The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[Marshal]

Fully agree ssiguy.

I don't really commute much, and I use transit (Skytrain - a bus if you put a gun to my head) and cycle/walk a lot. My wife has a Tesla and my next vehicle will be electric (with MIN 500Km range).

With privilege acknowledged, I support electrification, but we need an electric people's car - not just affordable, but cheap. I think transit is critical. And we need to incorporate all the electric scooters, assist bikes and other personal modes coming on line.

Architects have a voice in how all these modes can be integrated successfully with the built fabric. A longstanding issue remains, and that is parking. The trend to build high density residential with reduced parking is short sighted. Municipalities need to reconsider this. Cars are not going anywhere, and when electric vehicles become affordable and fully replace combustion cars, they will be extremely popular. Their numbers may make what we have now look small scale. As ssiguy notes, people love driving. If there is a way to do this without being a climate threat, well, it will be business as usual. The only hope of keeping it manageable is to seriously fund and integrate the other options. This means in the cities, but also between cities.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Architects have a voice in how all these modes can be integrated successfully with the built fabric. A longstanding issue remains, and that is parking. The trend to build high density residential with reduced parking is short sighted. Municipalities need to reconsider this.

Why do we need to reconsider this? The average cost of a parking space is anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 per stall in a parkade. Surely you would also rather have a building on a site then an eyesore known as a surface parking lot.

I get that people like driving, I like driving as well, but to provide high quality public and active transportation there needs to be more density to make the development feasible and used. As well with the high density buildings usually is paired with some form of ground floor commercial to make walking easier and more convenient. If we can truly achieve good alternative forms of transportation it should be easy enough to make 90% of your trips using these other forms of transportation. Let the developers build how many parking spots they want as they understand the market far more then we do. If that means less parking spots for more units so be it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Architects have a voice in how all these modes can be integrated successfully with the built fabric. A longstanding issue remains, and that is parking. The trend to build high density residential with reduced parking is short sighted. Municipalities need to reconsider this. Cars are not going anywhere, and when electric vehicles become affordable and fully replace combustion cars, they will be extremely popular. Their numbers may make what we have now look small scale. As ssiguy notes, people love driving. If there is a way to do this without being a climate threat, well, it will be business as usual. The only hope of keeping it manageable is to seriously fund and integrate the other options. This means in the cities, but also between cities.

I am not sure you understand the tradeoffs here. Affordable housing and more parking are two competing goals. Given that it can cost $50-100k to build a parking spot in a parking structure, and will go to the upper end of that estimate if electrification has to be included at every spot, the easiest way to make housing more affordable in denser areas is to eliminate parking.

Cars may not be going anywhere, but that doesn't mean you'll get to drive anywhere and everywhere in the future either. At least not for cheap.... When public parking structures start coming in at $68k per spot in urban areas, you should expect that parking is going to be $30-50 in a quite a few urban areas going forward. You will see parking prices go up and free parking becoming more and more scarce as land values go up. No owner of a mall or big box store is going to look at their mostly empty lots of parking spots valued at tens of thousands per space, that only ever fills up at 2-3 peaks per week, and decide it's a good idea to leave that land empty 90% of the time, when developers are knocking on their doors with lucrative offers.

[Nouvellecosse]

When people make statements like "Cars aren't going anywhere" it basically lumps car culture in with uncontrollable natural forces rather than recognizing it as something wholly within the realm of human agency. It is a human decision whether to use a human technology more, less or at the same level, but people love to argue for the decision they want by pretending there's somehow no other choice.

And of course if something is inevitable and we have no control over it, we don't need to justify it. We can conveniently shift the conversation to harm mitigation since that's the "only option."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

When people make statements like "Cars aren't going anywhere" it basically lumps car culture in with uncontrollable natural forces rather than recognizing it as something wholly within the realm of human agency. It is a human decision whether to use a human technology more, less or at the same level, but people love to argue for the decision they want by pretending there's somehow no other choice.

And of course if something is inevitable and we have no control over it, we don't need to justify it. We can conveniently shift the conversation to harm mitigation since that's the "only option."

Well put. Also, many cities around the world have actually reduced auto infrastructure and/or severely restricted personal auto access. Especially during Covid. It's worked out fine.

Paris turned the highway/roads along the banks of the Seine into this:



https://slate.com/business/2021/09/p...e-hidalgo.html

Utrecht, in the Netherlands, brought back their canals, which were filled in with highways in the post-war era.



https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...riginal-water/

The former Cheonggye freeway in Seoul is now this:



https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...l-cities/seoul

Used to be this:



By the views of some here, these would be an intolerable crime.

