This Little Pipeline Protest

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Nuclear, wind, solar.

Cars that run on batteries and induction motors. Real mass transit.

The only thing we lack is the will. We could be off fossil fuel in a few years if America just decided to.
The capitalization cost would be enormous. It probably isn't feasible in a short term mode. It entails considerably more than just cranking out new products.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The capitalization cost would be enormous. It probably isn't feasible in a short term mode. It entails considerably more than just cranking out new products.
The only thing holding it back are governments that are bought and paid for by old energy interests.

We spend 37 billion per year on oil subsidies per year.

If we were incentivizing nuclear power that much we could have cheaper, safer, more reliable energy across the country that only needs refueling every few decades, and creates zero greenhouse gas emissions.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The only thing holding it back are governments that are bought and paid for by old energy interests.

We spend 37 billion per year on oil subsidies per year.

If we were incentivizing nuclear power that much we could have cheaper, safer, more reliable energy across the country that only needs refueling every few decades, and creates zero greenhouse gas emissions.
You are not seeing the entire picture. Just take the automobile industry as one example. It they tried to make an abrupt transition to full battery mode vechicle, there are hundreds of implications involved. To name a few, the contracted parts manufactures would discontinue making petroleum driven engines and parts and thousands would be laid off their jobs. New companies would have to ramp up what they provided for the automobile manufacturers needs for different components and they would have to go heavily into debt to build new manufacturing facilities and plants. Not to mention hiring and training a new work force. Dealers would have to refit their shops with different styled facilities and technology for servicing. On and on. All of this would take billions up front to facilitate the transition just to try to make the conversion even without the consideration of job displacements.

It's one thing to advance technology but something else to transition it to the normal facilitation of society.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
That's a hoot.
Yeah. It would take gazillions to provide the infrastructure in the Midwest, Southern, Southwestern and Western states. There are a few mass transit systems in operation in this country but it is tremondously sparse in comparison to the population.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yeah. It would take gazillions to provide the infrastructure in the Midwest, Southern, Southwestern and Western states. There are a few mass transit systems in operation in this country but it is tremondously sparse in comparison to the population.
Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin has done really well with their mass transit. Their are people who ride the train from Milwaukee to Chicago and back every day.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin has done really well with their mass transit. Their are people who ride the train from Milwaukee to Chicago and back every day.
Most people hate using mass transit. Or at least thats my opinion of it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin has done really well with their mass transit. Their are people who ride the train from Milwaukee to Chicago and back every day.
As I said there are a few areas. I'll bet if you checked the inner city traffic it would be log jammed like most cities. Maybe not as bad as Dallas or Houston but pretty jammed. The only area I have been in that the mass transit system was effective is the Northeast. They have been at it a while however.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin has done really well with their mass transit. Their are people who ride the train from Milwaukee to Chicago and back every day.
People are not giving up their cars in enough numbers anytime soon to make it work where it's most needed, especially with gas prices so low.

It would never work in the South because people love their cars too much.

Add in the infrastructure cost and it's dead in the water.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
People are not giving up their cars in enough numbers anytime soon to make it work where it's most needed, especially with gas prices so low.

It would never work in the South because people love their cars too much.

Add in the infrastructure cost and it's dead in the water.
That's the problem, mass transit will never be as convenient as owning a car. People hate it when you threaten their conveniences.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
People are not giving up their cars in enough numbers anytime soon to make it work where it's most needed, especially with gas prices so low.

It would never work in the South because people love their cars too much.

Add in the infrastructure cost and it's dead in the water.
That's the problem, mass transit will never be as convenient as owning a car. People hate it when you threaten their conveniences.
It actually is super convenient if it works well. That's why a lot of New Yorkers just never get their license.

But more than convenience cars are a status symbol. Also people don't like change, even if it's for the better. The problem is, like most good things that will never get traction, the people who would benefit the most are the poor and the handicapped.

I think self piloting cars may eventually lead to the slow phase out of human controlled cars. But the only way we move away from the old style of transportation is in a way that caters to the wealthy.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It actually is super convenient if it works well. That's why a lot of New Yorkers just never get their license.

