convenient for everyone; they do not have adequate range, they take too long to recharge and they cost too much, because if you are talking about all vehicles being EV, then the government has no option but to cease subsidising them and will actually have to tax them just as much as the vehicles they are replacing because the revenue is needed.

EV's arent ready for everyone. Thats certainly true.

It is ready for alot of people though and the next generation (2018) will bring even more into the "suitable" category.

The car I have has range within my daily needs (<100km) and I do about 30k km's per year. I dont use any public chargers or waiting for that so your issues around charging and range are irrelevant to me and many more like me. Thats a key point that the non-EV folks dont get. They are fixated on issues that wont exist for most people.

I dont think EV owners state that EV is ready for everyone but non-EV people like to suggest that its not ready for anyone. Not you in particular.


And of course, yes, once we have alot of EV's the subsidies will have to stop and they will ramp up taxes on EV. I'm OK with that as it will have served its purpose.

cnocbui wrote: »

Intervention is what got us into this current diesel madness. Yes, I do think things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

Everything you buy has been market manipulated in some way. Subsidies to farmers for the food on your table. Different VAT rates depending on the goods etc

The reality is that market engineering is part of society. You cant just wipe that clean and say everything will sort itself out on its own. I dont think you are being realistic there.

Think of it like the smoking ban or the plastic bag levy. The are bad for your health and the environment. Would that have EVER changed without the government sticking its nose in and put a "tax" on plastic bags. No, it wouldnt. Encouraging EV and taxing petrol/diesel more isnt alot different really.

zilog_jones

BoatMad wrote: »

Its not meant to have any " bearing in reality " because you cannot have on -road emissions limits in practice .

They could certainly make the test be a more accurate approximation to real world driving, and some people have been trying to do this for years but the European motor industry have too much of an influence on the EU. The US EPA tests are much closer to real world driving - you can look at their fuel economy figures and actually achieve them in reality. The NEDC does not need to be so useless.

Low range hybrids are a NEDC rule cheater, because the NEDC test is done at low speed over a short distance. The Urban cycle can be completed by m,any hybrids on battery alone. This moves the car into a much lower emissions band and hence tax structure

That's not really true - the Urban cycle is nearly 4km long, which most hybrids cannot do without ICE assistance. The Prius can do about 2km in EV only driving. There's also the extra-urban cycle which exceeds the EV operational speed limit for most hybrids.

On road, these cars spend huge amounts of time running in petrol mode. During all that time they are polluting exactly the same as a petrol car

In urban driving the ICE will typically only be running for 40-60% of the journey. And in Toyota/Lexus hybrids (the majority of hybrids sold) they are all Atkinson cycle engines which are more efficient, tied with very efficient transmissions, capturing energy from regenerative braking, and using electric assistance when needed to supplement the efficient but less powerful ICE. To say they're polluting the same as a normal ICE vehicle when the ICE is running is false.

Today EVs could provide motoring needs for 50% pf the private motoring public ( average travel distances are quite low in ireland ) , within 5 years it will offer models that will meet 80-90% of conventional private motoring needs

There's much more to car ownership than average travel distances, which is a very vague statistic on its own. Many people need to drive distances of >200 km on a frequent basis. Many people have no private parking suitable for home charging. Many people are not home owners so may be unable to install home charging. And many people simply cannot afford to purchase an EV, especially not a new one. 50% is a very ambitious figure.

This may well be a stupid question but is there a particular barrier to wireless charging for EVs? Park at a service station with coil buried (or on home driveway), have a cup of coffee, go to the toilet, have a cigarette, loadsa charge. Would also mean less maintenance of charge points I would have thought.

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

This may well be a stupid question but is there a particular barrier to wireless charging for EVs? Park at a service station with coil buried (or on home driveway), have a cup of coffee, go to the toilet, have a cigarette, loadsa charge. Would also mean less maintenance of charge points I would have thought.

