3 ms·

Just a reminder that all this car infrastructure is max ~100 years old, and most non-North-American cities are older than 100 years. Human civilization just mig

by titzer 4y ago

Just a reminder that all this car infrastructure is max ~100 years old, and most non-North-American cities are older than 100 years. Human civilization just might last more than 100 years, so anything done in 100 years can be undone. To put it another way, if you told people 100 years ago that we'd need to build 63,000 gas stations and 4 million miles[1] of highway in the US, they'd think you're crazy. It would seem logistically impossible. AND no one would want to pay for it. Yet tell those same people 100 years of "it's for the economy" and you end up where we are.[2] [1] That is only a conservative estimate of all the infrastructure that was built to subsidize the auto/oil industry. It's a lot more. [2] This is not me disagreeing with the article. Greening is absolutely a swindle to make money.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Just a reminder that all this car infrastructure is max ~100 years old 100 years ago we had one third the population we have today. Undoing that kind of development in another 100 years is plausible, but I suspect the oil problem will have resolved itself around that time anyway. And installing the same size network of public transit is far more expensive than paving that many miles of roads. Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. The real ask is for changing population patterns to become more dense, and this is a decades-long evolution.
- titzer 4y ago
  > Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. I don't know why you chose to exaggerate here, but rail lines are +/- the same cost per mile as interstate highway, and that's without the economies-of-scale benefit that comes from there being 100x the number of interstate miles. They're also vastly cheaper in terms of materials; the cost is mainly not materials. Concrete production is also extremely CO2 and energy intensive. Unsurprisingly, a boring 19th century technology deployed with vastly less energy and raw materials is more efficient. We're moving backwards in terms of overall system efficiency because of the economics of supporting a individualistic consumer society. And there's a phalanx of people spreading FUD to defend it from disruption.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    The best case is that running diesel trains along all the interstate routes would be cheaper than the interstates themselves. I'll give you that, it is probably true (or close enough). But the vehicle I use on the rails has to stay on rails, and the cost of running rails becomes significantly more expensive as density increases. Politically and economically both. And can you replace every last paved road in America with rails? No, of course not, so you still have some kind of road network. Which brings us back full circle to why people like interstates to begin with. Systemic energy efficiency is one very simplistic measure of a transportation network. And I would argue the least important. Though I would love to hear a description of your utopian transportation system. Assuming it doesn't rely too heavily on a wholesale redesign of lifestyle preferences (e.g. "everyone lives in a skyscraper" is kind of a non-starter).
    - thomasjb 4y ago
      There's no compelling reason why you couldn't have your rails embedded in the roads, most likely for light tram-type vehicles in denser urban areas, although you could go heavier if you like. Then you can have both wheel and rail transport together. As you're putting up pantographs for the trams, there's no reason to not also have trolleybuses using them. When you have a network density built up to less than 5 minutes walk to the nearest tram/trolleybus stop, with a good timetable for daytime, there is little reason to have any private transport for within-town transport. Add provision of freight carrying by tram (use passing loops and specially designed trams for carrying pallets or delivery cages) and the number of vehicles with good reason to be in the town decreases further. As you get into lower density areas, it makes more sense to go for links between towns and villages by rail, with ICE or electric buses feeding in. There should be no more than 15 minutes walk for normal users to reach a bus stop (Note: all bus stops should be very nice, with roofs and walls that keep the rain out). In all rural and urban cases, there should be the option of an app or call button which summons a battery minivan (or trolleybus in suitably served areas) to a person's door at anytime, with confirmation after the length of time for estimated collection is received. Automated scheduling systems with 24 hour service for dispatching electric minivans at reasonable cost to the end user to a location would remove the need for a lot of car journeys. The thing is, none of this requires new technology, and could be marketed as a jobs program alone. Automating parts would be nice, but there's no reason this couldn't have been done anywhere in say, 1920.

by titzer 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

> Just a reminder that all this car infrastructure is max ~100 years old 100 years ago we had one third the population we have today. Undoing that kind of development in another 100 years is plausible, but I suspect the oil problem will have resolved itself around that time anyway. And installing the same size network of public transit is far more expensive than paving that many miles of roads. Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. The real ask is for changing population patterns to become more dense, and this is a decades-long evolution.

titzer 4y ago
> Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. I don't know why you chose to exaggerate here, but rail lines are +/- the same cost per mile as interstate highway, and that's without the economies-of-scale benefit that comes from there being 100x the number of interstate miles. They're also vastly cheaper in terms of materials; the cost is mainly not materials. Concrete production is also extremely CO2 and energy intensive. Unsurprisingly, a boring 19th century technology deployed with vastly less energy and raw materials is more efficient. We're moving backwards in terms of overall system efficiency because of the economics of supporting a individualistic consumer society. And there's a phalanx of people spreading FUD to defend it from disruption.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  The best case is that running diesel trains along all the interstate routes would be cheaper than the interstates themselves. I'll give you that, it is probably true (or close enough). But the vehicle I use on the rails has to stay on rails, and the cost of running rails becomes significantly more expensive as density increases. Politically and economically both. And can you replace every last paved road in America with rails? No, of course not, so you still have some kind of road network. Which brings us back full circle to why people like interstates to begin with. Systemic energy efficiency is one very simplistic measure of a transportation network. And I would argue the least important. Though I would love to hear a description of your utopian transportation system. Assuming it doesn't rely too heavily on a wholesale redesign of lifestyle preferences (e.g. "everyone lives in a skyscraper" is kind of a non-starter).
  - thomasjb 4y ago
    There's no compelling reason why you couldn't have your rails embedded in the roads, most likely for light tram-type vehicles in denser urban areas, although you could go heavier if you like. Then you can have both wheel and rail transport together. As you're putting up pantographs for the trams, there's no reason to not also have trolleybuses using them. When you have a network density built up to less than 5 minutes walk to the nearest tram/trolleybus stop, with a good timetable for daytime, there is little reason to have any private transport for within-town transport. Add provision of freight carrying by tram (use passing loops and specially designed trams for carrying pallets or delivery cages) and the number of vehicles with good reason to be in the town decreases further. As you get into lower density areas, it makes more sense to go for links between towns and villages by rail, with ICE or electric buses feeding in. There should be no more than 15 minutes walk for normal users to reach a bus stop (Note: all bus stops should be very nice, with roofs and walls that keep the rain out). In all rural and urban cases, there should be the option of an app or call button which summons a battery minivan (or trolleybus in suitably served areas) to a person's door at anytime, with confirmation after the length of time for estimated collection is received. Automated scheduling systems with 24 hour service for dispatching electric minivans at reasonable cost to the end user to a location would remove the need for a lot of car journeys. The thing is, none of this requires new technology, and could be marketed as a jobs program alone. Automating parts would be nice, but there's no reason this couldn't have been done anywhere in say, 1920.