News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Started by saturnine, December 11, 2007, 06:55:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

saturnine

Think about it this way: There is a limited amount of fossil fuels in the ground. At a certain point extraction from the ground becomes more and more expensive from an oil or gas well and as the well dries up less and less oil or gas comes out. This concept can be applied to the world as a whole, and many experts think that we have used up about half the world's supply as of now, meaning supplies of oil and gas could "peak" soon, or may already have. This is why people are now looking at developing the tar sands and turning to coal liquification. Undoubtedly, however, you can't keep up the same amount of energy use that people in the industrialized world, and particularly the US, are currently using. You will exhaust the world's energy supplies.

At the same time as this, all of the pollution this fossil fuel burning is creating is warming the planet. If this continues at current rates, much of the roads and highways we drive on will be underwater at some time, along with much of the world's landmass because of polar ice meltings. By losing this much land, and as the worlds heats up, causing food supplies to plummet.... (well, enough of this, you get the point, right? Driving will be the least of everyone's worries.)

Mass automobile use only started in the 1940s and 50s. That's about 60 years in the history of the earth's billions. It took millions if not billions of years to produce the energy that those automobiles are using up in virtually no time. Carbon fuels take geological time to build up. What are drivers supposed to do when the earth starts running out? Park at the curb for 500 million years and wait for more gas?

rlrose328

#1
Quote from: "saturnine"Mass automobile use only started in the 1940s and 50s. That's about 60 years in the history of the earth's billions. It took millions if not billions of years to produce the energy that those automobiles are using up in virtually no time. Carbon fuels take geological time to build up. What are drivers supposed to do when the earth starts running out? Park at the curb for 500 million years and wait for more gas?

So you were referring to only gas-powered cars or ALL cars?  If you were referring to only those that are gas-powered, I can agree with you.  Gas fuel will disappear at some point.  Hopefully, they will have developed some form of power to replace gas (hopefully, electric... hydrogen has its own problems).

Eliminating cars altogether is not realistic.  Public transit is nowhere NEAR universal and there is a huge segment of our population that cannot ride bikes (I'm one of them) and motorcycles/mopeds are gas-powered.  What about towns that are far away from cities?  How will they get around?  Too far to ride a bike and no bus service.  Trains are not reliable.  The era of people living close to where they work and are entertained is gone... we are a mobile society and that means of mobility is the automobile.

Cars are a necessary part of life, my friend.  We need to optomize them regardless how much money is to be made by the car and fuel industries.  They should be smaller, efficient, and not powered by fossil fuels.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


McQ

#2
Quote from: "rlrose328"
Quote from: "saturnine"Mass automobile use only started in the 1940s and 50s. That's about 60 years in the history of the earth's billions. It took millions if not billions of years to produce the energy that those automobiles are using up in virtually no time. Carbon fuels take geological time to build up. What are drivers supposed to do when the earth starts running out? Park at the curb for 500 million years and wait for more gas?

So you were referring to only gas-powered cars or ALL cars?  If you were referring to only those that are gas-powered, I can agree with you.  Gas fuel will disappear at some point.  Hopefully, they will have developed some form of power to replace gas (hopefully, electric... hydrogen has its own problems).

Eliminating cars altogether is not realistic.  Public transit is nowhere NEAR universal and there is a huge segment of our population that cannot ride bikes (I'm one of them) and motorcycles/mopeds are gas-powered.  What about towns that are far away from cities?  How will they get around?  Too far to ride a bike and no bus service.  Trains are not reliable.  The era of people living close to where they work and are entertained is gone... we are a mobile society and that means of mobility is the automobile.

Cars are a necessary part of life, my friend.  We need to optomize them regardless how much money is to be made by the car and fuel industries.  They should be smaller, efficient, and not powered by fossil fuels.

rose, I understand your obvious frustration with the seeming lack of viable options for transportation, but I have to point out that your view seems very....well....American. And that's a pretty narrow and naive point of view in this particular situation. The following is not a ding on you personally, but since you've brought up some points that I hear a lot, I wanted to touch on them. This is my "What Americans do wrong" soapbox. Or part of it, at least.  