Speed. It is not easy to pump that much energy without cables.

zilog_jones

Inductive charging does exist but it's very inefficient compared to a cable - you can lose like 15-40% of the power depending on the technology used.

cros13

zilog_jones wrote: »

It also hasn't been implemented for EVs beyond 3.6 kW charging - fast charging probably isn't viable yet.

Actually... standards now exist up to 11kW.... But definitely efficiency is a major issue, and you need to be very precisely aligned to get losses as low as 10-15%. Autonomous vehicles should be able to get the alignment thing down... but still it's home/destination charging only and inherently/unavoidably way more expensive to install than a conductive cable.

But still the future of public charging is in the new 350kW CCS rapids (that have already started deployment). 35-40 times faster than the fastest standard for inductive charging.

grogi

cros13 wrote: »

Actually... standards now exist up to 11kW.... But definitely efficiency is a major issue, and you need to be very precisely aligned to get losses as low as 10-15%. Autonomous vehicles should be able to get the alignment thing down... but still it's home/destination charging only and inherently/unavoidably way more expensive to install than a conductive cable.

But still the future of public charging is in the new 350kW CCS rapids (that have already started deployment). 35-40 times faster than the fastest standard for inductive charging.

Induction is ineffective - it leaks, heats everything up and lightens up nearby cows...

There are extensive research around resonance-based charging (exp. http://web.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/events/2014/10-24-14%20Mi.pdf) which are very promising...

zilog_jones

cros13 wrote: »

But definitely efficiency is a major issue, and you need to be very precisely aligned to get losses as low as 10-15%.

Yeah, the more efficient standard I know of is Magne Charge which claimed 86% efficiency, which was used on the GM EV1, RAV4 EV and some others from the late '90s - but that used a tethered "paddle" which you slot into the vehicle, so is not exactly wireless.

cros13

I was shown a Intel resonant inductive charging demo under NDA ooh.. almost a decade ago that claimed 95% efficiency but the demo was only 100W... consumer electronics loads not car charging-type loads.

discostu1

Apologies to those who think the thread is rubbish I started it to see what folk thought might be doable to get more eCars on the road.
I heard a bit of Denis Naughton on the Radio travelling home (On my bike ) He spoke about changes to Diesel taxation and some of it was woolly. There is a consultation paper open for the next week or two. So is it time for the EV car uses to move from Hobbyists to Lobbyists ?

isnottheword

discostu1 wrote: »

Apologies to those who think the thread is rubbish I started it to see what folk thought might be doable to get more eCars on the road.
I heard a bit of Denis Naughton on the Radio travelling home (On my bike ) He spoke about changes to Diesel taxation and some of it was woolly. There is a consultation paper open for the next week or two. So is it time for the EV car uses to move from Hobbyists to Lobbyists ?

I think it was thoughtful of you to fire up this query - and it has resulted in some great suggestions. Someone should forward on to Ecars/ CER., etc.
...so no need to apologise.


By the very nature of people and discussion boards, not everyone is going to agree on everything (would be a boring world if we did) - so that's just par for the course as far as I'm concerned. I've learned a lot here (and sometimes the contributions of others will result in a change of opinion or maybe not....if you keep an open mind you can learn). Sharing of info is collaborative and useful.

liamog

Deedsie wrote: »

EV numbers will increase when the range is increased. Especially for motorway driving. I'd love if there was a free roll or a reduce toll for EV's on motorways.

Why does Norway have 50% sales on EVs & Hybrids so far this year?
I don't believe it's because of the increase in range.
They have incentives and infrastructure which are driving the adoption.

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

Exactly, and people will say things on discussion forums that have no chance of ever happening. No chance the NTA will ever allow private cars use the bus lane. If anything that will be reduced further. Extended by gate hours and increased policing of bus lanes by AGS.

EV numbers will increase when the range is increased. Especially for motorway driving. I'd love if there was a free roll or a reduce toll for EV's on motorways.

actually a serous representation to DCC was made by Minister Naughtons dept too try and get access to bus lanes

The group opposing it is DCC not the NTA, who is willing to consider it , if a workable solution could be found

Owen Keegan is of course a Bike fanatic who hates cars

liamog

Deedsie wrote: »

Replacing ICE traffic congestion with EV traffic congestion is no victory for urban Ireland.

