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.
21st century America
[] The Age of Cheap and Plentiful Oil is over
[] Wasteful consumption of fossil fuels is not sustainable
[] Humanity is expanding at geometric rates, while supported by a finite surface area planet
[] Short term greed has supplanted long term vision
The U.S.A. has the legacy of being a big country that was once "queen of oil". Problem is, although the U.S.A. lost the crown in the 1970s, 30 years later, it still has not lost the mindset. And now we import 70% percent of our oil. We can't afford to remain oil junkies. And there is no alternative that can supply the equivalent of 24 million barrels / day 'habit'.
That means we can't promote, subsidize or maintain any transportation system entirely dependent upon petroleum, and expect to survive the remainder of the 21st century.
Automobiles (and all related vehicles) are entirely too wasteful of resources. Even alternative fuel and electric automobiles are dependent on petroleum for lubrication, synthetic rubber tires, plastics, and the asphalt pavement they roll upon. The vast paved surfaces needed for parking, roads, as well as superhighways cannot be excused as a necessity any more. That development model has to be abandoned, as soon as possible.
Will it be a shock? Certainly.
America has the most automobiles per capita than any other nation. But that's no excuse for not recognizing that if our imports were shut off, for whatever reason - at least 70% of the cars on the road would have no fuel. Those people will need transportation.
Barring a technological breakthrough, the only viable mass transit system is electric powered rail in all its forms.
In addition, all future development will have to be changed from the automobile centered pattern to a rail based transit pattern.
All current development patterns dependent upon petroleum are at risk - especially the suburbs.
Wisdom suggests that we embark on a national initiative to build / rebuild the rail networks that once stretched across America. America once built 500 electric streetcar systems in less than 20 years (1890 - 1910). Streetcar / Trolley tracks reached 34,404 miles by 1907. The interurban electric railways for the entire country totaled approximately 18,000 miles by 1917. Most cities and towns of 25,000 or more got a non-oil electrical transportation system. The U.S.A. did this with a population of less than one-third of today's, approximately 3% of today's GNP, and relatively primitive technology.
Interesting question. Your poll misses an important point. Assuming there is a need to rely on mass transit over private vehicles, you can't just have one alternative. You need to have a combination of the following in place:
* High density, mixed-use residential living - an end to the suburban/exurban sprawl. Building up, not out. The importance of a major overhaul of residential living patterns can't be stated enough.
* A comprehensive network of mass transit i.e. streetcars (trams), buses, light and heavy rail, taxis, ferries (for cities by the water)
* Pedestrian friendly streets, built for people not cars. This would encourage people to do shorter trips on foot. AND
* an alternative to oil-dependent private vehicles i.e. electric/hybrid cars
No one thing can provide a replacement for the private car. It has to be a multi-pronged solution.
Last edited by hkgal; 03-06-2009 at 06:13 AM..
Reason: typos
Interesting question. Your poll misses an important point. Assuming there is a need to rely on mass transit over private vehicles, you can't just have one alternative. You need to have a combination of the following in place:
* High density, mixed-use residential living - an end to the suburban/exurban sprawl. Building up, not out. The importance of a major overhaul of residential living patterns can't be stated enough.
* A comprehensive network of mass transit i.e. streetcars (trams), buses, light and heavy rail, taxis, ferries (for cities by the water)
* Pedestrian friendly streets, built for people not cars. This would encourage people to do shorter trips on foot. AND
* an alternative to oil-dependent private vehicles i.e. electric/hybrid cars
No one thing can provide a replacement for the private car. It has to be a multi-pronged solution.
The primary reason for over-reliance on private automobiles over public transit, is so that we the "nice people" can navigate to and from our suburban sanctuaries. As such, we are going to be hostile toward any effort to re-urbanize us. The efficient and sensible use of mass transit is just such an effort.
Why do you think we've said no to it for so many years?
The primary reason for over-reliance on private automobiles over public transit, is so that we the "nice people" can navigate to and from our suburban sanctuaries. As such, we are going to be hostile toward any effort to re-urbanize us. The efficient and sensible use of mass transit is just such an effort.
Why do you think we've said no to it for so many years?
Ah yes, I concur. However I would argue that there are many economic incentives or disincentives that would, over time, change people's living/commuting patterns. Obviously you can't simply tell everyone who have their houses out in the 'burbs that they have to up and move to the city - it has to be an organic process.
One uncontrollable and inevitable disincentive will be the increased cost of oil, and cities can also create incentives for people to choose urban living through tax incentives, investment in cities, subsidized mass transit, to name some examples. Cities can also change their planning by-laws to encourage new mixed use dwellings - business and residential together.
There have been a number of incentives/disincentives operating for a number of decades post-war which have created the current living patterns, and people have reasonably responded to these by building large, single family dwelling on even larger lots and thus the car dependent society is created. There is no reason the trend can't be reversed.
we need mass transit so people with infectious diseases and spread it better.
