7 ms·

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and eve

by angdis 16y ago

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and everything else will work "the same." For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park). It doesn't have to be that way, although I can understand why a country that burns up 20% of global output of petroleum commuting to work everyday might feel that we need to "replace" oil and that will "solve" the looming crisis. There are OTHER ways of thinking about a solution that does not involve simply replacing oil. These would include: * Go back to human-scale cities by increasing density and diversity of housing, businesses and facilities. * Invest in public transit infrastructure, alternative transportation modes. Mandate walkable metro-centers. Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever.

roc 16y ago
That's pretty much it. Our infrastructure and assumptions are built on the existence of oil. Its ease of transport, its energy density, its relatively low costs. And there is no alternative with all those features. So you need to address those assumptions before you can see where it's going. Which is why we should probably stop spending 10x as much subsidizing commuting over transit. Because most of those suburbs are probably not going to recover from this housing crash. Growth economics allowed us to waste money building, zoning and living that way. But it's not going to work anymore. Not for nearly as many people.
hapless 16y ago
Americans don't want "human scale" cities or public transit, or else we would already have them. I realize this is not politically correct, but I like the isolation of the suburbs. I don't want to hear my neighbors or have a grocery within walking distance. I'm happy to need to drive to reach anything, because it means that the hustle and bustle of commerce stays far the hell away from my home. I hate using public transit. I spent a lot of time and money to purchase and maintain my car, and for good reason. I enjoy the convenience of private, personal transport that departs and arrives on my schedule. I don't have to see, hear, or smell any fellow travelers. Don't get me wrong: I'm happy to subsidize public transit with my tax dollars. The hard truth is that it is primarily for the benefit of the poor. I don't intend to use it. You couldn't pay me enough to spend two hours on a bus in lieu of my 30 minute commute. We won't see an end to car culture until it is forced upon us. You will have to tear middle-class Americans kicking and screaming from their suburbs. We have chosen to live this way. The escape from the cities was hard-won, and most people won't give it up just because gas gets expensive.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works. The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallow in it; it's embarrassing.
  - jeza 16y ago
    Closer to the US, Toronto and Vancouver manage to run effective public transport systems in American style cities. It's essentially a myth that you need high densities to support rail/bus services.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Having been to Vancouver and living in Europe[1], I have to agree that public transport can work very very well. My uncle, for example, lives in a small country town in Germany and it is serviced by a very regular train with which you can pretty much go anywhere (obviously the distant destinations require you to go to the closest city and transfer from there, but any local towns and villages are quickly and easily reached). [1] Sadly, in Ireland, public transport is not so great. I have family in mainland Europe though and public transport is (generally) quite good there.
  - hapless 16y ago
    I have been to some European countries, and that's patently untrue. Residential neighborhoods tend to contain lots of shared housing -- apartments/rowhouses with shared walls between units -- and all attendant noise and unpleasantness. The only residential neighborhood I ever enjoyed was when I stayed with a family who lived as I do: four vehicles for four people, in a freestanding home, driving to the grocery daily. The major difference in our lifestyles is that, ignoring exchange rates, they paid easily five times as much to achieve my standard of living. I don't think they would willingly trade places with their middle class employees, living in the crowded row housing. To put it another way, I reject your underlying argument. Yes, hundreds millions of Europeans have become accustomed to a lower standard of living than mine. No, that does not mean I will happily acclimate myself to the same standard.
danssig 16y ago
>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars I think it's the abundance of ground. The last time I was in the states I realized that the entire shopping street in my city could fit in an american mall parking lot. What a tremendous waste of space, but it's cheaper than going up like is done in Europe. >Invest in public transit infrastructure Personally I think public transit is a stepping stone. It's not a workable final solution. It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets. A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go. We wouldn't need parking places because the cars never stop. We'd have the convenience of not having to drive.
- jeza 16y ago
  > It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets. That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes, I think most people can tolerate that. If it doesn't go where you're going then you transfer, again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either. > A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go. Would still create congestion on busy routes and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.
  - danssig 16y ago
    >That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes Except that isn't realistic for everywhere. Even in a pretty densely populated country there will be areas that just can't justify that high frequency. >again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either. I'm living in a country that has, imo, the best public transport in the world. Even in remote areas a bus or train will be there once an hour. Normally it's 30 minutes in smaller towns and 10-15 or less as you go up. The issue is the connections. 5 minutes here, 15 minutes there. You don't have to travel very far before public transit is taking double the time it takes to go by car. I really hate driving, I feel like it's throwing my time in the trash. The issue is, as a programmer, I'm more productive in 2 solid hours than I am in four 1 hour periods. >Would still create congestion on busy routes Congestion shouldn't be any issue at all if everything is computer controlled. When you try to schedule at a certain time the computer can already say that you'll be picked up 10 minutes later and arrive 10 minutes later. Most congestion is caused by stupid things human drivers are doing. Get rid of human drivers and driving suddenly becomes vastly safer. >and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day. This could be but that would mean that, say, 80% of all public pool cars would be sitting in a central parking lot most of the day. How is that worse than now with 100% of cars sitting idle most of the day? Plus in many places every family will have 2 or more cars.
neworbit 16y ago
It's attractive to propose "let's build a new kind of city" or if you prefer, a new sort of living style, but this is one of the classic boil-the-ocean sort of problems that any ground-up engineering solution faces. How do we migrate people from a solution they know, like, inhabit, and own today to one that they don't know, will likely have to be educated to like, don't currently inhabit, and don't currently own? It's a tall order.
solid 16y ago
>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park). A major reason is the massive amount of explosive growth directed through central planning by government. This has literally made most cities designed around travel by car. >Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever. Getting rid of government subsidy to oil through lobby, tax breaks, and the military-industrial complex would go a long way toward this goal. We are bearing the full brunt of the "moral hazard" experiment.