Investment in arterial route EV car parks, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is the way forward.

I'd strongly disagree with the first statement, I'd much rather be cycling next to a traffic jam of zero emission vehicles than the current diesel pollution boxes we have now.

I think Oslo did it right, bus lane incentive to normalise EVs, followed by removal when we hit critical mass.

Other infrastructure changes are needed too, but the pair don't have to be mutually exclusive.
How about green number plates for zero emission vehicles? Easy way to spot the authorised bus lane users and the ANPR system would quickly pick up any cheeky ICE's.

stesaurus

Deedsie wrote: »

He's not, he a sensible administrator who won't be swayed by sensationalist arguments. Private cars are the least efficient mode of transport in Ireland.

Public transport and active transport are the way forward for our urban centres. More and more people accept this. As soon as you let people drive in the bus lane and public transport users are delayed further it will be reversed.

I'm not anti car, I have a car and use it regularly but I feel that the city or town centres need to be protected from excessive numbers of private cars inefficiently taking up all of the available public space.

Some motorists attitude stinks of entitlement. We need to share and protect our public areas and share them more equally.

Replacing ICE traffic congestion with EV traffic congestion is no victory for urban Ireland.

Investment in arterial route EV car parks, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is the way forward.

I'm all for EV's in case this sounds like an anti car rant. It's pro sharing public space in a fairer more efficient way rant

But you don't seem to accept that that Utopian ideal is a long way off. So why not change things now that can have an immediate impact and work towards those lofty goals.
EVs are available now and are far better for the local urban environment. Bus lane usage is highly visible for motorists entering the city on a daily basis. Combine it with free/reduced parking rates and suddenly you'll see people make the move. Then review that once ownership hits a certain level.

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

He's not, he a sensible administrator who won't be swayed by sensationalist arguments. Private cars are the least efficient mode of transport in Ireland.

Public transport and active transport are the way forward for our urban centres. More and more people accept this. As soon as you let people drive in the bus lane and public transport users are delayed further it will be reversed.

I'm not anti car, I have a car and use it regularly but I feel that the city or town centres need to be protected from excessive numbers of private cars inefficiently taking up all of the available public space.

Some motorists attitude stinks of entitlement. We need to share and protect our public areas and share them more equally.

Replacing ICE traffic congestion with EV traffic congestion is no victory for urban Ireland.

Investment in arterial route EV car parks, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is the way forward.

I'm all for EV's in case this sounds like an anti car rant. It's pro sharing public space in a fairer more efficient way rant

Thats fine as a " pie in the sky " idea. We are great in this country of over analysing everything and doing nothing . the " fine in practice , but will in work in theory )

It could take 20-50 years of serious investment in public transport to adequately fix Dublin's issues, including many more on street Trams, DU , heavy rail , metro etc . Thats assuming that Dublin would get proportionally more investment that the rest of the country , ( which it will not get politically )


IN the meantime CARS, yes CARS are the majority method of moving people especially outside the canal rings, and this is where also , out side the canal rings , where bus lanes are prevalent


No-one is suggesting that Buslanes are permanently made available to EVs, it merely a high profile visible time limited incentive

Today with 2200 EVs nationwide , even if bus lanes were opened to EVs , you wouldn't see any significant difference immediately.

replacing ICE in urban centres with zero emissions vehicles would be an enormous step forward .

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

CARS :-)

Shouting it always helps the argument.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/more-of-us-turning-to-public-transport-35455848.html

CARS make up 33% of our transport, I know it appears that CARS are the majority method of transporting people but they just take up the majority of available public space.

Shockingly private cars 20% full is not the most efficient way to move people from A to B.

