Printable View
I saw the title on the LCD screen along I-94 near Moross, headed out of the city.
Would anyone like to tell me what's wrong with that?
Furthermore, during a report on one of the news stations this morning, some "genius" said in order to fight back against the high gas prices Michiganders should take a stand agaisnt them and start taking transit.
Would anyone also like to tell me what's wrong with that "intelligent" idea?
i saw those the other day headed east on 94 past chesterfield twp...
WHAT transit was MY thought...
if i could ride a bus from fort gratiot to detroit, i probably STILL wouldnt. when i left for the Air Force my recruiter drove me and another enlistee to mt clemens to take the bus to the fort shelby hotel [[to catch another shuttle)...
it took just about 2 hours if i remember correctly. the entire ride down and back in a car wouldnt have taken that long...
Depending on the mode and city layout, mass transportation can require more energy to move 30 people than moving 30 cars.
I am pro-transit, but these people must stop using congestion and environment as the basis for their argument. It's not true.
What other arguments are there for using transit then wolverine? I wonder what Chicago would be like without the transit it has?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
Ozone action day? I didn't mow my lawn today. Or this past week. Or the week before that. What more do you want of me?
What the hell is an ozone action day anyways?
I didn't even want to drive around and mow my lawn, until they told me I shouldn't.
The benefits are mostly spatial. They can increase densities of neighborhoods Transit also offers alternatives for people who wish not to drive or can't afford a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
It's likely most of Chicago would remain relatively the same overall as it looks without transit. Transit share is pretty low compared to the number people driving throughout the region. The loop would likely be filled with more parking garages, and the Northside would be far less dense to accommodate more single family homes with garages. Basically the argument always come back to density characteristics.
The congestion argument is worthless under a model where a region has relative growth. You can't remove cars from a highway by adding alternatives since people who otherwise left home at a different time, never drove, or have just built a new home on the fringes will fill those vacancies on the road.
Many studies have been done on this. What they have shown is that over past decades, traffic in and out of cities hasn't grown substantially, but the number of office towers has. Therefore it can be said that mass transportation is responsible for a large amount of economic growth in central business districts.
Most transit benefits are a result of trains. Buses are problematic because they share the road with cars, and will contribute to traffic standstills of idling cars, UNLESS they have dedicated lanes or are express buses on streets with light traffic.
While we should be holistic on our approach to cutting emissions, cars, trains, and bus emission shares make up a small fraction of pollution. It's our homes and office buildings that are far worse. You'll do much better for the environment by turning off lights you don't need, running the A/C less, and upgrading appliances. It's my belief that cars will eventually beat out mass transit in bad environmental emissions. I have yet to see a solar train or bus or a system that doesn't require a massive central power plant to run the system. However, cars create a larger urban footprint, inherently bad for the environment, since it allows the population to disperse in all directions instead of centralizing it. Again the density argument
No one should be convinced or forced to use mass transportation, it should be there out of necessity and convenience.
Which mode? And is that a linear relationship? I'm skeptical 1,000 people by mass transit, which is roughly half the capacity of a single NYC subway train, will require as much energy as moving 1,000 cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I doubt that too. The costs both in energy and dollar value of building cars with an average use of 7 years versus maybe 30 for rolling stock. Obviously the costs associated with delivering systems like bus or subway and suburban rail are very heavy. But if we consider the relative costs of building and replacing these systems, it is worthwhile promoting their use.
I do agree with wolverine about not forcing people to use transit, but it is worth pointing out the advantages of using these systems for people who hold nine to five jobs and dont need to travel for their work. In many cases, this advantage is obvious enough to yield results anyway. But for argument's sake, there is a point to be made about fighting congestion with transit. Cities like New York, San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Montreal need to offer an alternative to car use because there are more cars on the road every year and they are crossing the many bridges that span their boroughs and suburbs on different shores. I can only imagine how impossible our Champlain Bridge would be without the hundreds of buses serving both shores.
Those are the few days every summer where due to the excessive heat and amount of pollutants in the air [[especially ozone) that we're asked by the government to not cut the grass [[more ozone), or drive the car too often [[again more ozone).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve bennet
There are no penalties [[that I'm aware of) that forbid you to do any of this... but all the TV news weather folks mention when those days are here.
The irony is that I tried to take transit the next day...one of the bus routes that comes only every hour. Somehow I missed it, despite being 10 minutes early, thus I would have had to wait an hour and ten minutes for a bus that might not come.
Fuck that. Give me some half-way decent fucking transit to take first.
Like anyone is going to get off the freeway to experience such a wretched fate. Everything about this region is a farce.