by angdis 16y ago

roc 16y ago

That's pretty much it. Our infrastructure and assumptions are built on the existence of oil. Its ease of transport, its energy density, its relatively low costs. And there is no alternative with all those features. So you need to address those assumptions before you can see where it's going. Which is why we should probably stop spending 10x as much subsidizing commuting over transit. Because most of those suburbs are probably not going to recover from this housing crash. Growth economics allowed us to waste money building, zoning and living that way. But it's not going to work anymore. Not for nearly as many people.

hapless 16y ago

Americans don't want "human scale" cities or public transit, or else we would already have them. I realize this is not politically correct, but I like the isolation of the suburbs. I don't want to hear my neighbors or have a grocery within walking distance. I'm happy to need to drive to reach anything, because it means that the hustle and bustle of commerce stays far the hell away from my home. I hate using public transit. I spent a lot of time and money to purchase and maintain my car, and for good reason. I enjoy the convenience of private, personal transport that departs and arrives on my schedule. I don't have to see, hear, or smell any fellow travelers. Don't get me wrong: I'm happy to subsidize public transit with my tax dollars. The hard truth is that it is primarily for the benefit of the poor. I don't intend to use it. You couldn't pay me enough to spend two hours on a bus in lieu of my 30 minute commute. We won't see an end to car culture until it is forced upon us. You will have to tear middle-class Americans kicking and screaming from their suburbs. We have chosen to live this way. The escape from the cities was hard-won, and most people won't give it up just because gas gets expensive.

Vivtek 16y ago
You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works. The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallow in it; it's embarrassing.
- jeza 16y ago
  Closer to the US, Toronto and Vancouver manage to run effective public transport systems in American style cities. It's essentially a myth that you need high densities to support rail/bus services.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    Having been to Vancouver and living in Europe[1], I have to agree that public transport can work very very well. My uncle, for example, lives in a small country town in Germany and it is serviced by a very regular train with which you can pretty much go anywhere (obviously the distant destinations require you to go to the closest city and transfer from there, but any local towns and villages are quickly and easily reached). [1] Sadly, in Ireland, public transport is not so great. I have family in mainland Europe though and public transport is (generally) quite good there.
- hapless 16y ago
  I have been to some European countries, and that's patently untrue. Residential neighborhoods tend to contain lots of shared housing -- apartments/rowhouses with shared walls between units -- and all attendant noise and unpleasantness. The only residential neighborhood I ever enjoyed was when I stayed with a family who lived as I do: four vehicles for four people, in a freestanding home, driving to the grocery daily. The major difference in our lifestyles is that, ignoring exchange rates, they paid easily five times as much to achieve my standard of living. I don't think they would willingly trade places with their middle class employees, living in the crowded row housing. To put it another way, I reject your underlying argument. Yes, hundreds millions of Europeans have become accustomed to a lower standard of living than mine. No, that does not mean I will happily acclimate myself to the same standard.

danssig 16y ago

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars I think it's the abundance of ground. The last time I was in the states I realized that the entire shopping street in my city could fit in an american mall parking lot. What a tremendous waste of space, but it's cheaper than going up like is done in Europe. >Invest in public transit infrastructure Personally I think public transit is a stepping stone. It's not a workable final solution. It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets. A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go. We wouldn't need parking places because the cars never stop. We'd have the convenience of not having to drive.

jeza 16y ago
> It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets. That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes, I think most people can tolerate that. If it doesn't go where you're going then you transfer, again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either. > A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go. Would still create congestion on busy routes and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.
- danssig 16y ago
  >That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes Except that isn't realistic for everywhere. Even in a pretty densely populated country there will be areas that just can't justify that high frequency. >again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either. I'm living in a country that has, imo, the best public transport in the world. Even in remote areas a bus or train will be there once an hour. Normally it's 30 minutes in smaller towns and 10-15 or less as you go up. The issue is the connections. 5 minutes here, 15 minutes there. You don't have to travel very far before public transit is taking double the time it takes to go by car. I really hate driving, I feel like it's throwing my time in the trash. The issue is, as a programmer, I'm more productive in 2 solid hours than I am in four 1 hour periods. >Would still create congestion on busy routes Congestion shouldn't be any issue at all if everything is computer controlled. When you try to schedule at a certain time the computer can already say that you'll be picked up 10 minutes later and arrive 10 minutes later. Most congestion is caused by stupid things human drivers are doing. Get rid of human drivers and driving suddenly becomes vastly safer. >and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day. This could be but that would mean that, say, 80% of all public pool cars would be sitting in a central parking lot most of the day. How is that worse than now with 100% of cars sitting idle most of the day? Plus in many places every family will have 2 or more cars.

neworbit 16y ago

It's attractive to propose "let's build a new kind of city" or if you prefer, a new sort of living style, but this is one of the classic boil-the-ocean sort of problems that any ground-up engineering solution faces. How do we migrate people from a solution they know, like, inhabit, and own today to one that they don't know, will likely have to be educated to like, don't currently inhabit, and don't currently own? It's a tall order.

solid 16y ago

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park). A major reason is the massive amount of explosive growth directed through central planning by government. This has literally made most cities designed around travel by car. >Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever. Getting rid of government subsidy to oil through lobby, tax breaks, and the military-industrial complex would go a long way toward this goal. We are bearing the full brunt of the "moral hazard" experiment.