Sheesh

Firstly thats a canal cordon study .

heres one of the conclusion from the 2006 GDA households survey , undertaken by the NTA



"While respondents in the Greater Dublin Area had used a wide range of travel options in the past seven days, travelling by car was the most popular, with over half saying this was the mode they used most often, either as a driver or as a passenger. Use of the car (either driving or as a passenger) was higher in the Mid East (63%) than in the Dublin Region (49%), where wider choice in terms of public transport options can undoubtedly alleviate reliance on car transport."

source NTA

while the 2012 Household survey

"The car is very much the dominant mode of travel nationwide, with 7 in 10 persons saying they use it most often for day to day journeys and 8 in 10 saying they had used their car in the past week.
Car usage is highest in rural areas where public transport alternatives are limited, with highest levels of usage recorded among farmers and persons in the AB social class (i.e. upper middle class/middle class).
The most car dependent city is Cork with over 85% of people saying they used their car in the past week, while the figure was lowest in Dublin and Limerick at 70%."


No one is arguably that cars are an efficient way to move large numbers of people around, No road method is . Rail offers that advantage

But, the issue is the here and now , not some utopian future of endless PT resources

in that regard the Car ( no shouting here ) is the preferred method of transport and therefore we should address the issues around pollution in the private car market, especially urban cars


Utopia will undoubtedly come along sometime after that

liamog

Deedsie wrote: »

I don't doubt that car is king. 540 car owners/1000 people living in Ireland. I have zero issue with cars as a mode of transport. I am one of that 540/1000 and I have been for the last 15 years.

The only issue I have has is with cars is the amount of space they take up in urban areas so within a canal cordon study is perfectly reflective of the argument I am making.

So no incentives for EVs across the whole of Ireland, because cars use up too much space between the canals in Dublin City Centre?

grogi

liamog wrote: »

So no incentives for EVs across the whole of Ireland, because cars use up too much space between the canals in Dublin City Centre?

But in fairness that's where we need EV most...

KCross

Would a congestion charge, like London, be a better way to go for Dublin?

It would encourage more PT use and EV at the same time. Win Win?

Is there a downside to that apart from the fact people will complain about having to pay for something!

bk

BoatMad the canal count actually over-represents the presence of cars in the City Center.

It doesn't take into account the hundreds of thousands of people who live inside the canals and given the nature of where they live, most would walk, cycle and take public transport.

The survey of shoppers on Grafton and Henry Street is actually more representative of how people actually got there and it shows that only 19% of shoppers got there by car!

Stop and think about that, cars easily take up 75% of the road space, yet represent only 19% of people in the city center!!

How is that fair? How is that efficient?

A reminder, according to the quays count, buses carry 10 times as many people as cars and in fact there are almost as many cyclists as cars on the quays.

There is absolutely no way EV's or in fact any cars should be left in bus lanes, it simply isn't efficient use of road space.

Having said that I'm in favour of pretty much every other proposal to promote EV's, for instance here are a few ideas:

- Lots more slow chargers at various park and ride's, totally free use.
- Free parking at park and ride facilities for EV's
- Free train/bus tickets for EV owners to take the train/bus into the city from the park and ride (limited time offer obviously).

Promote both EV's and public transport at the same time.

bk

KCross wrote: »

Would a congestion charge, like London, be a better way to go for Dublin?

It would encourage more PT use and EV at the same time. Win Win?

Is there a downside to that apart from the fact people will complain about having to pay for something!

It tends to favour rich people, while punishing the less well off.

Rich people just pay the charge and continue to drive in, while the less well off are forced onto public transport. Not that there is anything wrong with public transport, but it simply extends the classism that exists in the UK. Irish people tend not to like that sort of thing and it would be politically very unpopular.

Instead the NTA and DCC have decided to achieve the same by simply restricting the flow of cars into the city center, by simply giving more space over to walking, cycling and public transport and eliminating through traffic through the core of the city.

I'd say that is a much fairer approach then just leaving rich people to continue doing what they like!

zilog_jones

Don't the M50 tolls seem a bit counter-productive for reducing inner city traffic, compared to a congestion charge? I guess there's more to it than that, though.

