This Little Pipeline Protest

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
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.
This was your thread in which to shine, and you stepped up. Props.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
This was your thread in which to shine, and you stepped up. Props.
:buddy

And, really, I'm not a huge advocate for alternative fuels. Most of them are just a smokescreen. People buy electric cars because it makes them feel they are making a difference. But, because most batteries are manufactured using energy from coalfire plants, the carbon impact over the life of an electric car is very close to that of a gas powered vehicle. There are no real good answers right now. CNG would be the closest to an answer, but it isn't as sustainable an answer as some would lead you to believe.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
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.
So out of curiosity, how does someone get on the mass transit in the first place? Maybe I've just never seen it work. Hell even in a college town in Iowa City where parking was highly limited and they had campus buses going everywhere non stop, it was still way more convenient to have a car. Or you had to walk blocks to a stop, wait, go for a ride for awhile with multiple stops and then get dropped off somewhere and walk blocks again.

And that's assuming you live near campus. If you didn't there is no way the buses could cover all the residential area. And if you're throwing in an additional step of Uber or taxi to get between those locations, you've just created too big of an inconvenience. People want to step out of their door and be able to go where they want to go.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
So out of curiosity, how does someone get on the mass transit in the first place? Maybe I've just never seen it work. Hell even in a college town in Iowa City where parking was highly limited and they had campus buses going everywhere non stop, it was still way more convenient to have a car. Or you had to walk blocks to a stop, wait, go for a ride for awhile with multiple stops and then get dropped off somewhere and walk blocks again.

And that's assuming you live near campus. If you didn't there is no way the buses could cover all the residential area. And if you're throwing in an additional step of Uber or taxi to get between those locations, you've just created too big of an inconvenience. People want to step out of their door and be able to go where they want to go.
Couple of things. First, I mentioned first mile and last mile strategies. I should have done a better job of explaining that. It is not convenient when you have to walk a long way to get to the bus/train stop. First and last mile is that complementary solution that gets the user to the stop. That's why I mentioned needing a solution to the front end and back end of your commute. That's the only way a mass transit system can truly thrive.

Second, there is a bit of a time commitment to using public transit. But, that can be offset by the fact that you fact that you can work/relax when you ride public transit. You don't have to drive so you can work on your laptop/phone. or just surf the internet at your leisure. Matter of fact, a lot of TMAs are now putting wifi on their transit vehicles to accentuate this advantage.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
Couple of things. First, I mentioned first mile and last mile strategies. I should have done a better job of explaining that. It is not convenient when you have to walk a long way to get to the bus/train stop. First and last mile is that complementary solution that gets the user to the stop. That's why I mentioned needing a solution to the front end and back end of your commute. That's the only way a mass transit system can truly thrive.

Second, there is a bit of a time commitment to using public transit. But, that can be offset by the fact that you fact that you can work/relax when you ride public transit. You don't have to drive so you can work on your laptop/phone. or just surf the internet at your leisure. Matter of fact, a lot of TMAs are now putting wifi on their transit vehicles to accentuate this advantage.
Yeah I could never imagine using mass transit on a daily basis. I've lived in St. Louis and used the MetroLink, it wasn't good for so many reasons. In college we had the campus buses which were a nightmare and slow as hell.

I see areas where mass transit works but I don't think it will ever be able to largely replace the individual transit people currently employ. Not without some sort of communist like mandates.

With all that being said I'd love to do a train ride for a long trip. I've heard wonderful things and it really does allow an ability for you to sort of actually enjoy the commute as opposed to being stuck in some cramped space like most trips (Car, plane or bus).
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
Yeah I could never imagine using mass transit on a daily basis. I've lived in St. Louis and used the MetroLink, it wasn't good for so many reasons. In college we had the campus buses which were a nightmare and slow as hell.

I see areas where mass transit works but I don't think it will ever be able to largely replace the individual transit people currently employ. Not without some sort of communist like mandates.

With all that being said I'd love to do a train ride for a long trip. I've heard wonderful things and it really does allow an ability for you to sort of actually enjoy the commute as opposed to being stuck in some cramped space like most trips (Car, plane or bus).
In the last several decades making mass transit work effectively has been done out of sheer necessity. It hasn't been up until recently that municipalities have started taking the proactive approach to stay ahead of the eight ball. Because, eventually, in most bigger cities, it will become a necessity. The more a city develops, the less room there is for parking. And, now that parking garages are so damn expensive (more fiscally challenging) it's hard to justify going up with parking even if you have room. So, that even further forces planners to figure out a different way to get people there. You will never fully eliminate SOVs from the road, but if you can get to around a 60/40 mode split (depending on the situation) you are golden.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
Nice and all, but going back to the thread topic, won't be enough mass transit to reduce our dependency on oil.
Mass transit absolutely will help with our dependency on oil. It won't eliminate it, but it will decrease it. And, decreasing our oil usage will mean we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore, which is a huge step. They just found a huge deposit of oil in the Permian basin, which means we very well could support ourselves for hundreds od years with just the oil in this country. If we can get off of other country's oil tit.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
Cities dense enough for significant mass transit usage already have it. You'd have to have enough net new systems to make a significant enough dent in our oil dependency.