I have a tough time understanding why people who claim they love to drive think the pinnacle of driving is sitting in urban/suburban traffic at rush hour. Save the real pleasure of driving for the countryside.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The former Cheonggye freeway in Seoul is now this:



https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...l-cities/seoul

Yep. I visited this place when I was in Seoul. Super pleasant. Excellent example.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yep. I visited this place when I was in Seoul. Super pleasant. Excellent example.

The best part? Their traffic went down in that neighbhourhood while boosting economic activity.

I think the folks who claim they love to drive, are mistaking the increased mobility of a car with the pleasure of actually physically controlling a car. Those are different things. The former is misleading and can easily be substituted in urban areas with high quality transit, bike paths, walkways, etc. The latter is best enjoyed in places with low traffic.

Give me a rural autobahn and give me a fully walkable urban neighbourhood and I'll be happy. Having to drive just to get groceries is not enjoyable. It's suburban hell.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The best part? [URL="https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1434759412330029058"]

I think the folks who claim they love to drive, are mistaking the increased mobility of a car with the pleasure of actually physically controlling a car. Those are different things. The former is misleading and can easily be substituted in urban areas with high quality transit, bike paths, walkways, etc. The latter is best enjoyed in places with low traffic.

My best friend loves the physical act of driving, particularly with a manual transmission, but I personally just enjoy the freedom and flexibility aspect. If given the choice I'd rather be able to spend an hour+ trip doing something on my phone than having to fixate on what's ahead of me. I end up feeling mentally tired and frustrated after a long drive and sometimes even get a headache from eye strain. Automation would help solve that aspect, but wouldn't really benefit the people who love the act of driving. I feel like their best hope is probably really high quality VR.

That being said, while cities and suburbs can be changed over time to substantially reduce the need for cars, I do think there will always be edge cases where people want/need to venture outside the reach of mass transportation. It's just the idea that cars need to be a central part of the majority or plurality of people's lives that's the issue. When we talk about reducing car usage, people imagine everything staying the same in terms of density, separation of uses, road size, quantity/quality of transit, etc. but just with everyone making do without a car. And of course they react negatively to that idea because that obviously isn't practical in most settings. They forget that reducing car usage entails fixing all of those issues so that people won't have the same need for cars. It isn't just telling them not to use cars.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The best part? Their traffic went down in that neighbhourhood while boosting economic activity.

I think the folks who claim they love to drive, are mistaking the increased mobility of a car with the pleasure of actually physically controlling a car. Those are different things. The former is misleading and can easily be substituted in urban areas with high quality transit, bike paths, walkways, etc. The latter is best enjoyed in places with low traffic.

Give me a rural autobahn and give me a fully walkable urban neighbourhood and I'll be happy. Having to drive just to get groceries is not enjoyable. It's suburban hell.

Driving downtown Toronto during rush hour is not fun I agree. But driving the country roads is amazing and therapeutic.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yep. I visited this place when I was in Seoul. Super pleasant. Excellent example.

Same here. It was an amazing experience. And to think what it replaced.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Utrecht, in the Netherlands, brought back their canals, which were filled in with highways in the post-war era.



https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...riginal-water/

That is an amazing example of bringing back beauty to an urban setting. I almost couldn't believe the second photo with the canal replaced by a roadway!

[Truenorth00]

On the topic of EVs, I gotta say the model selection in North America sucks. And it's getting worse in Canada, as more and more OEMs just lump us in with the US.

It sucks, for example, that VW won't offer the ID3 in Canada and might abandon the compact segment in Canada entirely, when they eventually drop the ICE Golf. Sucks even worse that we don't get the nicer versions too. The ID3 comes off like a potato compared to the Cupra Born. And compare the ID4 we do get in North America to the Cupra Tavascan:

[ssiguy]

Using Seoul as a comparison is a false analogy.

Seoul is a city of 22 million with exceptionally high density with one of most dense and expansive subway and commuter rail networks. Kores also has one of the world's best inter-city rail systems.

Don't get me wrong, I very much applaud them for turning an ugly freeway into urban oasis but comparing Seoul to any Canadian city is a non-starter.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Using Seoul as a comparison is a false analogy.