But more than convenience cars are a status symbol. Also people don't like change, even if it's for the better. The problem is, like most good things that will never get traction, the people who would benefit the most are the poor and the handicapped.

I think self piloting cars may eventually lead to the slow phase out of human controlled cars. But the only way we move away from the old style of transportation is in a way that caters to the wealthy.
NYC has been doing mass transit for quite a while. The reason it works so well is the density of population in a relatively small area. That circumstance fits only a few places in the entire country..
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
It actually is super convenient if it works well. That's why a lot of New Yorkers just never get their license.

But more than convenience cars are a status symbol. Also people don't like change, even if it's for the better. The problem is, like most good things that will never get traction, the people who would benefit the most are the poor and the handicapped.

I think self piloting cars may eventually lead to the slow phase out of human controlled cars. But the only way we move away from the old style of transportation is in a way that caters to the wealthy.
New Yorkers don't do that by choice. They do it because it's so expensive to own a car there and the traffic makes it inconvenient. 99% of America doesn't have those issues.

If you need a gallon of milk it's never going to be convenient to wait for a train or bus to take you somewhere to get it and come back. It's easy in a car.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
It actually is super convenient if it works well. That's why a lot of New Yorkers just never get their license.

But more than convenience cars are a status symbol. Also people don't like change, even if it's for the better. The problem is, like most good things that will never get traction, the people who would benefit the most are the poor and the handicapped.

I think self piloting cars may eventually lead to the slow phase out of human controlled cars. But the only way we move away from the old style of transportation is in a way that caters to the wealthy.
Mass transit can absolutely be as convenient if not more convenient (and way less expensive) than owning a car, so long as the local transit authority implements solid first and last mile strategies. That is the crux of mass transit. They can only get you so far. Uber and Lift have been the go to recently to fill this void, but it's still too financially cumbersome for most. There have been cities that have deployed good and sustainable first and last mile strategies and their systems legit take SOVs off the road.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
New Yorkers don't do that by choice. They do it because it's so expensive to own a car there and the traffic makes it inconvenient. 99% of America doesn't have those issues.

If you need a gallon of milk it's never going to be convenient to wait for a train or bus to take you somewhere to get it and come back. It's easy in a car.
The expense of parking and traffic calming are actually strategies used in certain places to force people out of their vehicles. Out-pricing the market (especially with parking) is extremely effective if deployed correctly.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
Mass transit can absolutely be as convenient if not more convenient (and way less expensive) than owning a car, so long as the local transit authority implements solid first and last mile strategies.
I don't have anything against mass transit but I find this very hard to believe. Not unless you live right next to a train or mass transit stop. Hell even then you're going to have to wait some period of time to get on the bus/train/whatever. Then you have to wait for other stops and people to get on and off. By the end it's very convenient.

Now that isn't to say that mass transit isn't necessary. I remember when my aunt lived in Chicago she would drive 40 minutes to get to a stop, then ride the train into the city for another hour. In no way was it convenient but it was necessary. The traffic driving into Chicago combined with the limited parking made it impossible to drive to work. But that isn't the case in the vast majority of cities.

Of course she still had to have a car. Because it's just not possible to have mass transit stops near everyone's home.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
I don't have anything against mass transit but I find this very hard to believe. Not unless you live right next to a train or mass transit stop. Hell even then you're going to have to wait some period of time to get on the bus/train/whatever. Then you have to wait for other stops and people to get on and off. By the end it's very convenient.

Now that isn't to say that mass transit isn't necessary. I remember when my aunt lived in Chicago she would drive 40 minutes to get to a stop, then ride the train into the city for another hour. In no way was it convenient but it was necessary. The traffic driving into Chicago combined with the limited parking made it impossible to drive to work. But that isn't the case in the vast majority of cities.

Of course she still had to have a car. Because it's just not possible to have mass transit stops near everyone's home.
You can find it hard to believe but this is what I do for a living. If solid first and last mile solutions are deployed, mass transit can be very convenient and, again, much cheaper.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You can find it hard to believe but this is what I do for a living. If solid first and last mile solutions are deployed, mass transit can be very convenient and, again, much cheaper.
It can be, but the fact that installing these things cost a lot of money and they will not be self-sufficient until a complete paradigm shift occurs to americans and their love of cars it's not feasible in most places.