Well I hope this doesn't make you more skeptical but using your example of 1000 passengers on a New York subway would use MORE energy than 1000 cars. As crazy as it sounds, you need to think about how much energy it takes to move 1 train and power all the lights and equipment in the stations, ventilate tunnels, and operate signals. Obviously you have hundreds of other trains and millions of passengers to contribute their share, but it still ends up being very energy intensive. Your best case of scenario of being "break even" would be to overcrowd the trains as much as possible 24/hours day.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Buses are even WORSE. They run on fixed schedules and routes, but they either overcrowded or empty.....but most of the time have unfilled seats. It averages out to wasting far more fuel. You could argue an empty bus gets better fuel efficiency, but you are still moving a very big bus that consumes a lot of fuel!
It might be helpful if I dig up a paper I did for grad school. Data is available from many large cities, so I took the number of miles of various modes, factored in ridership, and time. I was hoping there would be environmental benefits FOR transit to support my argument, unfortunately to my disappointment that wasn't the case. People were better off saving the planet driving.
But that's looking at transit in a vacuum and many transit opponents foolishly don't look beyond this.
I revised my argument looking at the environmental benefits when transit had spatial effects on the population.
It's also important to consider costs and energy to maintain roads vs track. Asphalt is not exactly friendly for the environment and you'll be replacing tracks far less than you would a road.
ROTFL! I detest public transit but have found my self temporarily 'in between' cars so I did my part that day and onward for a bit of time still! You do see alot when you are on the bus. You see too much in a way ---;)---!Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
So where is the tradeoff when mass transit [[rail for simplicity) becomes more energy efficient?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
ETA: After thinking about this a little more it isn't entirely far-fetched. Mile for mile it may take as much or more energy to move people by train than by car, but people who travel by car tend to travel much farther than those who travel by train.
People shouldn't be thinking about the environment when considering what mode to take. The manufacturers and government regulators should. Transit is about convenience. It's more than just about buying gas or worrying about sitting in traffic, rather the ability to board a bus or train fairly cheaply and relax. The number 1 reasons people avoid mass transit [[at least in a Chicago survey) were safety and poor maintenance.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Not too hard for Chicago to fix. But for places like Detroit, it may be more of a challenge. On top of that, it takes longer to get across Detroit and some metropolitan areas with no rapid transit system. Therefore time would probably be the biggest reason to avoid transit.
In response to your last point. Very long distance commutes is where the car becomes absolutely necessary. Transit must serve the masses [[to state the obvious) not the outliers with very long commutes. Although metra trains in Chicago go very far out, even to places that haven't been entirely built out yet. Typically people will need to drive to that station. This goes back to my point about energy usage. You now have to calculate in the energy usage of collecting passengers toward the station.
The chances of upgrading mass transit into something that has substantial reductions in environmental impact either by fossil fuels from a central source or new technology like a solar train or bus are extremely unlikely.
1. Transit agencies already have difficulty paying for new buses and trains and trying to make them last as long as possible.
2. States aren't contributing any money
3. Federal money is barely covering repairs.
4. Many trains in Chicago, Philly, and NYC run on hundred year old tracks, which shows we are very slow to change in improving mass transit.
5. We will probably be using diesel locomotives on long distance commuter rail for a good remainder of this century.
6. We will probably derive our power for electrified rail from a central power source that uses fossil fuels for the remainder of this century even if it becomes difficult to supply it.
Actually, my point was that people who use mass transit -- or have a transit system at their disposal -- tend to travel shorter distances on a daily basis. So even if joule for joule a car requires less energy to move a person one mile... A person might drive nearly a mile just to get in and out of a subdivision to go to work each day, whereas a Manhattan resident might be halfway to her office after traveling on the subway for one mile.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
" As crazy as it sounds, you need to think about how much energy it takes to move 1 train and power all the lights and equipment in the stations, ventilate tunnels, and operate signals."
Are you familiar with what's involved in supporting a network of roads? Traffic signals, street lights, signage, the guys going out patching and plowing the roads, the cost to widen or rebuild a road and on and on. There are huge fixed and ongoing costs, both in dollars and energy, to maintain a road network just as there is to maintain a subway system.
But there are far more cars on the road, so the energy usage of traffic signals per car that passes by is low. You also have to consider that roads have existed since the beginning of civilization and would still exist if the car wasn't around. You'd have to determine the embodied energy of creating the road network + the amount of energy to maintain with and without cars. Would there still be streetlights? More or less? Snow plowing and street sweeping?Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Point is, the argument starts to get very abstract and we could go on and on considering all the contributing factors that affect mobility. It's better to work with things we know. Ridership numbers, building density characteristics, and economic growth to determine the benefits of transit. The environmental debate is endless and both sides have their points. I bike and walk to work and everywhere I go, so I'm unbiased by the whole debate.