Secondly, mass transit has to combine with urban design. Denser residential zoning around the transit stops as well as employment places. Brownfield redevelopment has worked well so far in pre-automobile era areas, but it's got to work in post-auto areas to significantly reduce our oil dependency. People not wanting to pay $500k for a 2-bed condo move further away from city core. Tough to get these bedroom communities to plan around mass transit.
Welcome to my world.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
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.

Nuclear would be great, but every time a new plant is proposed the left and environmentalists go nuts. Battery powered cars don't have the capacity to go long distances and still aren't as efficient as gas powered cars. Plus, while touting them as a solution, they are actually worse for the environment because battery technology creates problems with their construction and disposal. Again the left will cry foul. Solar...has some uses, but not a large enough scale to be practical. Wind, could be but the enviro nuts are worried it kills birds, so there you go.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
So everyone wants nuclear, wind & solar, but the left is all that's holding us back. Sure.

Who's more likely to drive a Prius? The left or right?
Wouldn't mind driving a Prius, I would rip out the batteries and shoehorn in a Cummins 4bt though
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
In the final analysis it is about money versus ideology. Most areas are not willing to commit the cost of installing mass transit systems because it it a system that will never be capable of being financially independent in most areas in the USA. They have already committed to a transportation mode of roads and highways for travel.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Nuclear would be great, but every time a new plant is proposed the left and environmentalists go nuts. Battery powered cars don't have the capacity to go long distances and still aren't as efficient as gas powered cars. Plus, while touting them as a solution, they are actually worse for the environment because battery technology creates problems with their construction and disposal. Again the left will cry foul. Solar...has some uses, but not a large enough scale to be practical. Wind, could be but the enviro nuts are worried it kills birds, so there you go.
anti nuclear environmentalists are idiot ideologues, that think we can power the world with good intentions. More importantly they get scared off the idea of a technology, that's been unfairly maligned by a media (and a bunch of quack conspiracy theorists) anxious to make a quick buck on people's fears.

This is why anti nuclear dovetails so perfectly with the green party's platform, that's also anti-vax, and anti GMO.
Distrust of science, couched in a failure to understand a topic past a few buzzwords. The fact that Jill Stein has a medical degree from Harvard fucking astounds me, although this "recount" kind of proved she's mostly just a scammer who'll say anything to get more donations.

As far as electric cars go, I don't think it's a perfect solution, but (as with nuclear) I'm more interested in technologies that can have their waste more easily controlled. One battery can last around 8 years. So that's about 4800 gallons of gas that the average commuter would not pump, and 86 tons of CO2 he wouldn't release in the same 8 years.

Range is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. The Tesla S can go nearly 300 miles. Which is nearly 4 times its closest competitor. But even shorter range electrical vehicles would work fine for the average commuter, especially once the economy started catering more to that kind of vehicle. I wouldn't expect FWPD to switch to that anytime soon, but if someone is just putting to work and back electric would work perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
Those aren't exactly products of petroleum. Moreso products of affluent societies. The largest polluter in the world is China. Their quest to become more affluent disregards all measures to curb pollutant practices. These are the facts not necessarily the way it should be.
Actually the largest polluter in the world is the meat industry...
 

dallen

Senior Tech
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
8,466
To me it is all about trade offs. I work for an E&P oil & gas company. It is a dirty, dangerous business. I appreciate the thoughtful protests that keep the focus on minimizing the risks though I'll admit I don't know much about this one. Most people probably wouldn't believe how much we invest in safety. For every incident there is a risk of huge costs in both finances and human life. At my company they are tied to our bonuses so everyone has a direct interest in preventing them.

People want to make out that we are the bad guys, but the world runs on energy. We all renew the bargain every day we drive to work or turn on a light or go to the grocery store. Maybe this is all just rationalizing, but I really think some of these people are naive children. When it gets cold at night most of them will turn on their heaters.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
To me it is all about trade offs. I work for an E&P oil & gas company. It is a dirty, dangerous business. I appreciate the thoughtful protests that keep the focus on minimizing the risks though I'll admit I don't know much about this one. Most people probably wouldn't believe how much we invest in safety. For every incident there is a risk of huge costs in both finances and human life. At my company they are tied to our bonuses so everyone has a direct interest in preventing them.