You can look at LA and Houston as prime examples both cities have huge needs for mass transit systems and both have not been able to institute any meaningful solutions.

I am sure you are well versed in these things with your background it's to bad logic loses out when it comes to the real benefits of implementing this on a large scale.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
It can be, but the fact that installing these things cost a lot of money and they will not be self-sufficient until a complete paradigm shift occurs to americans and their love of cars it's not feasible in most places.

You can look at LA and Houston as prime examples both cities have huge needs for mass transit systems and both have not been able to institute any meaningful solutions.

I am sure you are well versed in these things with your background it's to bad logic loses out when it comes to the real benefits of implementing this on a large scale.
The biggest hurdle to deal with is behavioral change. Some people are scared to death to lose their cars. They feel as if they are losing part of their freedom. It's a historic mistrust of public transportation. I'm a huge advocate of TDM (transportation demand management) as it is what I do, but even I can understand why some don't trust it. It has not been implemented well over the last few decades in a lot of places that really need it to make daily life work. A lot of cities just threw a bunch of buses and an occasional light rail system at it and hoped it would be enough. Fact is, that is not enough. You have to be able to get people to those bus and train stations conveniently or it's not attractive enough as a commute option for people to feel they can rely on it and use it daily. That paradigm is slowly shifting and TMAs are shifting towards a more comprehensive and complete system that is both convenient and cheap for the user. The key to all of this is government monies. A full-on commitment to transportation grants and subsidies are crucial to any big city's efforts to create a complete system.

We are slowly getting there as a nation, but big oil has their hands firmly planted in too many politicians pockets. Which makes these efforts very difficult if not even impossible at times.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The biggest hurdle to deal with is behavioral change. Some people are scared to death to lose their cars. They feel as if they are losing part of their freedom. It's a historic mistrust of public transportation. I'm a huge advocate of TDM (transportation demand management) as it is what I do, but even I can understand why some don't trust it. It has not been implemented well over the last few decades in a lot of places that really need it to make daily life work. A lot of cities just threw a bunch of buses and an occasional light rail system at it and hoped it would be enough. Fact is, that is not enough. You have to be able to get people to those bus and train stations conveniently or it's not attractive enough as a commute option for people to feel they can rely on it and use it daily. That paradigm is slowly shifting and TMAs are shifting towards a more comprehensive and complete system that is both convenient and cheap for the user. The key to all of this is government monies. A full-on commitment to transportation grants and subsidies are crucial to any big city's efforts to create a complete system.

We are slowly getting there as a nation, but big oil has their hands firmly planted in too many politicians pockets. Which makes these efforts very difficult if not even impossible at times.
It isn't oil companies hands in government pockets that is the deterrent to mass transit. Jiggy touched on part of the problem which is the astronomical costs of creating a system. Cities are also asked to forego a portion of their revenues to support the system and they usually balk. There is the right of ways and imminent domain issues if there are not existing rail beds already secured not to mention ever changing city officials who have their own agendas. Oil companies don't even change their expressions over transit systems because John Q Public thumbs his nose and continues to drive his personal car.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
It isn't oil companies hands in government pockets that is the deterrent to mass transit. Jiggy touched on part of the problem which is the astronomical costs of creating a system. Cities are also asked to forego a portion of their revenues to support the system and they usually balk. There is the right of ways and imminent domain issues if there are not existing rail beds already secured not to mention ever changing city officials who have their own agendas. Oil companies don't even change their expressions over transit systems because John Q Public thumbs his nose and continues to drive his personal car.
But, it is. There has been legislation that would have upped the transportation dollars available, such as longterm parity between parking and transit tax benefits. Also, the transportation budget for infrastructure costs keeps getting cut. Our infrastructure is in terrible shape, and our government is looking backasswards at it. Get more cars off the roads and the infrastructure doesn't deteriorate nearly as quickly. Instead, they keep condoning and even promoting people driving alone. Why? Because they have their hands in the oil companies pockets. Big Oil is the single biggest hurdle for me and my colleagues to overcome. They don't like mass transit or really any TDM measure, tbh.
 
Top Bottom