The "hopefully, they will have developed" phrase is disconcerting because for one, I don't know who "they" are. It assumes that the problem isn't ours, and that we can go on as we please while someone, some vague, undetermined person or group, figures out how to help us. It is our problem to deal with now. We don't have the luxury any more to simply say, "science will take care of that for us."

As far as replacing gas powered vehicles with electric, that is a positive in terms of lowering the amount of burned fuel that pollutes the air coming from the cars themselves. But where does all the extra electricity come from to power the cars? To get the same or even close to the amount of power from an electric motor that you could get from a gas powered motor, you have to be able to supply a huge amount of electricity.

That means that current electric generating plants would have to increase their production of electricity from current values to multiple factors higher. And right now the main ways we generate electricity is by: Coal powered plants (another limited fossil fuel), nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants (highly limited). There is very little in the way of geothermal, solar, or wind production, and all of those are limited in the amount of energy they can convert to electricity.

Bikes. Although many people in the U.S. cannot ride them, many can. Mopeds can and are also powered by electric motors as well as gas. The biggest issue I have with the way we Americans think is with public transit. Typically, we want it our way and we want it now, which means we want to drive our own vehicles. That mindset must change in order for the U.S. to stop its reliance on fossil fuel.
Trains aren't reliable because we don't demand them to be. We've allowed our rail system to become a dismantled mess over the last 60 years. Why? Because we wanted to fly everywhere. That's gotten us into even more of a mess.
Public transit not being "universal" is simply the fault of our way of thinking and our self-centered way of life. We caused the problem, and we can fix it easily by changing the way we think about traveling. In cities and surrounding standard metropolitan areas, mass transit can be improved  
at reasonable costs and in reasonable timetables, if we push for it. That is easier than hoping for a new breakthrough that will save us.

My point is that this is a much bigger problem than we realize and that we can't just assume that we can "switch" from gas to electric (or hydrogen, or whatever)like that. Nor can we assume that we have to just sit and wait for it to happen via some really cool scientific discovery.

Should we optimize cars now? You bet. No argument there. And we should keep doing it. But we need to realize that as a whole, people need to learn that they need a paradigm shift in thinking about the way they transport themselves locally, regionally, and globally. And we do that by pushing for changes via our elected representatives in government. Because they sure as shit aren't going to do it without some impetus. But that's a whole different rant!
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

rlrose328

#3
Quote from: "McQ"rose, I understand your obvious frustration with the seeming lack of viable options for transportation, but I have to point out that your view seems very....well....American. And that's a pretty narrow and naive point of view in this particular situation. The following is not a ding on you personally, but since you've brought up some points that I hear a lot, I wanted to touch on them. This is my "What Americans do wrong" soapbox. Or part of it, at least.  

McQ, I'm not frustrated by the lack of viable options... I'm frustrated by the naivete of thinking we will, at some point, be an auto-free society.  I see that as irrational and illogical.  I'm comfortable with my choice of vehicle... my Prius gets me 48-50 MPG, which reduces my need for natural gas and REALLY reduces my output of CO2.  For now, that's good enough for me, but I'm only one person.

And thank you for pointing out that I'm American.  My point of view can hardly be Ukranian or Australian because in order for it to be that, I'd have to be Ukranian or Australian.

And because you've said my name specificially, I can hardly see your post as anything BUT personal to me.  Yes, Americans do many things wrong and I'm sure I do many of those things as well.  But I'm trying to be part of the realistic solution, not some "Oh someday, cars will be obsolete" pie-in-the-sky dream world.

Quote from: "McQ"The "hopefully, they will have developed" phrase is disconcerting because for one, I don't know who "they" are. It assumes that the problem isn't ours, and that we can go on as we please while someone, some vague, undetermined person or group, figures out how to help us. It is our problem to deal with now. We don't have the luxury any more to simply say, "science will take care of that for us."

My "they" refers to someone other than me... I'm not a scientist or researcher of alternative fuels or other power alternatives.  It's not some ethereal, unnamed "they" and I'm not assuming the problem isn't ours.  This isn't an argument of semantics.  I don't assume to have any luxuries that science will take care of us... but I DO know that *I* don't have the ability to come up with said alternatives any more than I have the ability to use teleportation rather than a car to get where I need to go.