Seoul is a city of 22 million with exceptionally high density with one of most dense and expansive subway and commuter rail networks. Kores also has one of the world's best inter-city rail systems.

Don't get me wrong, I very much applaud them for turning an ugly freeway into urban oasis but comparing Seoul to any Canadian city is a non-starter.

Still doesn't negate the fact that continuing to build for car-centric cities is a horrible idea, whether your consideration is the environment, public health, livability, affordability, or accessibility.

Cars aren't going to totally disappear, ever. But we can limit its use to when public transit, walking, and biking, is truly a non-starter.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Using Seoul as a comparison is a false analogy.

Cool. So you're just going to ignore all the other examples?

I even gave the example of Utrecht, a metro that's about the population of Ottawa.

As someone who is from London, you should understand better than most how much car dependency and sprawl can hurt a city. With no highways, most development at the fringe, and crap transit, London just keeps piling traffic on to their arterials. How's that working out?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cool. So you're just going to ignore all the other examples?

I even gave the example of Utrecht, a metro that's about the population of Ottawa.

As someone who is from London, you should understand better than most how much car dependency and sprawl can hurt a city. With no highways, most development at the fringe, and crap transit, London just keeps piling traffic on to their arterials. How's that working out?

It has given us (here in London) the worst of all worlds. Stroadsville and Big Box Barf, with a downtown that, although slowly improving, is still struggling mightily.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Using Seoul as a comparison is a false analogy.

Seoul is a city of 22 million with exceptionally high density with one of most dense and expansive subway and commuter rail networks. Kores also has one of the world's best inter-city rail systems.

Don't get me wrong, I very much applaud them for turning an ugly freeway into urban oasis but comparing Seoul to any Canadian city is a non-starter.

Not on the same scale as Seoul, but Halifax is redeveloping its downtown Cogswell Interchange and daylighting/rebuilding the Shubenacadie Canal through Dartmouth. These projects aren't directly connected to each other (different parts of the metro) but they're happening concurrently.

There's still car-oriented development in HRM but much/most of the current growth is in walkable areas where roadspace is being converted to bus and bike lanes, and in many cases further narrowed with new landscaping. EV charging infrastructure is growing rapidly, but overall there's a growing acknowledgement that the core will never be a place of fast driving and clear open roads.

[Nouvellecosse]

The use of Seoul as an example simply shows how a place can achieve positive outcomes by changing urban design to be less auto-centeric. That is something universal and in no way size-dependent beyond requiring an urban rather than rural setting. It's absolutely not true that you have to be a mega city with a huge rail system in order to make any change in that direction because there are already a wide range of cities of different sizes that are less auto-centric.

There are cities of millions that are more auto-dependent than towns and cities a fraction of that size. You can have a strong rail system in a much smaller city than Soeul (Stockholm, Berlin, etc), while really small cities don't even need rail systems to be walkable because they don't have the huge distances to cover. Many urban theorists over the years have posited the ideal city size in terms of efficiency to be in the 50k-100k range since there are enough people to support most common services but is still easy to travel across - if designed correctly. In other words, the only reason places like Seoul need such huge rail networks to avoid car-dependence is because of their size. In other words, isn't that all cities need to be large and have huge rail networks to avoid auto-dependence, it's just that huge cities need large rail networks to avoid auto-dependence.

Any example of places making such changes successfully will have some difference with other places because no two cities are the same. For anyone looking to make excuses, it will always be something. If it isn't different sizes, it's different culture. Different climate. Different geography. Different income level. Different history. It will always be something, even though it's rare that any of the excuses would actually prevent the changes.

[SpongeG]

Hyundai shuts down its engine development team amid focus on electric cars

Fred Lambert

- Dec. 28th 2021

Hyundai announced that it is shutting down its internal combustion engine development team as the automaker focuses on electric cars.



For 40 years the Korean automaker has been developing internal combustion engines to use in its vehicle lineup, but no more.

The Korea Economic Daily reports that Hyundai’s new R&D chief Park Chung-kook confirmed in an email to employees that they are shutting down new engine development:

“Now, it is inevitable to convert into electrification. Our own engine development is a great achievement, but we must change the system to create future innovation based on the great asset from the past.”

Hyundai reportedly had 12,000 people working on engines, but they are now being transferred to EV powertrain development:

...

https://electrek.co/2021/12/28/hyund...electric-cars/

[WarrenC12]

Cars are huge depreciating assets that sit parked ~95% of the time. Car shares can make great economic sense if they are properly managed.