EVs

[BimmerM3]

Fun with perverse incentives.
Government-subsidised plug-in cars may never have been charged
Tens of thousands of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) bought with generous government grants may be burning as much fuel as combustion-engine cars.
​Data compiled for the BBC suggests that such vehicles in corporate fleets averaged just 40 miles per gallon (mpg), when they could have done 130.
Many drivers may never have unwrapped their charging cables, The Miles Consultancy said.
More...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46152853

I don't know if German politicians actually intended them this way, but I think incentives are more about increasing demand for EVs/PHEVs to encourage companies to invest in the new technology, which is why US incentives are temporary and/or include phase-outs. In that regard, the subsidies were still successful.

[Morris Minor]

I don't know if German politicians actually intended them this way, but I think incentives are more about increasing demand for EVs/PHEVs to encourage companies to invest in the new technology, which is why US incentives are temporary and/or include phase-outs. In that regard, the subsidies were still successful.

I can see the rationale of seeding pure EV demand with tax breaks & credits.
I also see the rationale of people reaching into their fellow taxpayers' wallets and using the money towards cheap ICE cars whose only disadvantages are lugging the deadweight of unused electric motors and battery packs.

[BimmerM3]

I also see the rationale of people reaching into their fellow taxpayers' wallets and using the money towards cheap ICE cars whose only disadvantages are lugging the deadweight of unused electric motors and battery packs.

Unused? Maybe under-used, but they still operate as traditional hybrid vehicles.

And I don't know why it really matters if the incentive is accomplishing its purpose.

[Submariner]

It's a matter of timing I guess. Cities like NYC and the like got it perfect. And even NYC's public transportation has mega problems. It's falling apart

They are building some rail here, but the coverage is so sparse it's basically useless for most people. And I've heard of multiple people getting carjacked 

Public transportation sounds good in theory but big infrastructure is very hard these days. There have to be other solutions, like decentralizing commercial/business facilities.

NYC has a very vocal, very mentally ill NIMBY crowd (basically killed the N/W extension to LaGuardia, leading the city to instead build the god awful Willets Point AirTrain extension), and a laughable inept, corrupt MTA led by that filthy mafia-lite POS Andrew Cuomo.

And I wouldn't say NYC got it perfect in the past either.  The 4/5/6 line is a pretty spectacular hodgepodge of too-narrow track (the A-division cars are markedly smaller than B-division for this reason), a sharp curve downtown that kills thoroughfare speed, the split level tracks at Lex/59th, zero possibility for track expansion (due in large part to it's proximity to GCT and the aforementioned bi-level tracks around Lex/59th), the aforementioned NIMBY crowd (you live in NYC you jerk offs), etc. 

[12,000 RPM]

Robert Moses' legacy pulled the pendulum far enough to swing NIMBYism into looney territory.

4/5/6 was special. It got so bad I stopped buying monthly Metrocards and just rode my motorcycle or bicycle down. Still love my city though

[Submariner]

Robert Moses' legacy pulled the pendulum far enough to swing NIMBYism into looney territory.

4/5/6 was special. It got so bad I stopped buying monthly Metrocards and just rode my motorcycle or bicycle down. Still love my city though

Oh yeah, no doubt NYC is awesome, but the MTA just sucks ass.  And the A/C is a dumpster fire too, now.  Some days in Brooklyn it's just damn near unrideable. 

Robert Moses probably supercharged NIMBYism in NYC, but there are no shortage of people who have actual nervous breakdowns during community review meetings when a developer proposes a tall residential building in the low 60's on the west side, or people who throw temper tantrums when someone wants to reno some cesspool post war apartment building in the village because 'history' (they rarely have any) or 'character' (the building in question is usually some low rise turd with literally zero aesthetic appeal to it).

