Assumption versus reality
EVs change the fuel, not the physics
Electric vehicles deliver real, meaningful cuts in tailpipe emissions. But a costly assumption has taken hold: that they also solve congestion and transport inefficiency. They do not.
Myth: regenerative braking solves the loss
The energy has to travel twice, from the wheels into the battery and back out again, losing some each way. A full battery, a cold morning or a hard stop cuts regeneration further. On a typical stop about 60% of the energy is kept.
Myth: electric fleets end congestion
A signalised junction stops electric traffic exactly as often as diesel traffic. It still wastes the same time, still causes the same crashes, and still sends the same shockwave back down the road.
Side by side
An EV at a junction, and an EV at a free-flow junction
| At a signalised junction | At a free-flow junction | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy at each stop | About 40% of the stop’s energy lost, around a quarter at best | No forced stop, momentum kept |
| Time | The same queue and wait as any other vehicle | Continuous flow |
| Safety | The same conflict points as before | Road users separated by design |
| Air quality | No exhaust, but tyre particulates rise with vehicle weight | Less braking and less hard acceleration |
| Shockwave congestion | Unchanged: the physics of the queue is the same | Removed at source: no stop to propagate |
Congestion is not a fuel problem. It is a physics problem, and a free-flow junction solves it whatever the powertrain.
The engineering analogy
What if a 747 had to land every 200 km?
Picture a Boeing 747 on a 2,000 km route, forced to land, stop and take off again every 200 km: nine forced landings.
No one would design aviation that way. It is exactly how we design roads. Every junction and every crossing is a forced landing, for every vehicle, every time.