Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like you all have solved our energy problems and the reality is we really have no problems at all and the suburbs are going to thrive.
This has all been our imagination....
No, it's been your schadenfreude.
There is a column in today's Wall Street Journal by Boone Pickens, CEO of BP Capital and long time oil man. Boone's article is about getting off of foreign oil. He mentions Wind Farms in the Midwest and Natural Gas powered cars (natural gas being the one fossil fuel we have domestically in amounts that make it a viable alternative to oil for transportation needs)
Mr. Pickens goes on about solar and fuel cells and battery technology and biofuels. He writes that these are all plausible and attainable--not pie-in-the-sky.
He also points out that if we DO NOT reduce our dependency on foreign oil we will spend, and send, about 10 Trillion (yes, that is a T) dollars importing oil over the next ten yrs. The impact of this on our nation's economy will NOT be a benefit to anyone, city dweller OR suburbanite. It is for this reason that we will see more resources and effort into switching over to alternatives sooner rather than later--as a nation we have NO CHOICE!
I have already posted what scientists and college students are already working on, and how far along they are, as well as the surprising cost-effectiveness of some of these ideas.
I'll put more into what guys like Boone Pickens say and into what scientists here and abroad are capable of accomplishing than on those who think the suburbs are abut to crumble.
If an oilman is stamping his feet about getting away from a dependence on oil, then you know the situation must be worse than anyone wants to admit!
Here's another thought on suburbs and costs. Not every cost is measured in dollars. Sometimes it's measured in time. If you live in the suburbs and commute into the city (for whatever reason--work, tourism, to see your favorite sports team, or just a night on the town) then you're paying in more than just dollars and cents per gallon. You're paying in time. If spending that time is worth it to you, then you can justify living in a suburb.
Otherwise, well, you can always do more than just visit the city!
southqueens, you were really convinced by that editorial?
I read that today. that was the most retarded editorial i've read in my life. a bunch of wind farms? he said "according to the US department of energy, the US has the potential to produce 20% of its electricity with wind." That is, if we build wind power to the absolute max, like a freaking wind power plant everywhere you can catch wind, which alone would be pretty damn expensive, we could have 20 percent of just our electricity, which not only is not that much considering the amount of wind plants needed to be built, and the fact that 2/3rds of our oil is used for cars. That would pretty much do nothing to ease our overseas oil demands.
the 20 cents and 30 centst per mile argument? are you kidding?? I ride about 600 miles a month, conservatively considering i live in the bx and commute to bk almost daily. that would mean I spend about 13 cents a mile. and I can guarantee you travel way more miles than I do. I'm sorry man, but thats just a weak argument. And maybe for you its not tthatt much money, but for most people it is and does put a substantial strain on their budget (%90 of americans according to a USA poll). tthe trains do use electricity, yes, but far less than if you were to power the equivalent amount of electric cars. far less. and for the arguments about the LIRR, a joke. First of all the ridership is growing big time. Secondly, yes most people drive in LI. but compared to those who commute to the city? more people take the train for CITY commuters. This is stupid logic politicians actually fool people like you with for ridiculous reasons not to make obvious infrastructure improvements.
southqueens, you were really convinced by that editorial?
I read that today. that was the most retarded editorial i've read in my life. a bunch of wind farms? he said "according to the US department of energy, the US has the potential to produce 20% of its electricity with wind." That is, if we build wind power to the absolute max, like a freaking wind power plant everywhere you can catch wind, which alone would be pretty damn expensive, we could have 20 percent of just our electricity, which not only is not that much considering the amount of wind plants needed to be built, and the fact that 2/3rds of our oil is used for cars. That would pretty much do nothing to ease our overseas oil demands.
the 20 cents and 30 centst per mile argument? are you kidding?? I ride about 600 miles a month, conservatively considering i live in the bx and commute to bk almost daily. that would mean I spend about 13 cents a mile. and I can guarantee you travel way more miles than I do. I'm sorry man, but thats just a weak argument. And maybe for you its not tthatt much money, but for most people it is and does put a substantial strain on their budget (%90 of americans according to a USA poll). tthe trains do use electricity, yes, but far less than if you were to power the equivalent amount of electric cars. far less. and for the arguments about the LIRR, a joke. First of all the ridership is growing big time. Secondly, yes most people drive in LI. but compared to those who commute to the city? more people take the train for CITY commuters. This is stupid logic politicians actually fool people like you with for ridiculous reasons not to make obvious infrastructure improvements.
Jackson, substitute nuke power plants for wind farms. Feel Better? There are plenty of alternatives to oil, they juts need to get mass produced. It' s not impossible. If we can develop an oil infrastructure complete with oil rigs, tankers, refineries, storage tanks, etc, we can place solar panels on our homes and wind farms where they can be productive.
I guarantee you that electric vehicles will be more cost-effective in 10 yrs. Also, cities use more electricity than the suburbs: think of all the street lights and traffic lights that need to be powered in NYC. Think of all the common areas of buildings (Stairwells, hallways, lobbies) that have the lights on 24/7. Ditto the lights in the subways. Think of all the elevators operating in NYC on any given day. Think of all the industrial water pumps that are used to get water to the people living higher than the 6th fl. Nassau County, Westchester county, etc aren't using that kind of juice.