I've worked on a few projects up in Massachusetts where people will come out to complain that a small retail building going up some 500 feet away from them will increase crime, traffic (even when the most liberal traffic studies commissioned show a negligible number of cars per hour increase), will drive down home values (their homes are almost worthless to begin with), cast shadows (yeah), cause pollution, create undue noise, endanger spotted salamanders (spotted salamanders are a popular talking point, even if the building is situated on pre-existing highway business zoned land), not generate enough tax dollars or jobs (when both are scarce and people aren't exactly lining up to build in town), etc, etc, etc.

Honest to God, I think NIMBYism is an actual mental illness, and most people who exhibit it are genuinely nasty, awful individuals whom I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

[giant_mtb]

NIMBY?

[BimmerM3]

NIMBY?

"Not In My BackYard"

i.e. people who are overly concerned with potential negative side effects of business/policies/whatever near where they live, such being afraid of a gas station around the corner increasing crime and stuff like that.

[giant_mtb]

"Not In My BackYard"

i.e. people who are overly concerned with potential negative side effects of business/policies/whatever near where they live, such being afraid of a gas station around the corner increasing crime and stuff like that.

Ahhh gotcha. These posts make much more sense now.

[Morris Minor]

Unused? Maybe under-used, but they still operate as traditional hybrid vehicles.

And I don't know why it really matters if the incentive is accomplishing its purpose.

Point taken. "Under-used" is more appropriate.

[AutobahnSHO]

Unused? Maybe under-used, but they still operate as traditional hybrid vehicles.

And I don't know why it really matters if the incentive is accomplishing its purpose.

Cuz innocent tax paying bystanders are involved?

[BimmerM3]

Cuz innocent tax paying bystanders are involved?

Which is irrelevant - they're involved whether or not the end-user takes advantages of the plug-in capability.

[12,000 RPM]

Oh yeah, no doubt NYC is awesome, but the MTA just sucks ass.  And the A/C is a dumpster fire too, now.  Some days in Brooklyn it's just damn near unrideable. 

Robert Moses probably supercharged NIMBYism in NYC, but there are no shortage of people who have actual nervous breakdowns during community review meetings when a developer proposes a tall residential building in the low 60's on the west side, or people who throw temper tantrums when someone wants to reno some cesspool post war apartment building in the village because 'history' (they rarely have any) or 'character' (the building in question is usually some low rise turd with literally zero aesthetic appeal to it).

I've worked on a few projects up in Massachusetts where people will come out to complain that a small retail building going up some 500 feet away from them will increase crime, traffic (even when the most liberal traffic studies commissioned show a negligible number of cars per hour increase), will drive down home values (their homes are almost worthless to begin with), cast shadows (yeah), cause pollution, create undue noise, endanger spotted salamanders (spotted salamanders are a popular talking point, even if the building is situated on pre-existing highway business zoned land), not generate enough tax dollars or jobs (when both are scarce and people aren't exactly lining up to build in town), etc, etc, etc.

Honest to God, I think NIMBYism is an actual mental illness, and most people who exhibit it are genuinely nasty, awful individuals whom I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Thank you for that stroll down NYC memory lane

I don't know that it's so crazy for people to want to protect their interests. For example with the East Village renovations.... tenants know those mean higher rents and possibly the boot. So the upsides for them are irrelevant. Prob the same story for the UWS folks. You see an opportunity to generate returns on capital.... they see the end of their time in NYC pretty much. Both sides have legitimate concerns.... good leadership would be able to navigate the conflicting interests. NYC is becoming a playground for the rich that is still heavily dependent on the poor and middle class to operate. Something has to give

[GoCougs]

I don't know if German politicians actually intended them this way, but I think incentives are more about increasing demand for EVs/PHEVs to encourage companies to invest in the new technology, which is why US incentives are temporary and/or include phase-outs. In that regard, the subsidies were still successful.

The subsidy, as all subsidies, was a catastrophe. 20 years on and pretty much nobody buys a hybrid that isn't a Toyota (and most all reports indicate that hybrids, just as with EVs, are a still a money loser) and hybrids are just a fraction of a fraction of the overall market.