Quote from: "McQ"As far as replacing gas powered vehicles with electric, that is a positive in terms of lowering the amount of burned fuel that pollutes the air coming from the cars themselves. But where does all the extra electricity come from to power the cars? To get the same or even close to the amount of power from an electric motor that you could get from a gas powered motor, you have to be able to supply a huge amount of electricity.

That means that current electric generating plants would have to increase their production of electricity from current values to multiple factors higher. And right now the main ways we generate electricity is by: Coal powered plants (another limited fossil fuel), nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants (highly limited). There is very little in the way of geothermal, solar, or wind production, and all of those are limited in the amount of energy they can convert to electricity.

True... and those alternatives exist but the gas companies have a stranglehold on the politicians who can make the laws to ensure that we proceed.  Nuclear power is a reality that could go a long way toward fixing this problem (or at least contributing to the solution) but the NIMBY mentality of my fellow Americans makes that a longshot.  Nuclear power is by no means the evil that Americans think it is... it's the fear factor that has been propagated, via everyone from politicians to the media to Hollywood, that makes Americans shy away from nuclear power.  

And hydrogen power cells release water vapor which is worse for our environment than CO2 gases and can really mess with our humidity and weather.  Research and development has a long way to go but hydrogen fuel cells seem like the best alternative so far if they can develop better ways of obtaining hydrogen AND reducing the atmospheric minuses that can result.

Quote from: "McQ"Bikes. Although many people in the U.S. cannot ride them, many can. Mopeds can and are also powered by electric motors as well as gas. The biggest issue I have with the way we Americans think is with public transit. Typically, we want it our way and we want it now, which means we want to drive our own vehicles. That mindset must change in order for the U.S. to stop its reliance on fossil fuel.

I agree... mindsets must change.  But if we can't get them to give up their god, how can we get them to give up their cars?  Mindsets, for the most part, won't change.  That's reality.  I wish it were different... I wish we could throw a switch and make everyone do what is best for themselves and the world, but it won't happen.  We can keep trying, keep getting the message out, keep talking and showing others how it CAN work, but I'm not going to waste my time thinking that everyone will eventually see that I'm right.  I long ago gave up on that.  So looking for alternative methods is, to me, the more rational and logical option WHILE we keep preaching  to cut down and make change.

Quote from: "McQ"Trains aren't reliable because we don't demand them to be. We've allowed our rail system to become a dismantled mess over the last 60 years. Why? Because we wanted to fly everywhere. That's gotten us into even more of a mess.

Again, I agree.  But all along your post is the insinuation that I want to have only cars and no other options, good or bad, and that's not accurate.  I applaud the use of trains when appropriate.  Me, I won't use them again because of the two horrible experiences I had with them (I fell out of the train car with my 16 month old son in my arms because the steward had put the stool on gravel, despite my objections... just one of the many issues from two trips), but others have had perfectly good experiences and will continue to use them.  Commuter trains are a god-send to suburbanites.  I used both BART (in SF) and public bus transportation when I lived near and worked in San Francisco and loved it!  But where I am now... public transportation is very thin and unreliable.  I can work to fix it, but until it is fixed, I'll stick to my car.  Choices are grand, aren't they?

Quote from: "McQ"Public transit not being "universal" is simply the fault of our way of thinking and our self-centered way of life. We caused the problem, and we can fix it easily by changing the way we think about traveling. In cities and surrounding standard metropolitan areas, mass transit can be improved at reasonable costs and in reasonable timetables, if we push for it. That is easier than hoping for a new breakthrough that will save us.

Again... I concur.

Quote from: "McQ"My point is that this is a much bigger problem than we realize and that we can't just assume that we can "switch" from gas to electric (or hydrogen, or whatever)like that. Nor can we assume that we have to just sit and wait for it to happen via some really cool scientific discovery.

Should we optimize cars now? You bet. No argument there. And we should keep doing it. But we need to realize that as a whole, people need to learn that they need a paradigm shift in thinking about the way they transport themselves locally, regionally, and globally. And we do that by pushing for changes via our elected representatives in government. Because they sure as shit aren't going to do it without some impetus. But that's a whole different rant!