One thing I've noticed at least in Cork and Limerick is that nearly all the SCPs are in the inner city, with next to nothing out of town, e.g. the shopping centres in the suburbs. I suppose this is good in a way in that's it's promoting people to actually go into the city (in two city centres that have seen better days), but again not really helping the traffic situation.

BoatMad

We build new roads and get bigger traffic jams.

This is a classic shibboleth, thats trotted out. Most "new"roads like motorways built recently are actually under utilised. Its simply a few mainly in the GDA that are a problem and thats a result of both poor road and PT investment . Car numbers are inherently limited, an Adult cant drive two!!!!!

It's not an efficient or sustainable transport model in town and city centres.

cars are not a problem in the vast majority of typical Irish towns , I live near one . Dublin , parts of Cork , a section of Galway are problematic , primarily due to unrestrained house building without the provisions of suitable capacity roads

We need to prioritise pedestrian areas, safe cycling infrastructure and improved reliable public transport along arterial routes to reduce car owners need to drive right into the heart of town and city centres where space is at an absolute premium.

NO one disagrees with more investment in PT, I in particular would target non-road PT investment first, Dublin has essentially the same Heavy rail infrastructure it had since Victorian days. Buses are not good solutions overall as they require road space and bus lanes are in fact ( unless constantly occupied ) very bad use of road space

EV Park and ride facilities is what I would love to see. Charge your car, hop on the bus, Luas, bike or walk/jog into the town centre. When you return your vehicle will be charged and the town or city centre will no longer be street after street of parked cars and chronic traffic congestion.

of course the 1000s getting home from the EV parka and rides will be in for a fine congested run home, but ah sure the city centre is "fine"

Thats fine as an " ideal " as your assumption is that people all want to go to the city centre, Just how do you deal with the 100,000s going to the outside - of - centre business parks every day . Journeys like Bray -parkwest , or Kildare - Sandyford, etc etc , just not possible with PT ( or any near term PT scheme either

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.mnn.co...nd-solar-power

very little value in Ireland , especially as EV battery capacity grows

I'm not anti car I am pro town and city centre regeneration. Our towns and cities were not designed to be row after row of car park

they were designed primarily for private transport actually , PT is a victorian invention , horse and carts once clogged London's roads and the streets were full of foul smelling sh1te.

We should be aiming to reduce the number of car journeys into town/city centres and encouraging and providing for alternative methods of getting from A to B in urban areas.

100%a great idealistic goal, BUT, in the meantime , while you and others campaign for the massive billions needed to fund such changes , we have a problem

Todays Problem
Problem: lots of cars still in use in urban centres
Problem: even despite PT schemes , lots of cars in use in urban centres
Problem : such cars generate noise and more seriously significant " in-place" pollution

Solution: ( long term ) : offer more PT alternatives to encourage user change
Solution ( short term ) : encourage car users to switch to zero emissions and quieter electric vehicles

so the solution has two facets

(a) Implement mitigating short term solutions ( 1-10 years )
(b) Implement long term solutions ( 20 years + )


see not so difficult to understand

BUT, what your ( and other) well intended perspectives do , is in effect prevent short term solutions while " pining" for long term solutions that by definition are long term !!!. result , nothing gets done at all.

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

I got as far as shibboleth. Not the place for this chat I guess. Hopefully in time logic will take over and urban planning will actually be planned.

Its exactly the place for this "chat" , The poster was putting his views forward ( in a reasonable manner let me say ) as to why incentivising EVs ( as they are cars) is not a grid idea in urban environments

it directly relates to the title of the thread

cros13

Deedsie wrote: »

I got as far as shibboleth.

Which always brings up shibboleet in my mind

BoatMad

ah Boards

discostu1

Not sure if the lads in the ESB have been following our thread Lol

https://esb.ie/blog/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicles/2017/03/14/electrification-of-transport-top-of-the-agenda