People want to make out that we are the bad guys, but the world runs on energy. We all renew the bargain every day we drive to work or turn on a light or go to the grocery store. Maybe this is all just rationalizing, but I really think some of these people are naive children. When it gets cold at night most of them will turn on their heaters.
Exactly and at the present time carbon is the leading provider of energy for the world at large. Some of you may see a day when this begins changing significantly but it is a slow transition.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
To me it is all about trade offs. I work for an E&P oil & gas company. It is a dirty, dangerous business. I appreciate the thoughtful protests that keep the focus on minimizing the risks though I'll admit I don't know much about this one. Most people probably wouldn't believe how much we invest in safety. For every incident there is a risk of huge costs in both finances and human life. At my company they are tied to our bonuses so everyone has a direct interest in preventing them.

People want to make out that we are the bad guys, but the world runs on energy. We all renew the bargain every day we drive to work or turn on a light or go to the grocery store. Maybe this is all just rationalizing, but I really think some of these people are naive children. When it gets cold at night most of them will turn on their heaters.
You suck.

:thumbsup
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Actually the largest polluter in the world is the meat industry...
Are these pollutants due to the raising and slaughter of animals, and do the pollutants enter the atmosphere? I am referencing atmospheric pollutants. The last I saw was China as the chief culprit.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp
Tom DiChristopher | @tdichristopher

A pipeline leak has spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into a North Dakota creek roughly two and a half hours from Cannon Ball, where protesters are camped out in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline.

Members of the Standing Rock Sioux and other tribes, as well as environmentalists from around the country, have fought the pipeline project on the grounds that it crosses beneath a lake that provides drinking water to native Americans. They say the route beneath Lake Oahe puts the water source in jeopardy and would destroy sacred land.

North Dakota officials estimate more than 176,000 gallons of crude oil leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline into the Ash Coulee Creek. State environmental scientist Bill Suess says a landowner discovered the spill on Dec. 5 near the city of Belfield, which is roughly 150 miles from the epicenter of the Dakota Access pipeline protest camps.

The leak was contained within hours of the its discovery, Wendy Owen, a spokeswoman for Casper, Wyoming-based True Cos., which operates the Belle Fourche pipeline, told CNBC.

It's not yet clear why electronic monitoring equipment didn't detect the leak, Owen told the Asssociated Press.

Owen said the pipeline was shut down immediately after the leak was discovered. The pipeline is buried on a hill near Ash Coulee creek, and the "hillside sloughed," which may have ruptured the line, she said.

"That is our number one theory, but nothing is definitive," Owen said. "We have several working theories and the investigation is ongoing."

Last week, the Army Corp of Engineers said it would deny Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners the easement it needs to complete the final stretch of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline. United States Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy said the best path forward was to explore alternative routes for the pipeline, something Energy Transfer Partners says it will not do.

Energy Transfer Partners says the Dakota Access pipeline would include safeguards such as leak detection equipment and that workers monitoring the pipeline remotely in Texas could close valves within three minutes if a breach is detected.
Republican President-elect Donald Trump has voiced support for the Dakota Access Pipeline. About 5,000 people are still occupying land near the planned construction site.

The 6-inch steel Belle Fourche pipeline is mostly underground but was built above ground where it crosses Ash Coulee Creek, Suess said. Owen said the pipeline was built in the 1980s and is used to gather oil from nearby oil wells to a collection point.
Suess said the spill migrated almost 6 miles from the spill site along Ash Coulee Creek, and it fouled an unknown amount of private and U.S. Forest Service land along the waterway. The creek feeds into the Little Missouri River, but Seuss said it appears no oil got that far and that no drinking water sources were threatened. The creek was free-flowing when the spill occurred but has since frozen over.
About 60 workers were on site Monday, and crews have been averaging about 100 yards daily in their cleanup efforts, he said. Some of the oil remains trapped beneath the frozen creek.

Suess says about 37,000 gallons of oil have been recovered.
"It's going to take some time," Suess said of the cleanup. "Obviously there will be some component of the cleanup that will go toward spring."

True Cos. has a history of oil field–related spills in North Dakota and Montana, including a January 2015 pipeline break into the Yellowstone River. The 32,000-gallon spill temporarily shut down water supplies in the downstream community of Glendive, Montana, after oil was detected in the city's water treatment system.

True Cos. operates at least three pipeline companies with a combined 1,648 miles of line in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, according to information the companies submitted to federal regulators. Since 2006, the companies have reported 36 spills totaling 320,000 gallons of petroleum products, most of which was never recovered.

— The Associated Press contributed to this story.
 
Top Bottom