I think you'll find I agree with much of what you said.  But I believe you are preaching to the choir.  Our points of view are not very different.  I do want change.  I rally for change.  I vote, I speak out, I have made significant changes in my lifestyle to improve conditions globally.  I'm just not convinced that cars will be eliminated EVER.

My bottom line is this:  I like the transportation choices I have.  For example, we are driving 750 miles to visit my mother for the holidays.  We have investigated cost and feasibility of air travel, bus, train or car for the trip and we believe that driving our Prius is the best alternative for us.  It is by far the cheapest method of transportation and, compared to bus or air, far better for the environment.  If we drove our previous cars (Ford Escort non-hybrid or the Dodge), our decision would be far different.

I do know several people who would make the decision to fly regardless of the environment because it is the most feasible for them.  Is it my job in this life or country to tell them they can't?

Working on alternatives is the right path, in my opinion.  But I can no more force the powers that be to do that than I can force everyone to buy hybrid vehicles or get rid of their cars altogether.  Which is the option that has the better chance of succeeding?
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


McQ

#4
OK, let's see if I can do this without totally screwing up the quotes feature of the forum. I somehow manage to do that a lot....



Quote from: "rlrose328"
Quote from: "McQ"rose, I understand your obvious frustration with the seeming lack of viable options for transportation, but I have to point out that your view seems very....well....American. And that's a pretty narrow and naive point of view in this particular situation. The following is not a ding on you personally, but since you've brought up some points that I hear a lot, I wanted to touch on them. This is my "What Americans do wrong" soapbox. Or part of it, at least.  

McQ, I'm not frustrated by the lack of viable options... I'm frustrated by the naivete of thinking we will, at some point, be an auto-free society.  I see that as irrational and illogical.  I'm comfortable with my choice of vehicle... my Prius gets me 48-50 MPG, which reduces my need for natural gas and REALLY reduces my output of CO2.  For now, that's good enough for me, but I'm only one person.

And thank you for pointing out that I'm American.  My point of view can hardly be Ukranian or Australian because in order for it to be that, I'd have to be Ukranian or Australian.

And because you've said my name specificially, I can hardly see your post as anything BUT personal to me.  Yes, Americans do many things wrong and I'm sure I do many of those things as well.  But I'm trying to be part of the realistic solution, not some "Oh someday, cars will be obsolete" pie-in-the-sky dream world.

Rose, I specifically stated at the beginning that I was not trying to ding you personally. By that I mean that it is not a personal attack on your character, or person. I'm sorry that you took it that way. I was trying to make the point that the issues you brought up are typical of what is being said a lot by people in the U.S, hence the "American" part. I'm an American too. Again, not a personal attack. I also never said anything about you not trying to be part of a solution. Obviously, with a Prius, you are doing what you can do immediately to cut down on CO2 emissions. I don't know why you thought I was saying you aren't doing something. I also never said I think cars will be obsolete, nor do I wish them to be. I'm no pie-in-the-sky type either.

However, the American point of view is an issue here, because we, as Americans, contribute greatly to the continuing problems globally by not demanding more be done, when we have the ability and voice to do so.  Saying things like "I'm just one person" is understandable, and I feel that way every day, but everyone is "just one person", and to not attempt many avenues of change is underselling ourselves.

Quote from: "rlrose328"My "they" refers to someone other than me... I'm not a scientist or researcher of alternative fuels or other power alternatives.  It's not some ethereal, unnamed "they" and I'm not assuming the problem isn't ours.  This isn't an argument of semantics.  I don't assume to have any luxuries that science will take care of us... but I DO know that *I* don't have the ability to come up with said alternatives any more than I have the ability to use teleportation rather than a car to get where I need to go.

I realize that saying "they" refers to someone other than yourself, Rose. and since you did not specify who "they" are, it is vague, not just semantics. By saying "Hopefully, they will have developed some form of power to replace gas...", it seemed that you may have been giving tacit acknowledgment that we can just go on as is while someone else works on the problem. I see that your are not stating that, but that was what I got out of it the first time through.

