3 ms·

It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If you comput

by xte 8y ago

It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If you compute well enough you'll that it require far more resources than private vehicle in a countryside are. Even if you compute "CEP" (a french index that means primary (non renewable) energy/resources consumption, I do not know correspondent metric in English) of a a groups of single family's houses, with micropoles foundations screwed on ground and the rest in wood, glass and plastic/aluminum/... built with medium/high quality and proper insulation vs a single tall building for the same number of people and similar construction quality you still see that you consume more non-renewable/recyclable resources to build the single tall building than the many individual houses and if those are really well designed and built (so they can be heated and cooled with little non-renewable energy) you'll see that even energy consumption is better in individual houses. Simply because they have enough place for solar-thermal panels, efficient double-flux VMC at today's tech and cost are far more efficient, airtightness can cheaply be superior etc. Many do not think that simply because do not know how modern houses are built nor how modern tall building are built and do not even see the mass of steel and foundation they have. On living: you automatically agree that cities are not sustainable by themselves so we need to be low density and in nature, of course we can discuss density and it's variation depending on natural resources place per place but that's the point. We can automatize as we want but we need nature, we can't live for now in isolated artificial environments nor cities nor boats/submarine/starships. And that's probably will remain true for centuries to came. My personal opinion is that a low density Riviera model is the best for now, where low density means low enough to been able to "survive" with local natural resources but no more so we still need commerce and cooperation but we can life in a not-so-comfortable and not-so-terrible way without. For my actual place (French alps) it means something around 8-10 humans per square km maximum in medium. Moderately concentrated like "USA dream" (single houses with a bit of private garden around, like 5/10 time the ground occupation of the house itself) in good place with place for nature around. You may counter-arguments that a capillary, well maintained roads network is not cheap however being Italian I see the difference on roads between few countries and french's one are definitively cheaper than many other and even cheaper than highways. We still need some kind of ground high speed network but in a Riviera scenario with enough "local" economy that need is far less important than inter-urban networks.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If you compute well enough you'll that it require far more resources than private vehicle in a countryside are. No, it won't. A subway train is obviously fairly resource intensive to build and operate, no argument there, but compared to the resources to build rural highways for an equivalent number of people? There's no comparison. A single subway line somewhere like NYC may serve the daily needs of a couple hundred thousand people. Enough highways to serve a couple hundred thousand people scattered throughout, say, several different counties would be far more resource intensive in the long run (building the subway might take more up front since you're underground, but you don't need as much deep maintenance and repair because there's fewer weather issues). > you still see that you consume more non-renewable/recyclable resources to build the single tall building than the many individual houses and if those are really well designed and built (so they can be heated and cooled with little non-renewable energy) you'll see that even energy consumption is better in individual houses. I doubt this. I mean, I could maybe see it for skyscrapers, because building materials and standards for those are really intense. But if you compare single family homes for 100 people to a 5 story apartment block for 100 people, the apartment block is going to massively win in efficiency. And most major cities just don't need -- or have -- many skyscrapers. Even in NYC and Tokyo, a very small % of land is actually occupied by skyscrapers. Take a look on Google Maps 3D view if you don't believe me. > you automatically agree that cities are not sustainable by themselves Cities take less energy. Fact. Yes, a few people would need to live in more rural areas, but a) the point is that 2% rural + 98% urban would be vastly more energy efficient than whatever distribution we have now, and b) even many people in rural areas could live in denser forms. For example, small towns in Germany have way more apartments and the like than small towns in the US, and they're not as car dependent too. > My personal opinion is that a low density Riviera model is the best for now, where low density means low enough to been able to "survive" with local natural resources but no more so we still need commerce and cooperation but we can life in a not-so-comfortable and not-so-terrible way without. This is completely insane. Spreading people out that much from cities where they currently live would absolutely devastate nature. You'd have to clear cut giant swathes of forests and build on prairies all over the world to hit 8-10 people per sq km or even close to that. If the global population was a few hundred million people, that level of density could probably work, but it's not. We have far too many people to have that level of impact on the planet per person. Honestly, you just sound so dead set on loving super low density living that you're completely unwilling to listen to any facts. It's a fact that living in urban areas takes less energy than suburban or rural areas. It's a fact that the impact on the environment is far less that way. It's a fact that only a handful of people need to live somewhere to farm, and this number continues to drop over time. No, highways are not more efficient than subways(1). No, single family homes are not more efficient than apartments. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, sorry. (1) - "Heavy rail transit such as subways and metros produce on average 76% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). Light rail systems produce 62% less and bus transit produces 33% less (Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change (PDF))." And this is in the US, which has transit that is, in the large, kind of poorly designed (and has to adapt to a transit-hostile built environment). https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environ...

by xte 8y ago

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If you compute well enough you'll that it require far more resources than private vehicle in a countryside are. No, it won't. A subway train is obviously fairly resource intensive to build and operate, no argument there, but compared to the resources to build rural highways for an equivalent number of people? There's no comparison. A single subway line somewhere like NYC may serve the daily needs of a couple hundred thousand people. Enough highways to serve a couple hundred thousand people scattered throughout, say, several different counties would be far more resource intensive in the long run (building the subway might take more up front since you're underground, but you don't need as much deep maintenance and repair because there's fewer weather issues). > you still see that you consume more non-renewable/recyclable resources to build the single tall building than the many individual houses and if those are really well designed and built (so they can be heated and cooled with little non-renewable energy) you'll see that even energy consumption is better in individual houses. I doubt this. I mean, I could maybe see it for skyscrapers, because building materials and standards for those are really intense. But if you compare single family homes for 100 people to a 5 story apartment block for 100 people, the apartment block is going to massively win in efficiency. And most major cities just don't need -- or have -- many skyscrapers. Even in NYC and Tokyo, a very small % of land is actually occupied by skyscrapers. Take a look on Google Maps 3D view if you don't believe me. > you automatically agree that cities are not sustainable by themselves Cities take less energy. Fact. Yes, a few people would need to live in more rural areas, but a) the point is that 2% rural + 98% urban would be vastly more energy efficient than whatever distribution we have now, and b) even many people in rural areas could live in denser forms. For example, small towns in Germany have way more apartments and the like than small towns in the US, and they're not as car dependent too. > My personal opinion is that a low density Riviera model is the best for now, where low density means low enough to been able to "survive" with local natural resources but no more so we still need commerce and cooperation but we can life in a not-so-comfortable and not-so-terrible way without. This is completely insane. Spreading people out that much from cities where they currently live would absolutely devastate nature. You'd have to clear cut giant swathes of forests and build on prairies all over the world to hit 8-10 people per sq km or even close to that. If the global population was a few hundred million people, that level of density could probably work, but it's not. We have far too many people to have that level of impact on the planet per person. Honestly, you just sound so dead set on loving super low density living that you're completely unwilling to listen to any facts. It's a fact that living in urban areas takes less energy than suburban or rural areas. It's a fact that the impact on the environment is far less that way. It's a fact that only a handful of people need to live somewhere to farm, and this number continues to drop over time. No, highways are not more efficient than subways(1). No, single family homes are not more efficient than apartments. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, sorry. (1) - "Heavy rail transit such as subways and metros produce on average 76% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). Light rail systems produce 62% less and bus transit produces 33% less (Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change (PDF))." And this is in the US, which has transit that is, in the large, kind of poorly designed (and has to adapt to a transit-hostile built environment). https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environ...