This is purely a thought stimulation post.
A general lack of infrastructure resulted in parts of the third word leaping straight into the cell phone age. Once benefits of instant communication became apparent spinoffs like sending money by phone etc also developed to where they now embarrass a country who still see payment by cheque as a common sight.
Similarly, the struggles that Tesla and others have in convincing the gas guzzling market here in North America appear to be embraced by arms flung wide open in China and some of the smaller european nations.
The North American economy is thought to be robust but are we fooling ourselves into dismissing novel technologies simply because 'that's not how we've done it in the past!?
Is the North American economy stuck in a groove like a broken record because the naturally conservative consumer refuses to embrace new ideas.. even where they are shown to available?
Climate change shows how past activities, ignored for so long, have suddenly become a potential existential threat.
Will this happen to North American economies for similar reasons?

First adopters of technology get "trapped" with the first generation infrastructure that it can be difficult, expensive, impractical, and/or sometimes virtually impossible to replace. I have no doubt that London could have a dramatically different, improved underground network if it was possible to start over with a clean sheet of paper, but unfortunately the ground under London has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese and there is no practical way to "demolish" the existing network and replace it with something new, never mind taking the network out of service for ten years or more while the old lines are removed, and tunnels filled to make way for boring new tunnels.

To varying degrees this is the problem with all infrastructure, as technology improves and expectations change - so Germany has autobahns without speed limits, but German slip roads are so narrow and tight that it is hard to do more than 25mph on them. The US has an archaic power transmission grid, and much of the industrialized world has petrol stations every few miles with an established distribution network for petrol and diesel. There is no need for countries with few vehicles to build that petrol sale and distribution infrastructure if they can go "straight to electrical", but equally it might not make sense to tear up the petrol distribution infrastructure in the short term (whatever that means) if the existing infrastructure is good enough. For example the A-road from Swindon to Gloucester via Cirencester was "good enough" for traffic until about 20 years ago, when it was widened to dual carriageway, many of the junctions were replaced with flyovers, bridges, and tunnels, and it was rerouted in several places to create bypasses. The "old road" had been "good enough" for almost 2,000 years, since the Romans built it!

The bottom line is that complacent and conservative attitudes will ensure that novel technologies will be exploited offshore and will ensure that the North American economy will become, even more than it is now, one that demands and pays for products that such technologies will produce.
Asimov's Foundation describes a decadent galactic empire subservient to knowledge based civilisations, a pertinent example perhaps and it ends badly.

Problem is electric cars don't solve the fundamental issues that all cars cause - suburban sprawl, traffic gridlock, loss of greenspace etc.

To really get to the future we need to heavily invest in more transit infrastructure, and also stop allowing Canadian cities to build unlimited amounts of sprawling suburbs instead of more urban-style areas. Nothing wrong with detached homes, and there will always be demand for them, but they seem to get all the priority while there's a chronic lack of dense areas with offices and apartments.

Canadians are some of the worst polluters per-person because we build areas that are so car-dependent instead of nice walkable neighbourhoods.

I found Elon's interview on tunnels fascinating. If this link doesn't work, skip to the 1hr and 5 min mark.

Electric cars may not reduce gridlock, but automated cars will transform cities and transportation. About ten years away from wide scale implementation.

The reoccurring theme I read often online when it comes to electric cars is people saying they would if:

They could charge at home, still a problem for condo dwellers and renters of condos and apartments, less so for homeowners.

And if the electric cars were more affordable, which they seem to be getting to.

Range, people seem concerned about range and going on longer trips and being able to charge them in small town Canada.

Electric would be nice, but still well above our price range.

I do wish we had better transit, its good for 9-5 workers, those living/working downtown or living along a sky train, but its not so great from the burbs, those doing shift work, not living along sky train.

We can get to/from downtown quickly, but anywhere else will take a transfer or 2 and is time consuming, need more trains and rapid transit, Buses get stuck in the same traffic cars do.