Quote from: "rlrose328"True... and those alternatives exist but the gas companies have a stranglehold on the politicians who can make the laws to ensure that we proceed.  Nuclear power is a reality that could go a long way toward fixing this problem (or at least contributing to the solution) but the NIMBY mentality of my fellow Americans makes that a longshot.

No disagreement on the NIMBY mentality of our fellow Americans. The oil companies do have powerful lobbyists, and a heavy hand at times. True. However, even the oil companies have to bow to increasing economic pressures. Simple economics plus the addition of increasing governmental pressure will force them to make changes. That's where a lot of people saying, "I'm just one person" need to realize they do have power to add pressure to our elected officials.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I agree... mindsets must change.  But if we can't get them to give up their god, how can we get them to give up their cars?

Well, I'm not gonna buy the analogy there. Sorry. :D

Quote from: "rlrose328"Mindsets, for the most part, won't change.  That's reality.  

Mindsets are slow to change often, but they do change. Look at how they changed in the U.S. from just 100 years ago to now. Our entire way of life, economic system, infrastructure, medicine, politics...everything, has change from then. It's completely different. And it will continue to change. That's the reality.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I wish it were different... I wish we could throw a switch and make everyone do what is best for themselves and the world, but it won't happen.  We can keep trying, keep getting the message out, keep talking and showing others how it CAN work, but I'm not going to waste my time thinking that everyone will eventually see that I'm right.  I long ago gave up on that.  So looking for alternative methods is, to me, the more rational and logical option WHILE we keep preaching  to cut down and make change.

I agree with this. It is essentially the same thing as saying that mindsets can change, but that you can't do it all yourself. Agreed. I can't either. No one person has to though. Never said that it has to be that way. The most rational choice is to keep doing what each one of us can do, while at the same time pushing for more people to get the big picture and change their ways of thinking about these issues.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Again, I agree.  But all along your post is the insinuation that I want to have only cars and no other options, good or bad, and that's not accurate.  

I honestly cannot find where I insinuated this. If I had even thought it, I promise I would have stated it explicitly.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I think you'll find I agree with much of what you said.  But I believe you are preaching to the choir.  Our points of view are not very different.  I do want change.  I rally for change.  I vote, I speak out, I have made significant changes in my lifestyle to improve conditions globally.  I'm just not convinced that cars will be eliminated EVER.

I agree, and again, repeat my assertion that I think the same thing. Cars will not, in any foreseeable future (let's stick to the next hundred years or so) disappear. Nor do I think they need to entirely. But the reliance on them as the main source of human transportation must change while we seek alternative fuel sources. This is as much a function of practicality for travel as anything, based on the rate of increase in population. There simply isn't enough infrastructure to handle the loads, regardless of what fuels we'll be using in 50 years. It has to change.

Quote from: "rlrose328"My bottom line is this:  I like the transportation choices I have.  For example, we are driving 750 miles to visit my mother for the holidays.  We have investigated cost and feasibility of air travel, bus, train or car for the trip and we believe that driving our Prius is the best alternative for us.  It is by far the cheapest method of transportation and, compared to bus or air, far better for the environment.  If we drove our previous cars (Ford Escort non-hybrid or the Dodge), our decision would be far different.

I totally admire this and obviously agree with the choice.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I do know several people who would make the decision to fly regardless of the environment because it is the most feasible for them.  Is it my job in this life or country to tell them they can't?

Nope. Not your job to tell them they can't. Nor mine. But why not keep the lines of communication with people open about this, as it seems you are already doing? I encourage people all the time to think about alternatives to transportation. I'm an Amtrak junkie, myself. If I can take the train instead of fly, I do it. It's a crappy rail system overall, but it will get better. Ask Warren Buffet, who recently had to reveal his greater than 50% holdings in a rail company. He likes to play with trains http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/04/1 ... th-trains/ and you can be sure that will make a lot of people start to take notice in trying to improve our rail systems.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Working on alternatives is the right path, in my opinion.  But I can no more force the powers that be to do that than I can force everyone to buy hybrid vehicles or get rid of their cars altogether.  

Not alone you can't. Agreed. It's not a matter of instant change by force, but applying pressure to allow people to see that change is imperative.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Which is the option that has the better chance of succeeding?

