In message , at 16:31:03 on
Thu, 5 Jul 2018, David Walters remarked:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:06:50 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:35:10 on
Thu, 5 Jul 2018, David Walters remarked:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:38:09 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In fact "installing chargers" isn't the main problem.

boltar stated "the majority of people in this country ... don't have a
driveway" which is what I was questioning.

Neither garages nor "other off street parking" equate to "driveways".
Houses (and increasing so in new developments) have garages in blocks
some distance away. Again, often due to planning fashion, trying to hide
them away from view. Or older properties with garages at the end of
their garden reached by a narrow lane down the backs of the houses.

I think we should agree to disagree on how difficult this will be. I
know people who have installed EV chargers in places that weren't next to
their home and it was complicated but achievable and they were the first
to do it.

Early adopters will pay vastly more than the economic payback for
fashion statements like that.

I think it will get easier, there will be local installers to
take away the hassle etc.

Digging 2ft deep trenches in the road (there's one near me this week for
a brown-field new house) is neither trivial nor cheap.

And as I've said, there's little point in connecting yourself to a local
distribution network that's simply not sized to accommodate EV chargers.

It's upgrading the local electricity supply infrastructure to be
able to cope with the extra load (even assuming central generating
has the capacity).

I don't really know about that. I've seen some people claim smart chargers
which know how busy the local grid is will save the day. If I had an
EV I'd plug it in almost every time I parked at home but it wouldn't need
anything like a full charge most of the time.

The National Grid has done extensive studies of this and has concluded
there are many homes which have little prospect of supporting EV
charging in the foreseeable future because the local supply is only
sized at about 2kW per property (and most of that will be used up by
existing consumption patterns).

They have predicted that overall generating and supply capacity would be
saturated at about 20% EV penetration, and that's if they spend the next
decade putting some remediation measures in place. And if every possible
smart/off-peak etc tuning is done.

I can't find that study, do you have a link to it? I found
https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/arti...ams-future-evs
which is more than a little vague.

Try "Electric vehicles, energy demand, future energy scenarios"
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

What is the difference between hearing aliens through the
fillings in your teeth and hearing Jesus in your heart?

On 06/07/2018 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.

Please cite evidence because this is just not my experience for the
large majority of roads in London that I travel on and/or have seen.

Yes - sections of arterial road and the north circular etc may well do,
but that's not the vast majority of London, and I would challenge anyone
outside of those roads to even do 15 miles in an hour, let alone 30.

On 06/07/2018 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.


Which, presumably, explains why the average speed of traffic in London
is about 8mph.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/07/2018 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.

Which, presumably, explains why the average speed of traffic in London
is about 8mph.

I suspect different definitions of “London� are being used. I would guess
the 8 mph is central London, which is not where the majority of “Londoners�
live.

Robin

Only those sections of the North Circular Road which have not been "improved" by TfL allow traffic to flow smoothly. Those sections which TfL have "improved" e.g. New Southgate and Palmers Green are now far worse than they used to be. TfL strikes again!

On 06/07/2018 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.

On the major arterial routes, outside the rush hour, you may be right.

During the rush hour, average speed from Heathrow to Hyde Park corner
can take well over an hour, for an average speed of 10 mph.

Since Boris gave us the Cycle Superhighways, one coach company based
near Tower Bridge has seen a reduction in average speeds of their
coaches from 11 mph to 5.5 mph on all routes. According to TfL figures,
on the cycle superhighway from the Tower to Westminster, journey times
for motor vehicles have increased by 6 minutes on average , and for
cyclists by a minute or so. (They have also massively increased on the
Highway, due to the choke point introduced at the Tower of London.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 07:00:14 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Since Boris gave us the Cycle Superhighways, one coach company based
near Tower Bridge has seen a reduction in average speeds of their
coaches from 11 mph to 5.5 mph on all routes. According to TfL figures,
on the cycle superhighway from the Tower to Westminster, journey times
for motor vehicles have increased by 6 minutes on average , and for
cyclists by a minute or so. (They have also massively increased on the
Highway, due to the choke point introduced at the Tower of London.)

Which they almost certainly knew would happen beforehand. IMO the cycle
highway was simply a convenient cover for restricting traffic flow to try and
keep it out of central london.

On 07/07/2018 12:15, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 07:00:14 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Since Boris gave us the Cycle Superhighways, one coach company based
near Tower Bridge has seen a reduction in average speeds of their
coaches from 11 mph to 5.5 mph on all routes. According to TfL figures,
on the cycle superhighway from the Tower to Westminster, journey times
for motor vehicles have increased by 6 minutes on average , and for
cyclists by a minute or so. (They have also massively increased on the
Highway, due to the choke point introduced at the Tower of London.)

Which they almost certainly knew would happen beforehand. IMO the cycle
highway was simply a convenient cover for restricting traffic flow to try and
keep it out of central london.

You seem to be almost as cynical as I am. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 07/07/2018 07:00, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/07/2018 13:34, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:49:07AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2018 10:07, wrote:
I can't remember the exact speed, but at something very roughly
around 30mph
most vehicle noises comes from the tyres anyway so on high speed
roads it
won't make much difference noise wise. On rows with slow moving
traffic OTOH it
could improve residents lives immensely.
So, London then?

Traffic flows just fine in the vast majority of London, where the vast
majority of Londoners live, at about 30mph.

On the major arterial routes, outside the rush hour, you may be right.

During the rush hour, average speed from Heathrow to Hyde Park corner
can take well over an hour, for an average speed of 10 mph.

Since Boris gave us the Cycle Superhighways, one coach company based
near Tower Bridge has seen a reduction in average speeds of their
coaches from 11 mph to 5.5 mph on all routes. According to TfL figures,
on the cycle superhighway from the Tower to Westminster, journey times
for motor vehicles have increased by 6 minutes on average , and for
cyclists by a minute or so. (They have also massively* increased on the
Highway, due to the choke point introduced at the Tower of London.)

Which has also massively increased rat running on local residential
streets, increasing pollution for people who didn't suffer massively
from it before. Nice one TfL.