I agree.

It may not be fully automated or self driven but these vehicles with machine based learning and much better data will likely help solve multiple transit issues.

I look at Toronto where I live and transit is grossly inadequate and funding no where near good enough. To build an effective underground infrastructure here is now almost impossible with the vast development of Skyscrapers and no new plans to put transit anywhere other than an existing street network Uber/Lyft have contributed significantly to helping reduce the need for car ownership or a reliance on transit. I sense a future of ride sharing and people paying a fixed monthly fee to ride sharing companies. Data and automation would help with spreading traffic out as well as regulating speeds to reduce accidents and hold up time.

Hmmmmm, not that much different from the horse drawn omnibus and it's later derivatives.
The wheel will turn full circle it seems

The problem that I see is that Uber, Lyft, etc all use cars, which is not really reducing traffic congestion, it may in fact be increasing it if the people using it would otherwise be using taxis or transit and not their own cars.

The other problem that I see is the lack of regulation in most places for the drivers of those companies. I've spent almost all my life being told "don't get in a car with a strange man. Taxis/cabs are OK because the drivers are licensed, checked and registered."

Now, we all know there can be bad apples in any area, but as the idea of the ride sharing cars was for people to use their cars on an ad hoc basis to pick up passengers, with no regulation, no licensing, no checking ...... it just seems to me that it is going against everything I was taught.

Though I do notice that now Uber drivers are striking for more money, "permanent" jobs, etc ........... which means they really are no longer a true ride sharing company.

We in the first world have become lazy and our feet something we only use to rest on the sofa. I glance out my window and pedestrians are a threatened species.
We regard our use personal transport as a god given right, we frown when we see those in the third world having to walk to get where they're going and wonder at their stamina to walk more than 100 yards without dropping dead..
We persist in clogging up every available space with a stationary 2 tonne truck whilst complaining about the lack of parking spaces and we sit in a permanent state of hypertension imprisoned by the traffic that jams our cities.
We all know that we personally contribute to the problem but refuse to do anything about it except make it worse.
Uber and Lyft solve little but increase convenience and parking space a little at the expense of cost, but since we live in a society incapable of making our own cup of morning coffee such behaviour is simply a part of life as we know it.
Like it or not, this personal 'right' to drive in some of our overcrowded cities and the reluctance anyone (and that means you and me) will take to do anything to ease the problem will eventually choke them, and us, to death.

Vancouver & BC we don't even have ride sharing yet, supposedly the regulations and such will be in place by end of the year clearing the way for them to operate, however they will not be able to operate as they do elsewhere and will face more regulation here vs what they experience elsewhere so who knows what it will be like.

Actually I should have named this thread as "Are we being HELD in the past"
Suggest a quick read of https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/24...s-tax-revenue/
One statistic mentioned, and I struggle to believe it, is " China, where over a million electric cars were sold in 2018".
Like many others I often fail to realise just what a massive market is open to be exploited in China.... and how open to new ideas the chinese are.
Trump might be right to argue that China should open their market more but with attitudes as they are in N America this won't make much impact where the system appears to discourage tomorrow's technologies while actively supporting those with limited future.

..........and so I had a look around.
Remember Rover, that long lost UK car manufacturer bought by the chinese and relabeled Roewe, well it's evolved, have a look at https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/roewe/e50
and
https://evobsession.com/a-pure-elect...the-roewe-ei5/
One quote from the E50 review highlights what needs to be done here.
"The Chinese government sees electric car technology as an opportunity for its homegrown car makers to leapfrog some of the established competition, as well as reduce pollution. Therefore, it wants Chinese buyers to favour such products, and offers incentives of around £7000 to buyers. In Shanghai, this price reduction is complemented by a further £2500 incentive plus the waiving of an £8000 licence plate fee."
But here we have the oil lobby and the money that goes with it to ensure that the EV remains unpopular.