My answer is that they both will succeed in the long run as long as we don't stop trying.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Will

#5
I've got a big, delicious garden in my back yard. I harvest so much food each year, I end up feeding half the neighborhood. I did landscaping to pay part of my way through college, so I understand irrigation and drainage. Not only that, but I'm very close to a naturally occurring small river that has water year round. Meat? I dunno, but with enough nuts and grains (there's a park around the corner if things get bad, to plant wheat in). I think my neighborhood would be okay.

I suggest other people have *just in case* plans in case big oil holds back alternatives too long and oil runs out before we've replaced it. I'd be glad to send you all links about farming and cleaning dirty water. It's all very straightforward. Right now? Be sure you've got plenty of rich soil in your yards. Start a compost pile. Get large water containers and wheel barrows.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

saturnine

#6
This whole thing started when I saw "The End of Suburbia." It's a rewarding movie to see, and it's what I based most of my arguments on. Willravel is on the right track to self-sufficiency.

Politically, the problem in the US will be that people will elect anyone who will bring them cheap oil. Maybe it will mean invading dozens of countries, strip-mining large sections of the Rocky Mountains, or HUGE subsidies paid for by everyone's taxes including those without cars and those who are self-sufficient. Maybe it will include buying land overseas to make bio-fuels while natives there starve. Maybe it will include going into national debt. Why should millions of voters care about the national debt as long as they have their cars to drive? In this case ecology and not democracy is the answer. Eventually  though all will catch up.

Improving public transit and going to hybrids is not solving anything. The problems remain, their solutions are simply being pushed further and further into the future. If the solutions are living locally, transforming suburbia's backyards and the city's rooftops into farmland, and exchanging your car for a horse, then so be it. Think transforming a carbon economy to an ecological one.

Oh, and to lean more google "peak oil." Some sites are a little wacko, but there is good information out there if you look.

donkeyhoty

#7
I was just reading about peak oil the other night.  If you look at some of the estimates, there are more than a few that say we've already, or will in the next few years, reached peak oil production.  If this is so, then everyone should start up their survival supplies collection.  Gas isn't going to get any cheaper than it is now, unless taxes are lowered.  Prices of everything else will also go up.  And guess what else, since alternative energy and fuel sources haven't been fully funded or researched, as of yet, the shit will hit the fan sometime in the near future(by that I mean 10-20 years).

I hope most of these guys, and gals, are wrong and we won't hit peak oil production for another 10-20 years, but I'm not optimistic on that contention.

For clarification, peak oil means, simply, the point where maximum oil production occurs, after which prices rise and production drops, perhaps at a very high rate.

Man oh man, this shit is depressing, and also quite interesting.  Who wouldn't want to have a front row seat for a civilization collapse and the beginning of a new Dark Age(in a purely intellectually curious way)?
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Will

#8
Quote from: "saturnine"Oh, and to lean more google "peak oil." Some sites are a little wacko, but there is good information out there if you look.
You'll find more reliable and credible information googling 'Hubbart's Peak', which is the actual name of the phenomenon in oil production and processing. Peak oil will likely get 1000 14 year old bloggers who are failing earth science. While I appreciate that they're motivated, facts get people through things like this better than sensationalized stuff.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

donkeyhoty

#9
as an addendum to my previous post, and others, I'd say look at the Hirsch Report, that's a .pdf just in case you have problems with those, also it's the summary of the report, but it's a good starting place.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

rlrose328

#10
I understand everything that's been said here and I concur with most of it.  I think I've been a little high-strung in this discussion.

My conclusion is this:  I believe we will always have some form of personal transportation, be it cars or whatever they transform into.  I believe we should continue to refine and improve our current method of long-distance and commuting transportation (trains, plains, busses, etc.) so they are affordable to use by all and are kind to our environment.

I think in general, Americans are concerned with this issue... I believe it's the politicians, whose hands and careers are in industry's pockets, that aren't concerned with improving things.

I think that's all I have to say.  Anything else will just be misconstrued or I won't be able to verbalize it properly.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


SteveS

#11
Hi gang, this was an interesting discussion.  I just wanted to add a comment about changing transportation.

Mass Transit: the way we've build our cities, with large segregated areas of commerce and residence, it sort of makes it hard just drop trains into place.  Which is too bad, because I really like trains.