As for oil: Think of all the police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses, maintenance crews, etc that NYC's gov't has to fuel every day with gasoline and diesel. City dwellers better hope alternatives are put into place or oil drops significantly, or else your taxes are going to go way up just trying to keep essential services rolling.
Anyway, read this post written in Dec 2007. There's plenty pro-city stuff in there, but the guy is objective about the overall oil-scarcity issue that is at the root of this whole thread. He even states that the suburbs may "wither and die," and/or be transformed back into farm areas that grow food for the cities, but he also says that the ideal city will be one that is 1 million persons or less, which pretty much means an outflow of people from the NYC Metro area if that is to be achieved.
Unfortunately, the guy never talks about cars that run on batteries or hybrids that use much less gas. He never talks much about ANY alternative fuels, or the so-called "Air-Car" that runs on compressed air and is to be mass produced in India by Tata motors. He *sighs* when he mentions that we'll build nuke plants--I guess he's against it, but the price of oil is only likely to rise, and that is going to drag other energy costs up with it, including electricity, so our goal must be more electric generation WITHOUT burning more oil (there's always coal, but nukes are cleaner)
Jackson, not sure what you're point is on the .20/mile figure--I explained how I got it. It is based on a $5 gallon using a car that gets 30 miles/gallon. What about that is "lame"? If your car is less efficient, the cost per mile will be higher. I don't get your .13 figure either... If you're driving from Brooklyn to the Bronx 5 days a week, you probably drive more than I do--and your driving is probably a lot of stop-and-go, which uses a lot of gas. I live in an almost traffic-free area and my daily drive to the train is pretty much a steady 55mph for most of my drive and then a steady 30mph for part of it. So I get good mileage.
For people like the guy mentioned above spending $700/month in CA for gas, the price increases have been a problem. For most people in the NYC burbs the increases in gas prices have meant an extra $50 to $100 a month maximum. That is not a huge issue for most suburbanites. And most of the lower-income suburbanites--for whom that is a big deal--live in urban areas like Yonkers where there are buses and they can probably walk to the train. Unlike most of America, the NYC burbs are relatively dense--even the 'rural' parts where I live--and there are excellent commuter trains that are pretty close to where most of us live.
Fred314x--my commute to work is now 10 minutes longer than it was when I lived in Brooklyn (when the subways were running well, that is). Is the extra 20 minutes a day worth it to me? Totally.
There are substantial parts of the NYC burbs that do not have reliable or frequent train service, though. Most of Suffolk County is on diesel service (east of Huntington, Ronkonkoma, and Babylon); Rockland's service is a joke, and chunks of Jersey don't have trains (although they do have express buses).
Westchester and Nassau are by far the best served counties.
People out in Suffolk or Rockland do drive everywhere and they're hurting. And you're wrong about lower-income people; there are substantial numbers of them further out. On top of that, the further-out middle classes are the most stretched. Many of them moved there because they couldn't afford to buy further in. That gas hike (and the heating oil hike, and LIPA passing on its costs...) has hit them hard.
City vs. Suburb: there's an anthropological reason for the existence of cities. They developed as centers of convenience. (Go ahead, I'll wait here while you look it up: before the first cities, everyone on earth was a nomad). There's no particular reason for the existence of suburbs, except as a move away from cities. If cities = convenience, then by definition suburbs = inconvenience. Let the rationalizations begin!
Fred314X, Cities were developed as protection against enemies, not for convenience. Before the first city, people lived in small villages--very much like today's suburbs. Anyone who has taken psych 101 knows that all people thrive on a comination of connection and privacy. Many (but not all) suburbs offer the perfect balance of the two. Cities don't. There's a pyschological and anthroplogical reason why most people prefer the burbs.
I don't know anyone in Westchester who drives to work--unless they work nearby, like my wife. I don't think anywhere in the county is more than 10 miles from a train station (if that), and even without the cost of gas it simply makes no sense to drive to the city.
Huh? 90% of the people I know from Westchester (and I grew up there, and my entire family and most of my friends still live there) drive to work. The other 10% train it into the city, but have to drive to the train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250
True enough. I suppose some people work too far from Manhattan to make the train work, or else just prefer driving. But most Westcheterites work in Manhattan and take MetroNorth. We have an amazing commuter rail that is comfy, quiet, and extremely reliable.
Not true at all. Do you know how many major corporations are HQ'ed in Westchester/Greenwich/Stamford, etc.? Most Westchester residents work in the area, not in Manhattan. How long have you lived in Westchester? How many people do you know from Westchester?
Quite the contrary; I'm sure that they do. And you'll find the same situation around any large city. It's just a question of how they get there.
Have you ever lived in Westchester? While a lot of people do work in Manhattan, the majority work in the area.
Out of my 15 family members still living in Westchester - 0 work in Manhattan.
Out of my around 40 friends and their spouses, etc - about 4 or 5 work in Manhattan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