[veeman]

I much prefer driving to public transportation.  I don't have that much experience with it in Europe but using public transportation in Italy and Spain was literally a game of let's play whether you had your wallet at the end of your ride or not.  I had to carry my wife's purse around because I felt she was not proactive enough about keeping the zippers closed and wallet secure.  When it was standing room only I was hunched over her purse like a rugby player holding the ball. 

In New York City I also find public transportation mostly sucks.  It's commonly delayed, it's usually longer than just driving or Uber, and it's not cheap.  You gotta take a train to the city and once in the city, you gotta take a subway if you're going anywhere that's not near Grand Central Station. That's two tickets.  There and back, that's four tickets.  Family of 4, that's 16 tickets.  Yeah, you can do round trip tickets but if you don't go regularly, for a family it's cheaper to drive even with the 50 dollar parking fee which you can usually get for cheaper with websites like ParkWhiz and stuff.  For example every year around Christmas time we go to Manhattan to see the decorations, big Christmas tree, ice-rink, crowds, a little window shopping.  Lots of traffic.  Why the heck would I take public transportation?  It's cold out, it's night when I get back, I'm lugging around packages and kids, and it isn't that cheap. Just sit in your warm comfy car, kids watch a movie in the back, and it's two hours there and two hours back.  I don't get stressed about it.  Drive time is what it is.  If it's just yourself and you're using to commute back and forth to work, public transportation works.  It's quicker usually and cheaper.  Plus exercise.  Everything else, especially off peak hours in the night with family, it sucks. It's probably different in Japan, China, Singapore.  I haven't been.

[SJ_GTI]

When I was in college I drove to NYC, took the bus to NYC (cheapest), and took the train to NYC at various times. IME taking the train was the easiest and that has stuck with me. The few times I have gone to NYC since I have always taken the train (normally from Princeton).

[MrH]

Seattle could've built a subway with federal $$$ back in the 60's, but NIMBYs voted it down. Atlanta got the money instead. There's so much regret over that.

If only Seattle got it instead...their traffic situation could be like Atlanta's today!

[Laconian]

I'm pretty sure that would be an upgrade for us...

[BimmerM3]

I'm pretty sure that would be an upgrade for us...

Not too many cities can claim that, but depending on where you live in each respective city, it's possible based on what I've heard from you and other Seattle friends.

When the whole public transit topic came up a few days ago, I looked into some stats, and I'm actually a little surprised at how high MARTA's heavy rail ranks for ridership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

[Xer0]

I much prefer driving to public transportation.  I don't have that much experience with it in Europe but using public transportation in Italy and Spain was literally a game of let's play whether you had your wallet at the end of your ride or not.  I had to carry my wife's purse around because I felt she was not proactive enough about keeping the zippers closed and wallet secure.  When it was standing room only I was hunched over her purse like a rugby player holding the ball. 

In New York City I also find public transportation mostly sucks.  It's commonly delayed, it's usually longer than just driving or Uber, and it's not cheap.  You gotta take a train to the city and once in the city, you gotta take a subway if you're going anywhere that's not near Grand Central Station. That's two tickets.  There and back, that's four tickets.  Family of 4, that's 16 tickets.  Yeah, you can do round trip tickets but if you don't go regularly, for a family it's cheaper to drive even with the 50 dollar parking fee which you can usually get for cheaper with websites like ParkWhiz and stuff.  For example every year around Christmas time we go to Manhattan to see the decorations, big Christmas tree, ice-rink, crowds, a little window shopping.  Lots of traffic.  Why the heck would I take public transportation?  It's cold out, it's night when I get back, I'm lugging around packages and kids, and it isn't that cheap. Just sit in your warm comfy car, kids watch a movie in the back, and it's two hours there and two hours back.  I don't get stressed about it.  Drive time is what it is.  If it's just yourself and you're using to commute back and forth to work, public transportation works.  It's quicker usually and cheaper.  Plus exercise.  Everything else, especially off peak hours in the night with family, it sucks. It's probably different in Japan, China, Singapore.  I haven't been.