I would love to walk a few blocks, hop on a train, ride, hop off, and walk a few blocks to my office.  I've done this a lot in some of the cities I've worked in by finding hotels near the subway stops.  Frankly, I don't understand why the trains bug so many people.  Even in the crowded NYC subway I was less frustrated then I am in a traffic jam.  If the train isn't so crowded, you can read or relax instead of drive.

Bicycles: I'm only about 11 miles from my house to my office - again, especially during the months when there isn't snow and ice on the roads, I would enjoy biking this commute.  But, to do so right now, I'd have to go along one narrow bridge (choked with 18-wheelers) and several busy and dangerous streets.  I could bike to many places in town, also, if it wasn't so darn hazardous.  I road a bike everywhere in college and enjoyed riding very much - there was an off-road 9 mile trail in a forest preserve where I used to live and I used that regularly.  It is fun and great for your health.  What is stopping me from biking around town is that it just seems too dangerous.

My end point: part of changing our thinking about transportation is going to be changing our thinking about city layouts and the transportation infrastructure (bike roads along main roads, for example, or centralized mass transit station in subdivisions and commercial centers).

A nice combo might be a safe bike ride to a train station --- that I could really live with!

Tom62

#12
Until this wednesday I lived 42km from my office, which took me 1,5 hours by public transport or 45 minutes by car. I went by public transport because it was much cheaper than by car and it allowed me to read a book along the way. However, over the years the quality of public transport seemed to have dropped dramatically. This wednesday however I moved into an appartment that is only a 3 minutes walk away from my office and a 2 minutes walk to a shoppingmall. No more hassle with trains runnning late or nasty trafficejams and ofcourse much better for the environment.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

McQ

#13
Quote from: "SteveS"Hi gang, this was an interesting discussion.  I just wanted to add a comment about changing transportation.

Mass Transit: the way we've build our cities, with large segregated areas of commerce and residence, it sort of makes it hard just drop trains into place.  Which is too bad, because I really like trains.

I would love to walk a few blocks, hop on a train, ride, hop off, and walk a few blocks to my office.  I've done this a lot in some of the cities I've worked in by finding hotels near the subway stops.  Frankly, I don't understand why the trains bug so many people.  Even in the crowded NYC subway I was less frustrated then I am in a traffic jam.  If the train isn't so crowded, you can read or relax instead of drive.

Bicycles: I'm only about 11 miles from my house to my office - again, especially during the months when there isn't snow and ice on the roads, I would enjoy biking this commute.  But, to do so right now, I'd have to go along one narrow bridge (choked with 18-wheelers) and several busy and dangerous streets.  I could bike to many places in town, also, if it wasn't so darn hazardous.  I road a bike everywhere in college and enjoyed riding very much - there was an off-road 9 mile trail in a forest preserve where I used to live and I used that regularly.  It is fun and great for your health.  What is stopping me from biking around town is that it just seems too dangerous.

My end point: part of changing our thinking about transportation is going to be changing our thinking about city layouts and the transportation infrastructure (bike roads along main roads, for example, or centralized mass transit station in subdivisions and commercial centers).

A nice combo might be a safe bike ride to a train station --- that I could really live with!

Yep. That's what the infrastructure problem is. Far too shortsighted thinking by city planners. Hard to blame them 75 years ago for not seeing what a mess things would be now. Way back in college, when I hadn't switched my minor from Urban Planning to Soviet Union, we did a lot of discussion on and work with urban planning. The biggest difficulty is trying to see far into the future and figure out needs as well as problems. It's pretty well impossible. The only thing you can do is try to make things flexible, so that they can change down the road. But even that is hard, because with roads, electric, sewage, green areas, you are trying to make them as lasting as possible. We did a lot of work with Philadelphia and surrounding metro area. That city has a huge problem in updating its infrastructure.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

SteveS

#14
Yeah McQ - I agree - you can't really blame anyone.  Its just that these are big problems, and they're going to cost a lot of $$$$ to address.

On the upside, huge public works projects will employee a lot of people --- big government spending big money and employing lots of folks would at least make my socialist-minded friends happy.....  :wink: