Belanger Park River Rouge
NFL DRAFT THONGS DOWNTOWN DETROIT »



Results 1 to 19 of 19

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Today Is An Ozone Action Day, Take Transit

    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?

  2. #2

    Default

    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...

  3. #3

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    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?

  5. #5

    Default

    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?

  6. #6
    Steve bennet Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by canuck View Post
    What other arguments are there for using transit then wolverine? I wonder what Chicago would be like without the transit it has?
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by wolverine; September-05-11 at 10:28 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    Depending on the mode and city layout, mass transportation can require more energy to move 30 people than moving 30 cars.
    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.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by canuck; September-06-11 at 11:48 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by wolverine; September-06-11 at 07:07 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    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.

    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.
    So where is the tradeoff when mass transit [[rail for simplicity) becomes more energy efficient?

    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.
    Last edited by iheartthed; September-07-11 at 07:32 AM.

  12. #12

  13. #13
    DetroitPole Guest

    Default

    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.

  14. #14

    Default

    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 View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.