I'd say that unless you're single or at most a couple, driving makes sense almost 99% of the time vs public transit.  I imagine lugging around kids and their stuff on multiple trains/buses to be just miserable. 

[Submariner]

Thank you for that stroll down NYC memory lane

I don't know that it's so crazy for people to want to protect their interests. For example with the East Village renovations.... tenants know those mean higher rents and possibly the boot. So the upsides for them are irrelevant. Prob the same story for the UWS folks. You see an opportunity to generate returns on capital.... they see the end of their time in NYC pretty much. Both sides have legitimate concerns.... good leadership would be able to navigate the conflicting interests. NYC is becoming a playground for the rich that is still heavily dependent on the poor and middle class to operate. Something has to give

I was thinking of a few West Village proposals, but its all the same really.  Shitty old building with rotting 1br's going for $4k a month is slated for redevelopment - you know, appliances made sometime after the end of the Cold War, walls not made of mold, etc.  assholes come out of the woodwork to claim that some obscure artist drew a picture on the garbage brick face back in 1977 and therefore, it cannot be touched.  And these aren't even resident owned buildings - just rentals with a shovel full of entitlement strewn on top.

Hell, there is a vacant lot on Hudson and w10th that has sat undeveloped for years because those psychotic fucks think a 5 story co-op with one of the nicest facades I've seen in recent memory is going to ruin the character of the village.  Again, there is nothing rational about their protests.  Across the board, most NIMBYism is a form of mental illness and should be ridiculed, mocked, and snuffed out.

NYC has hundreds of thousands of apartments, and a few hundred luxury condos coming online will not affect their rents or the value of their home. 

[BimmerM3]

In New York City I also find public transportation mostly sucks.  It's commonly delayed, it's usually longer than just driving or Uber, and it's not cheap.  You gotta take a train to the city and once in the city, you gotta take a subway if you're going anywhere that's not near Grand Central Station. That's two tickets.  There and back, that's four tickets.  Family of 4, that's 16 tickets.  Yeah, you can do round trip tickets but if you don't go regularly, for a family it's cheaper to drive even with the 50 dollar parking fee which you can usually get for cheaper with websites like ParkWhiz and stuff.  For example every year around Christmas time we go to Manhattan to see the decorations, big Christmas tree, ice-rink, crowds, a little window shopping.  Lots of traffic.  Why the heck would I take public transportation?  It's cold out, it's night when I get back, I'm lugging around packages and kids, and it isn't that cheap. Just sit in your warm comfy car, kids watch a movie in the back, and it's two hours there and two hours back.  I don't get stressed about it.  Drive time is what it is.  If it's just yourself and you're using to commute back and forth to work, public transportation works.  It's quicker usually and cheaper.  Plus exercise.  Everything else, especially off peak hours in the night with family, it sucks. It's probably different in Japan, China, Singapore.  I haven't been.

I'd say that unless you're single or at most a couple, driving makes sense almost 99% of the time vs public transit.  I imagine lugging around kids and their stuff on multiple trains/buses to be just miserable. 

Public transportation is primarily for commuters, not people lugging their families around.

I was thinking of a few West Village proposals, but its all the same really.  Shitty old building with rotting 1br's going for $4k a month is slated for redevelopment - you know, appliances made sometime after the end of the Cold War, walls not made of mold, etc.  assholes come out of the woodwork to claim that some obscure artist drew a picture on the garbage brick face back in 1977 and therefore, it cannot be touched.  And these aren't even resident owned buildings - just rentals with a shovel full of entitlement strewn on top.

Hell, there is a vacant lot on Hudson and w10th that has sat undeveloped for years because those psychotic fucks think a 5 story co-op with one of the nicest facades I've seen in recent memory is going to ruin the character of the village.  Again, there is nothing rational about their protests.  Across the board, most NIMBYism is a form of mental illness and should be ridiculed, mocked, and snuffed out.

NYC has hundreds of thousands of apartments, and a few hundred luxury condos coming online will not affect their rents or the value of their home. 