Imagine how hard it would be to hit a bus or train with Rycin (might be spelled wrong)
GUESS WHAT ... this isn't the first time our economy shifted by oil costs ...
... are ANY of you old enough to remember the 70's?
I remember the '70s well. When oil costs were spiking, we said to hell with a 4 cylinder car, we're keeping our V8 gas guzzler and moving to the suburbs.
Interesting question. Your poll misses an important point. Assuming there is a need to rely on mass transit over private vehicles, you can't just have one alternative. You need to have a combination of the following in place:
* High density, mixed-use residential living - an end to the suburban/exurban sprawl. Building up, not out. The importance of a major overhaul of residential living patterns can't be stated enough.
* A comprehensive network of mass transit i.e. streetcars (trams), buses, light and heavy rail, taxis, ferries (for cities by the water)
* Pedestrian friendly streets, built for people not cars. This would encourage people to do shorter trips on foot. AND
* an alternative to oil-dependent private vehicles i.e. electric/hybrid cars
No one thing can provide a replacement for the private car. It has to be a multi-pronged solution.
Exactly.
I think that over the long term the government needs to stop investing in the future of the auto industry with more roads and subsidies and bailouts to the detriment of the economy and the environment and focus its efforts specifically to mass transit. For the first time since they were allowed to dismantle mass transit, let the auto industries fend for themselves.
And I also think the government should provide incentives for mixed used development and people moving closer to the core and using less land.
In my Industrial Utopia you would cluster Apartment complexes, daycares, schools, and health clinics all around or in industrial parks or places were there are thousands of workers. And run a shuttle service around the clock, It would be like a small University enviroment in every city, some large colleges can have 40,000 students without having to provide parking spaces for all those cars. we can't get off the oil until auto mobiles are not practical for every day use, its already that way for some NY'rs
I remember the '70s well. When oil costs were spiking, we said to hell with a 4 cylinder car, we're keeping our V8 gas guzzler and moving to the suburbs.
hmm ... and my 1970 Cadillac with a big block 472 gets about the SAME MPG as my 2006 Ford Escape 6cyl.
21st century America
[] The Age of Cheap and Plentiful Oil is over
[] Wasteful consumption of fossil fuels is not sustainable
[] Humanity is expanding at geometric rates, while supported by a finite surface area planet
[] Short term greed has supplanted long term vision
The U.S.A. has the legacy of being a big country that was once "queen of oil". Problem is, although the U.S.A. lost the crown in the 1970s, 30 years later, it still has not lost the mindset. And now we import 70% percent of our oil. We can't afford to remain oil junkies. And there is no alternative that can supply the equivalent of 24 million barrels / day 'habit'.
That means we can't promote, subsidize or maintain any transportation system entirely dependent upon petroleum, and expect to survive the remainder of the 21st century.
Automobiles (and all related vehicles) are entirely too wasteful of resources. Even alternative fuel and electric automobiles are dependent on petroleum for lubrication, synthetic rubber tires, plastics, and the asphalt pavement they roll upon. The vast paved surfaces needed for parking, roads, as well as superhighways cannot be excused as a necessity any more. That development model has to be abandoned, as soon as possible.
Will it be a shock? Certainly.
America has the most automobiles per capita than any other nation. But that's no excuse for not recognizing that if our imports were shut off, for whatever reason - at least 70% of the cars on the road would have no fuel. Those people will need transportation.
Barring a technological breakthrough, the only viable mass transit system is electric powered rail in all its forms.
In addition, all future development will have to be changed from the automobile centered pattern to a rail based transit pattern.
All current development patterns dependent upon petroleum are at risk - especially the suburbs.
Wisdom suggests that we embark on a national initiative to build / rebuild the rail networks that once stretched across America. America once built 500 electric streetcar systems in less than 20 years (1890 - 1910). Streetcar / Trolley tracks reached 34,404 miles by 1907. The interurban electric railways for the entire country totaled approximately 18,000 miles by 1917. Most cities and towns of 25,000 or more got a non-oil electrical transportation system. The U.S.A. did this with a population of less than one-third of today's, approximately 3% of today's GNP, and relatively primitive technology.
In principle I do not disagree with anything you say.
However, as a practicle matter, we're the type of people who have to be forced into giving up the things we love, aka, gas burning automobiles. Over time, as the price of gas rises we will suddendly become more open to new technologies like electric, hydrogen fuel cells, mass transit... Just give it time and eventually we'll come around- maybe very late and and the waste of a lot of oil, but it will come to bear.
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.
However I would argue that there are many economic incentives or disincentives that would, over time, change people's living/commuting patterns. Obviously you can't simply tell everyone who have their houses out in the 'burbs that they have to up and move to the city - it has to be an organic process. 
hmm ... and my 1970 Cadillac with a big block 472 gets about the SAME MPG as my 2006 Ford Escape 6cyl.
less protective steel??
