Infrastructure Rebuilding: 100 mpg cars/hwys OR trains/rail lines/bike paths?

[wordpix]

If you had to choose which is the most important and best bang for the gov. buck, which do you choose? As someone who rides metrorail regularly + the bus often + walks between stops, I think it's more environmentally sound and a better dollar investment to go with rail and public transportation than to bail out the auto industry. I have a car, too, but don't use it much. Bailing out the auto industry also means fixing the multitude of roads, hwys, and auto bridges that have fallen into disrepair during the Bushit years. That will cost untold billions, maybe trillions.

I think we need a national dialog and consensus re: which industry to help: rails and trains accompanied by better bus service and bike and walking paths, or the auto industry accompanied by roads, hwys, bridges and continued highway congestion.

[JVS]

1. Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail

[BOSSHOG]

2. Like the one Springfield bought on the Simpsons

[liberal N proud]

3. Trains and monorails are great for cities and inter-city travel, but...

Most of America is rural and people are spread out. In farm states, most people live a mile or more from their closest neighbor. Rail will not work for those areas.

I believe this nation needs high speed rail to replace the intercity driving most people do now. It however needs to cost less for the consumer than driving.
I would fly from Cleveland to Florida with my family but it is 3x cheaper to drive a family of 4 that distance than the cost of airfare.

[JVS]

4. Maybe they should consider horses for day to day travelling and keep the car garaged...

for long trips and the weekly run to the grocery store.

[liberal N proud]

7. Have you ever been in farm country?

Say Iowa or Nebraska?

Try riding a horse in January in Iowa.

[JVS]

10. Yeah, I went to MN during Christmas to bury my Grandfather

And you know what? People didn't spend a lot of time gallivanting around like a bunch of fucking dumbasses because it was fucking cold and they knew they had no business being outside.

[liberal N proud]

24. I grew up in Norther Iowa

I don't remember the cold slowing us down too much.
Farmers still had to get out to take care of the livestock and kids still attended school and school events.
But maybe you think that those people should not have a life off the farm.

The only thing that will keep the people of the midwest at home is 3 feet of snow and that will only last as long as it takes to dig out.

[superxero044]

34. Maybe you should stick to things

That you know about.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Also, horses are not efficient. The resources they demand are extensive

Something that is never addressed.

[salvorhardin]

12. A return to horses for personal transport would be an environmental disaster

After all, who's going to clean up all that poo?

And I'm pretty sure the total cost of ownership of a horse (taking into account purchase cost, boarding, food, vet bills, etc.) is going to exceed that of a personal automobile by a long shot. Even if we only consider cost/mile I think the personal automobile still wins out.

[JVS]

14. How foolish of me to think that the ecosystem of the countryside might support some animals

I'm not saying that people in cities should get horses, but I'm pretty sure that adding one to a farm isn't going to bury the place in shit.

[salvorhardin]

16. But we don't have just a handful of farms any more

Even in very rural areas we have population densities of 50 people per square mile or more.

Also, as loindelrio and I both said, you're not taking into account resource demands.

[JVS]

17. Then these people need to move to somewhere more populated an quit wasting gas

[salvorhardin]

19. Will there be jobs for them wherever they move?

Will they be able to afford to move? Who is going to buy their homes? Should the government pay for relocation and reimburse them for their homes? How much would that cost? Maybe there's a solution that would allow people to live where they want to live and still be environmentally sound and cost-effective?

[NickB79]

40. Depopulating rural counties results in massive factory farms

There are 640 acres per square mile. That is the equivalent of 4 family farms in my neck of the woods (central MN).

4 farm families would be approximately 10-20 people, give or take.

Then those families need people around selling them groceries, farm equipment, seed, fertilizer, fuel, entertainment, schooling for their children, health care, etc. THOSE people have families of their own as well. It all adds up pretty fast.

The ONLY way that we can depopulate the rural areas to "quit wasting gas", as you say, while still putting food on YOUR plate would be to consolidate those small family farms into massive, heavily automated factory farms. Feedlots and fields stretching to the horizon, sustained heavily by chemical fertilizers and pesticides, all run by less than 1 family per square mile.

40-50 people per square mile population density is not high enough to justify "those people" moving out of the rural areas if you want a healthy environment and healthy food.

[Blue Meany]

6. Part of the problem we have is that towns and suburbs

have been built and developed around transportation systems that are not themselves sustainable. Hi speed trains may provide the backbone of a transportation infrastructure--and certainly could replace cars for inter-city travel--but you need a local transport systems to get you to your final destination. In vast, spread out suburbs and in rural areas this is difficult to accomplish without individualized transport, unless, of course, we opt for a Third World type system in which you can get anywhere by bus or mini-bus, but you might have to wait a day or two to catch it.