One building might not have a massive effect, but over time it can absolutely have an effect. That's the whole issue with gentrification. Not necessarily saying that's a reason not to do it, but as Sporty said, I'm not sure I blame the residents for trying to prevent it.

But at the same time, it's a pretty simple supply/demand problem. I don't see demand going down in NYC, so there you have it.

[12,000 RPM]

YEa, Sub I'm a little surprised at your view lol. You are being too developer centric. I'm guessing you don't know what it's like to be priced or bought out of an apartment. It sucks.

1 nice building goes up on a shitty but well located block, other landlords take notice. "A nice facade and some reno can up me to what?" Then everybody starts. And the residents go. Sure there are hundreds of thousands of apartments in NYC. But next to none of them are affordable and in good locations. So as a developer I get that it's annoying but the tenants' MO is hardly irrational. If the city were doing its job better it would serve as a productive intermediary.... because in isolation neither group will understand the other. One side is flush with capital and tasked with returning on it; the other side is broke and concerned with survival. There has to be some middle ground

[cawimmer430]

I would not be opposed to an electric car for urban usage, provided my garage has electric car charging capabilities/stations. It does not. And the owners of my apartment complex have no desire to add them. And I don't want to deal with the hassle of finding a charging spot and waiting for the car to top-up. Charging an electric car here in my city is a bit of a problem. There are several electric charging stations in Munich but they only offer space for two cars at a time. The same at the airport - charging stations for two cars only in the park garage(s). The gas stations in my area have zero EV charging capabilities. The charging stations are always in use: Tesla's, BMW i3/i8s, Nissan Leaf's, Renault Zoe's, Mercedes' and Toyota plug-in-hybrids etc. It's a hassle, especially in my case where time is always important.

An EV as a daily driver right now is just not appealing. Maybe when they develop an EV with a range of 1000 km (on paper - so real world range 400-500 km) that can be topped up in five minutes, then I might change my mind.

Also, the winter range of EV's is a joke.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rbfpQsoTcI

[cawimmer430]

BTW if I could pick an EV for city use I'd love to have a Renault Zoe. So damn cute and cool-looking.

[Laconian]

Perhaps a hydrogen fuel cell car would make sense for the range-anxious. Portions of the electric drivetrain can be shared with battery EVs, with the exception that the battery is replaced with a fuel cell stack, a compressed gas tank, and a supercapacitor or small battery for handling peaky loads. The tank would be filled in minutes, like gasoline, and provide range similar to gasoline cars.

Urban folks drive Zoes for occasional use under space constraints.
Suburban folks drive Bolts and Teslas for longer regular slogs in and out of employment centers.
Rural You-Peers drive Hindenbergs.

[93JC]

I've worked on a few projects up in Massachusetts where people will come out to complain that a small retail building going up some 500 feet away from them will [...] will drive down home values (their homes are almost worthless to begin with)...

That kind of dismissive attitude is quite literally why people are enraged by asshole developers.

[CaminoRacer]

From my experience, shitty places have only slightly lower rent than some newer, nicer places. The dumps know they're the bottom end so they know that they can gouge people since they're only other option is no apartment at all. So building newer buildings might not really raise the average rent by much

[Morris Minor]

I can absolutely see an EV as a compelling proposition for local/commuting purposes, provided you could house it in your own garage.with your own charging gear.
The other car would be ICE, or some flavor of hybrid. And I'm thinking, that in most households, the EV would see far higher usage that the ICE car.

[12,000 RPM]

Yea I keep hearing the same annoying anti-EV strawmen. You're 100% right, at least for us. I think I drive double the mileage of my wife's car, but whenever we need to go far we usually take her car. Chargers are weatherproof so I'd have no problem keeping my car outside- particularly if I could pre-warm certain components in the winter.

I'm almost getting annoyed that manufacturers are plowing money into infrastructure.... if they invest in the cars the people who have their own infrastructure (i.e. ability to charge at home) will jump. Doesn't matter how many charging stations there are when the only affordable EVs are things like the Leaf. They need to appeal on value to the left brain and excitement for the right.