| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50206 Activity:moderate |
6/10 What I have been saying for years is now finally going mainstream:
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/86938
"High Fuel Costs Could Spur a New Rationalism"
\_ I sure hope this is going mainstream. But most drives I see on the
roads are still solo drivers, the freeways are not getting less
congested, and my wife doesn't see BART trains getting more crowded.
\_ That's because those supposed solutions are crap. The real
solution is to use small, efficient vehicles, and have protected
paths for low-impact stuff like bikes. 60-80 mpg is not
unreasonable from a small car. You can do better by regulating
things, for example ensuring that on-ramps are long enough to
accommodate slow-accelerating cars, or improving safety by
limiting large vehicles which make small cars more dangerous by
blocking their vision and being dangerous in crashes due to their
mass and ride height.
Clearly people like fast personal transportation. Improving that
technology is going to be much more useful than trying to force
people to give it up.
\_ Once again, the solution is NOT technology. Creating
new infrastructures and testing, etc uses MORE energy.
The solution is to REVERSE technology. Kill everyone
and every innovations, and there will be no more
energy use.
\_ It is worth pursuing more than one line of solution at a
time, since the problem is so large and there is probably
not going to be a one-size-fits all solution. All your
solutions are going to take years, and we need to find a
cheap way to get people to work in the meantime. I envision
a smart car train, where people get into their individual
pods at home, but then join the "train" for longer distance.
You can get really good energy efficiency that way, while
still giving the misanthropes their "personal space," but
this is obviously a long ways off.
\_ The problem isn't really "privacy for misanthropes" but
1) going to and from where you want to go, when you want
to go there, and quickly
2) versatility and convenience in carrying stuff
3) comfort
In most cases mass transit simply doesn't do #1 which is
the important one. More efficient taxis could help. At
least people using taxis reduces the need for parking lots.
AI-driven taxis could be cool, someday. If people entered
their transit request to a taxi company then they could
coordinate the routes to be able to carry a multiple
people per taxi in many cases. That wouldn't require AI
taxis, just smart dispatching software.
As usual, the existence of government controlled transit
operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
are probably not optimal.
\_ #1 has been solved by all the really big cities in the
world with elevators and one minute headway train systems.
But you need much greater density than most American
cities for this to work. Personal transit does not
really work in a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong, anyway.
#2 is solved by putting stores selling what you need
within very close walking distance of your home.
\_ Have you ever been to Texas? Asking big fat Americans
to walk to where they need to be is very unAmerican
and unPatriotic.
\_ Don't interrupt my posts. And you can ask people
\_ I will
to do whatever you want, just don't expect them
\_ interrupt
to do it because you are obviously smarter than
\_ as I see fit
they.
\_ mind you this this a free country
\_ The problem is solved by MOVING close to where
you normally have to go (work).
\_ you can't move in CA. if you do, you get hit with the
new property tax hit of 1000 percent to make up for
all the old people who haven't been properly taxed
since 1978. i am slightly serious about this.
\_ you mean "all the corporations"
\_ That doesn't solve it. It's impractical to
move every time you change jobs, housing is
not freely available, people go other places
than their job (and so they should).
\_ Obviously, a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong is
different. Different places are different. Tokyo can
still require a lot of walking... there are
still lots of places that are hard to get to on
the trains/subways. Tokyo also has lots of taxis.
Your #2 "solution" is not a real solution.
\_ It works all over the world. And what is wrong
with walking? Walking is good for you.
\_ No, it doesn't. Feel free to walk if you want.
\_ Yes, it does. The majority of the world's
population do not own cars, so they do their
shopping the old fashioned way, on foot. Feel
free to be a lazy fatass who pays $200 to
fill up his Escalate if you want, too. Just
don't bitch about it on the motd.
\_ When you say "the existence of government controlled transit
operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
are probably not optimal." are you referring to things like
freeways?
\_ You're the one bitching and blanketing ppl
as lazy fatasses. What about people with
legitimate physical problems? I suppose we
should euthanize them for the good of the
species. What if you live somewhere with
bad weather? You're presenting a false
dichotomy: the Escalade is one extreme of
personal transportation. Why did you
even bring it up?
The majority of the world's population
lives in fucking shitty conditions and
have no choice. They do things like walk
long distances with giant loads of junk
carried on their backs, like pieces of
corrugated steel they found which they
are lugging back to add on to their tiny
shack where they sleep on the floor with
their various relatives and have no
running water.
Maybe you should move to one of those
places. Or just feed yourself to some
animals and stop wasting resources.
\_ The guy with the Escalade is going to
have to give up a bit so that the guy
carrying the steel on his back can live
a little better. A good think, imnsho.
a little better. A good thing, imnsho.