[gollygee]

23. How about low mpg cars to get you to the train line

then trains to take you into the city, and then light rail to take you around the city. I've been to Australia several times (I have family there) and that's the system that is in Melbourne. Well, they don't have 100 mpg cars but they have a lot of hybrids and the market seems to be more open to that kind of thing. And the trams and trains are always full, and there are lots of them. In fact, they could have more trams and trains than they have because tons of people still drive and maybe more people would take public transportation if they weren't always full.

[tabbycat31]

29. what about commuter rail lines

I grew up in the NYC suburbs (to be exact, one mile south of the Clinton's current residence) and there's a train that runs at least every hour that takes you into Manhattan. The train ride is about 45 minutes long. My mother works in NYC and takes the train in every day.

Now I live in central/east New Jersey, and we also have a train that takes you into Manhattan. The train ride's about 2 hours long. What I don't see from NJ is a train that takes you into Philly though. I'm right near route 195 (an east/west road across the narrowest part of NJ) and i would LOVE to see a train line run parallel to 195.

[salvorhardin]

8. I agree with you

Various transportation modes are cost-efficient within certain distances. Walking/Biking/Urban mass transit/Small electric vehicles are best for very short range (five miles or under). Personal automobiles are fine for short-mid range travel (five to fifty miles). High speed rail is great for mid-long range travel (fifty to 1500 miles) and air is good for long-very long range travel (coast to coast, transoceanic).

[salvorhardin]

5. It's not that simple of a problem

While I'm a strong advocate of walkable cities and public transportation, the fact is that a large percentage of our population lives in rural areas where that's untenable. Furthermore, plans based on New Urbanism frequently fail to take the elderly and disabled into account, or at least adequately plan for their needs. There are a lot of ideas that address either urban or rural areas and their unique transportation needs, but the trick will be in finding a workable synthesis. Whatever solution we come up with though one thing is clear. We do need to start planning for the future and we need to start doing so now. It is going to cost trillions. There's no way around that. However, letting our current infrastructure decay while awaiting some grand master plan is not going to help anyone. We need to do both, and a whole lot more.

[Strelnikov_]

9. Mass transit does not save energy compared to the typical automobile

(20.5 mpg) in terms of energy consumed per passenger mile.

Mass transit, to date, has been deployed to alleviate traffic congestion and pollution (smog). With the population density we have attained through decades of development, mass transit is not energy efficient.

Following is the publication that caused me to dig into energy efficiency of mass transit.

Our urban sprawl has no precedent in history, so the feasibility of a mass transit system has yet to be proven – a true mass transit system for the U.S. today may, in fact, be impossible. In addition, the energy savings of mass transit, in the context of implementing such a system in today’s configuration configuration of cities and urban sprawl, may be highly overrated. Figure 6 shows that existing mass transit systems do not provide significant fuel savings.11 It depicts the Btus of energy per passenger mile (assuming average passenger densities) for each type of transportation.

11. Transportation Energy Data Book, 25th Edition, 2006, tables 2-11 and 2-12, Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS12.pdf

Following is the raw data:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

Following is the concept of what I think is the personal transportation future to serve as the collector from low density development to high load factor electric powered mass transit corridors.

[salvorhardin]

13. That's more in line with what I was talking about with efficiencies of various transportation modes

The only problem with that design though is it doesn't work very well in high snow areas.

[okieinpain]

15. rails, and bike paths. especially bike paths. on riding the rails

we really need to start pushing people to behave in public. I was watching d.l. hughley's show saturday and he did a little skit on riding the subway in new york. some of the shit that people put up with is ridiculess, we need to be responsible and stand together.

[gollygee]

18. It depends on the specific area

Rural areas won't be helped much by bike trails because people live too far from where they have to go. Northern areas won't be helped by bike trails in the winter.

So I think a combination, with a different approach in different areas depending on the specifics.

[FormerDittoHead]

20. What we need is a revamp of auto insurance.

Wow. I know that's left-field, but I think a lot of our problems could be solved if our auto insurance was not by the vehicle but by the driver.

How many times have I seen someone driving a flat-bed pick up (or van) with no passenger, and nothing in the back!?

Couldn't they instead, have a second car one of those hyper-efficient deals for when they're not carrying a load of bricks in the back?

NO. Because insurance costs are ALMOST the same as the cost of the car! EVEN IF YOU'RE THE *ONLY* DRIVER.

When my Mom died and I got her car, we had to give up our small car. Why? Because, even though we were the ONLY two drivers, and that small car was NEVER driven by anyone else, it was over $100 a month just to have it sit in the driveway! So we got rid of it and never had the OPTION of driving just the little car.

