The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by travis3000

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

Almost all the unpleasantness of driving into downtown Vancouver comes from deliberate attempts by city bureaucrats to make it so. Arterials that don’t ban parking so you get one or two cars screwing up traffic flow. Then there’s the 4 lane streets downtown that the city allows parking in 2 of the lanes when people are trying to get downtown for events (and to spend money). There’s plenty of parkade spots down, the city just wants meter revenue and to screw over motorists.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There’s plenty of parkade spots down, the city just wants meter revenue and to screw over motorists.

You want to park a two tonne metal box and take up 180 sqft of real estate in one of the most expensive cities on the planet, and you're surprised they charge for parking?

Also curbside parking is a traffic calming measure. What you deem as "screwing over motorists" exists to improve the life expectancy of pedestrians in the core. If those parked cars weren't there, drivers would be ripping through downtown Vancouver.

[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/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One of the issues with EV sales is that, despite ICE being phased out, is that they will be difficult to resell.

Every year ICE cars have changed usually for the better but the changes are incremental. This means that a 2022 Honda Civic may have better bells & whistles but the basic car is still the same. This is why people feel comfortable buying used cars.

The situation with EVs is vastly different. Battery technology is developing so fast that the changes are not incremental but rather metamorphic. The EV of just 5 years from now will be vastly different from the ones even today. The batteries will be much smaller & lighter, the cars will have significantly longer range and much shorter recharge times.

More than this, the prices are falling which is never happened with cars since the Model T. Why buy a car now when you can get a vastly superior one in 5 years for less money?

Not to mention that it will probably be impractical for companies to stock a lot of parts for the outdated versions. This could result in a number of the 'early' EVs being scrapped before they are completely worn out, as newer versions eclipse the usefulness of the older ones.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I definitely enjoy the freedom and control of being able to go where/when I want that a car provides. That's sort of why I'm drawn to the idea of making an ultra efficient car since I don't want to give up the option entirely. Although part of that is down to how much regional mass transportation has degraded in this country over time. When I look at historical railway maps of NS for instance it makes my heart ache. Even during my childhood just a few decades ago the amount of rail and bus service compared to now is mind blowing.

That being said, while cars aren't "evil" (I don't actually believe in the concept of evil) the high degree to which they're used and the infrastructure needed to support that are extremely destructive environmentally. But it's important to include quality of life in any discussion of sustainability, not only to ensure public buy in, but because there's little point to having a planet that supports billions of lives if those people don't actually have enjoyable existences.

Excellent points. At least in NS the quality of transit has vastly decreased over the decades. Halifax is working to improve it, but it's still light years from where it should be IMHO.

I too regularly mourn the loss of all the smaller rail routes in NS. Up until about 1990 you could still take a rail excursion from Halifax to the Annapolis Valley, for example, whereas the only way to get there today is by car, or bus (if you are okay with only being able to leave at around 5:30 pm each day). Now the railbeds see mostly ATV use, unfortunately. Of course you can bike it (I have) if you have 6+ hours to kill for each direction (not to mention physical energy for a round trip). Then you're taking your life in your hands as there is essentially zero bicycle infrastructure outside the city.

I also enjoy the freedom that a car provides in that sense (given the current circumstances with transit and infrastructure), and agree that it adds to quality of life for those of us fortunate enough to live in rich countries, like we do. So a light, efficient EV seems like a good alternative to enjoy this luxury while lowering our impact on the environment (at least compared to current ICVs). I also hope that weight will be able to be reduced in future EVs, as the current ones are in the same weight range as ICVs, but I was skewered and essentially accused of being anti-EV in the other car thread when I mentioned current EV weight, so I'll leave it there.

I don't want to create a tangent, but I have to say that every time I read a climate discussion, the elephant in the room seems to be the planet's ever-increasing population. Yet it's never really discussed. Of course it would be difficult to near-impossible to convince people to have less children, not to mention the lack of political will since many countries are still relying on growth economy. But it always seems like we are chasing our tail on this. It's a race to find better technology to keep us from self-destructing, while the world's population continues to explode in numbers, therefore creating more people to use energy with the new technology, therefore creating the need for better technology due to all those people using it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That is so much better than watching some college kid trying to cram 2x4 into his Honda Civic at Home Depot or watching suburban dad trying to get the new fridge he bought at Sears into his CRV.

These places have this cool thing called "delivery service". You pay them something like $20 to $50, and the large, heavy items magically arrive at your door. For that reason I've never bought the large pickup argument for many users. I've never owned a truck or SUV in my life, but have purchased all those large heavy items without having one of these vehicles. The fifty bucks I paid for delivery is pocket change compared to the costs (both financially and environmentally) of these large trucks. Also cheaper than renting one, for that matter.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't want to create a tangent, but I have to say that every time I read a climate discussion, the elephant in the room seems to be the planet's ever-increasing population. Yet it's never really discussed. Of course it would be difficult to near-impossible to convince people to have less children, not to mention the lack of political will since many countries are still relying on growth economy. But it always seems like we are chasing our tail on this. It's a race to find better technology to keep us from self-destructing, while the world's population continues to explode in numbers, therefore creating more people to use energy with the new technology, therefore creating the need for better technology due to all those people using it.

No need to. They're already doing so:

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

These places have this cool thing called "delivery service". You pay them something like $20 to $50, and the large, heavy items magically arrive at your door. For that reason I've never bought the large pickup argument for many users. I've never owned a truck or SUV in my life, but have purchased all those large heavy items without having one of these vehicles. The fifty bucks I paid for delivery is pocket change compared to the costs (both financially and environmentally) of these large trucks. Also cheaper than renting one, for that matter.

The problem with delivery services is that they are:

1) Expensive, relative to the item being delivered.
2) Inflexible on schedule, requiring you to book based on the stores availability and timing.
3) Requires a different arrangement at every store.

Carsharing is catching on for all of the above reasons elsewhere. Book what you want, when you want, for how long you want.

Should be noted that delivery is better in places with more public transit too. It's pretty basic in North America, because stores generally assume that most customers will drive over and pick it up themselves. Meanwhile, it's routine to get fresh groceries delivered in many of the denser cities of Europe, and get same day delivery of appliances in Japan.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

No need to. They're already doing so:

....

This has been mentioned numerous times in the Climate Change Thread. And it still comes up. It's a convenient excuse for the West to avoid any action. "We aren't the ones having too many babies." Meanwhile, one Canadian has the footprint of 40 Bangladeshis. So really, is the problem too many Bangladeshis in the world?

Fertility rates are highly correlated with economic growth and female levels of education (which itself is somewhat correlated with economic growth). As those go up, fertility falls. We're now at the point, where there's only one continent with growing fertility: Africa. Even India has now fallen below replacement and is about to start seeing its population age and decline. And they did it without China's draconian one-child policy. The sooner we can reduce poverty in Africa, they sooner we will see similar trends take hold there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not to mention that it will probably be impractical for companies to stock a lot of parts for the outdated versions. This could result in a number of the 'early' EVs being scrapped before they are completely worn out, as newer versions eclipse the usefulness of the older ones.

And yet, there's not much actual evidence of this happening. Most 2013 Teslas are still on the road. Old Nissan Leafs are still bought and used as city vehicles by seniors, students, etc.

Also, there's really not a huge number of "early" EVs. Let's not forget that global plug-in sales were under six figures a decade ago. Heck, I was being mocked on this forum just 2-3 years ago for saying EVs might get 30-40% of sales by 2030. "They are only at 1% now. LOL."