\_ The Fremont->SF BART line did get more crowded during morning
commute hours these days. |
| 11/22 |
|
| finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/86938 Print this Story Very Good (300 Ratings) 3356676/5 Posted on Monday, June 9, 2008, 12:00AM Gas prices are at $4 a gallon and still headed north. So far, the obvious things have happened: SUV sales are plummeting, airlines are mothballing gas-guzzling planes, Americans are driving fewer miles for the first time in modern history, and mass-transit ridership is growing everywhere. Higher Cost, Less Use That's pretty much what economics would predict. When something gets more expensive, people try to avoid the pain. The best way to avoid the pain of higher gas prices is to use less of it. I will add, perhaps gratuitously, that the behavioral changes we're seeing now are exactly why we should have implemented a carbon tax (with offsetting income tax or payroll tax cuts) 10 years ago. Given that we have to raise revenue somehow, we ought to do it by taxing behaviors that we would prefer to discourage. Those who pay the most under a carbon tax are those who are the most intensive energy users -- and therefore impose the greatest environmental costs on the rest of us. Making them pay more seems fair to me, provided there's some cushion for low-income workers who have no choice but to commute long distances. The point of this column is that are still a lot more shoes to drop as the result of high oil prices. If gas prices stay high -- and I have every reason to believe they will -- then we can expect a series of other social changes that are less obvious and longer term. Economists speak about the "short run" and the "long run." In the "short run," many factors of production are fixed, meaning that individuals and firms can only modify their behavior in some ways. A person can start taking the train to work in the short run, for example, but he can't easily sell his house and buy a smaller condominium with a shorter commute. In the "long run", everything is up for grabs -- where we live, how we live, how we get around, and even where we go. Smart folks ought to start thinking about what happens when energy prices are four or five times what they've been for most of the automobile age. It's not rocket science: Prices go up, and rational people and firms try to avoid those higher costs. Rational Steps Here's my list of what this means in the long run: 1 Dump the McMansion. There's been so much wreckage across the real estate market that we've neglected likely trends. But the definition of a good location is certainly different if gas is $4 a gallon -- let alone $6 or $8. Those giant houses 50 and 60 miles from the metro core now have three strikes against them: 1) Low-density development is rarely near public transit; Other neighborhoods will emerge as a lot more attractive. We'll hear real estate agents say things like, "And you can walk to the train station." Americans might even develop more of a taste for condos and apartments. Nothing lowers the utility bill in the winter quite like having a common wall on two sides and heat wafting up from the apartment below. Suppose you're considering two jobs: One is in a building three blocks from the commuter train station, and the other is in an office complex 21 miles away from anything except cornfields. In 1989, the retailer Sears closed its headquarters in the Sears Tower, a Chicago skyscraper, and moved 5,500 workers to a lower-cost campus in suburban Hoffman Estates, 30 miles from downtown and virtually inaccessible from most parts of the region by public transit. That kind of thing just isn't going to happen as much anymore. Sure, firms will still be looking for low-cost real estate, but they usually need high-quality workers even more -- and mandating long, expensive commutes is a good way to lose scarce human capital. Part of this is driven by more expensive gas, as described above. Worsening traffic congestion will make long commutes more costly in terms of time, not just money. Many aging baby boomers will seek urban culture and entertainment offerings (and more diverse housing choices) as they find themselves "empty nesters." Violent crime -- often one of top reasons for fleeing cities -- has been falling steadily for more than a decade. Both Chicago and New York City had the fewest number of homicides in 2007 than in any year since the mid-1960s. They tend to be lovely places, and most urban areas still haven't managed to cobble together decent public schools for middle-class families. But for the first time in a long time, basic economic forces will favor density over decentralization. At some point, we'll develop a better source of energy than oil. But it's going to happen, and the nation that's first in making that important discovery (or series of discoveries) will enjoy a huge economic windfall -- not unlike what the Internet has bestowed on the United States, and on Silicon Valley in particular. If we want to be that "first mover," then the US government should be investing Manhattan Project-type sums in alternative energy research. The private sector does a terrific job of turning knowledge into products, but only near the end of the product chain. Basic research -- the kinds of discoveries that are essential to progress but can't be patented -- is the catalyst for that process. Let's not forget that the Internet grew out of work that began in the Defense Department and was cultivated at Stanford and Berkeley. "Smart growth" advocates have been calling for these kinds of policy changes for decades: More redevelopment in existing urban centers (as opposed to new "greenfield" sites far from existing infrastructure); more coordination between new housing and public transit; It's ironic that $4 gas will encourage all of those things for reasons that have nothing to do with altruism. Of course, it's also true that if we'd implemented more of those policies in the past, such as more investments in public transit, then high gas prices wouldn't be biting us as much as they are now. Terms of Service including spam, hateful, or obscene messages may result in the termination of your Yahoo! is not responsible or liable in any way for comments posted by its users. Rate It: Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 4000 characters left. Report Abuse + Overall: 1/5 I agree with the author that people are changing their habits because of high fuel costs, but I disagree that this is a good thing. A few facts that have already been noted are: 1 People moved away from cities because they are horrible (with few exceptions) places to live and raise a family. Why are we not moving in the direction of energy independence? Because some would rather punish this great country with high costs and taxes until the citizens can't bear the finacial hardships, begging the givernment for handouts. The liberal gov't wants to regulate and control all aspects business, production, and of the citizen's life. Once they have this control things like global warming, drilling in ANWR and off the coasts will not be an issue. Miraculously, it will be discovered that the "facts" were wrong - humans had virtually no impact on the cycles that control the global temperature. Miraculously, it will be discovered that technology has developed techniques to drill for oil with virtually no impact on the environment. Miraculously, it will be discovered that nuclear power is a wonderful clean alternative to coal power. Miraculously, the environmental activists have been able to remove these facts from the citizens' source of knowledge (ie: the 6 o'clock news). In the "short run" you will see the things that are written about in this article. In the "long run" the citizens will have enough of being force fed falsehoods about global warming, polar bears, and 3 legged spotted newts and revolt against the leberal crap. Report Abuse + Overall: 5/5 The free market ideology got us into this mess. Now new economic realites will shape the adjustment to radical growth, and the solutions look a lot like regional planning. It's a great article - though I would encourage economic incentives to revitalize and regain cities. We can't all McMansion and ruin all our farmland so we can't grow our own food. Report Abuse + Overall: 1/5 CW - Poor people have b... |