If you live in the city where parking is prohibitive, of course this suggestion means nothing, however, I really don't see where the big difference is here (cars versus drivers) but for SOME drivers, it WOULD be a big difference...

[crispini]

30. Or, why not share cars?

I share a truck with four of my neighbors.

[FormerDittoHead]

31. I wish you were MY neighbor! n/t

[crispini]

32. Hehehe. My neighborhood is kind of communitarian...

but it comes from a long shared involvement in neighborhood stuff. When you've worked together for years on various issues, you tend to trust each other enough to buy large stuff together. Plus, I know where they all live. :evilgrin:

[dccrossman]

21. I wish Atlanta had decent public transportation

The public transportation here is abhorrent. MARTA buses stop about every 1/10 of a mile, because every apt complex needs a stop in front of their building too. And the coverage into the outer counties is awful. Almost everyone here drives and is will to pay the extra parking fees and gas in order to avoid MARTA. When gas hit $4/gal, there was some shift, but only (at least as far as I know) in people that work downtown within an easy walk of a train station or 1 connection from a train station.

I live in an outer county, in order to use public transport, I would get to work an hour later. Even at $4/gal, my time was worth more than the potentially saved money.

Just another 2 cents.

[Greyhound]

36. I lived there as well as other cities all over the country and sadly, Atlanta's

transit system is better than most.

Shocking, I know.

[varelse]

22. What about transportation of goods?

We still need highways and freeways in good condition, because products and resources are still transported ("shipped") that way. Are you suggesting that railways would completely take over the transportation of goods that truckers and freight companies are handling now?

[cobalt1999]

25. The problem with that is our cities and towns are all zoned and spread out

All based on an automobile culture.

Zoning laws have grouped businesses far from residential areas eliminating the ability for most people to walk or bike to many destinations.

Urban sprawl because of easy individual transportation has lead to spread out communities that would require extensive rail investment for a small number of people.

Had we never built our cities and towns around the auto, like many European cities, it would be much easier. Now, it would not only require the infrastructure investments you described, but a total rearrangement of our cities & towns.

[Warpy]

26. Urban travel will be bike paths, light rail, and intercity rail, of course

However, flyover country is different and the need for personal transportation is not going to go away. We will also need the relative flexibility of highway transport to distribute perishable foodstuffs, unless we all want to live on potatoes, cabbage, and onions in the winter.

One size doesn't fit all, and while rail transit makes sense along urban corridors and for long distance transport of non perishable items, it's not a particularly efficient way to move people relatively short distances out here between the coasts and it's too inflexible to be a reliable way to move perishable food.

While it looks appealing to urbanites on either coast to concentrate solely on a network of rail systems, it's just not workable in most of the country. We're stuck with some sort of passenger vehicle out here for the foreseeable future, as well as with the trucking system.

"Let it all go back to grass" is just not a workable option.

[Orsino]

27. Common sense says we develop all of these things.

The auto bail-out isn't going to get us these magical cars, though.

[dysfunctional press]

28. our infrastructure and society are already based around automobiles...

and that is what people want.

developing better autos is the best solution.

[malletgirl02]

33. Good idea

I think that is a good idea. Also good for you of trying to think of a solution. Some kind of public works administration could work. Recommend.

[ContinentalOp]

35. Improved car technology is a far more important investment.

People aren't going to give up their cars and switch to public transportation overnight. Pushing toward more innovation for efficient cars can help our economy and create jobs. Those technical innovations could also potentially have applications in other fields. Improved battery technology is crucial for electric cars but it's also a factor in things like home solar systems so funding that kind of research would have multiple benefits.

Public transportation is more of a local issue and those kind of projects take decades to get going. Electric cars could go into production tomorrow. The road infrastructure maintenance and repair that you're talking about is going to have to be done anyway. What are you proposing, that everybody start to ride bikes and we let our roads crumble? Even if you switched all urban residents over to commuter light rail and bicycles, you're ignoring trucking and other uses. We need our roads, they're not going away, and we can't just ignore them.

[Greyhound]

37. This is not an either/or proposition, we are going to need funding for public

works projects on an unprecedented scale over the next decade.

Personal transportation is not going anywhere in the next generation or two, so more efficient alternatives are needed, however we are also in desperate need of alternatives for long distance interstate travel and shipping and a rail-like system is by far the most cost effective option in terms of real cost.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Personally I Don't Like Public Transportation. But I'll Take A 100 MPG Car In A Heartbeat!

[taterguy]

39. Those of us that use public transportation are so glad we don't have to put up with you

:hide:

[ogneopasno]

41. Edited, I was wrong.