The Green War on the Poor

[samsmart]

I have never seen a public transit system that could get people anywhere faster than they could get in their own cars. I do not think such a thing is even possible.

A bus or a train has to follow a fixed route, in which t makes stops at various places to let people on and off. The people who use public transit have to adjust their schedule to fit with the times that the vehicles on which they are to ride arrive at the points where they would board and disboard.

I do not see how it is possible for a vehicle that must operate on such constraints to match the speed and convenience of a vehicle which allows the owner to leave at his own time, and to drive directly to where he is going without having to make multiple stops at points removed from his most direct route in order to pick up and drop off other passengers who are coming from and going to different places.

Not to claim that this is typical of modern public transit, but when I was in college, I found that I could make the ten-mile trip each way between my home and my school on my bicycle in about half the time it took to make the trip by public transit. It was about an hour on my bike, and about two hours by bus. The bus could go faster than my bike, but it had to stop every few blocks, and it deviated considerably from the most optimal route between my home and my school. My bike was slower, but I could take the shortest, most optimal route available, and I didn't have to make any stops along the way.

By car, of course, that same trip could be made in fifteen to twenty minutes, easily, depending on traffic conditions. Again, by car, I could take the shortest, most optimal route, without having to make any stops.

But that's anecdotal evidence that takes into account your own personal circumstances.

You were lucky enough to live only 15-20 minutes away by car. But not everybody does.

Rather, urban evolution seems to be in a pattern in which there are urban centers that are areas of commercial and corporate activity and there are suburban areas outside of there that people use as residential areas. And as major cities grow larger, so too will urban cores, and suburban areas will get farther away. Which will increase travel time between suburbs and urban areas.

I'm not saying do it all at once and I'm not saying to do it at the same level everywhere. What we can do is pinpoint areas where traffic congestion is the worst, which is likely to be heavily urbanized areas, and develop better public transportation for those areas to handle everyday traffic. The methods develop there can be later used in areas that become more and more urbanized.

 

[UtahBill]

I live in a rural area as well, and I understand that in a lot of areas private transportation is necessary.

However, if public transportation was increased in urban and suburban areas, there will be less demand there for gasoline, which will decrease the prices for those who use it in rural areas.

People should move to where the jobs are.....

 

[Carjosse]

People should move to where the jobs are.....

Sometimes that isn't the best choice. Take Toronto for example it is far cheaper to live in the suburbs than in the core city so more and more people need to get form the suburbs to Toronto to work causing massive congestion which can be alleviated by public transport.

 

[Carjosse]

The main thing that I do not like about public transportation is that outside of not being able to carry stuff and spending 2 hours on what should have been a 20 min drive, is that the trains and buses actually spend a lot of the time running empty of near empty on the off hours.

I think it would be better for society to legalize small personal transport vehicles. The limits on vehicle size (small) are out dated imo. i could make a small vehicle that could get upwards of 100mpg but most states consider such small vehicles illegal. I have built a 49cc bike which is legal but lacking in many ways etc. I wont go into the different possibilities but will say that there is a solution right now but no one seems to want small vehicles on the road.

If you look at public transit solutions for the future none of the ideas involve putting people in things like cattle. They all incorporate individualized transportation. But personally I think the solution really involves better technology so we can just drive ourselves where we need to go and carry what we want.

That isn't really an option for me or anyone else here I can't use small cars since well they are too small and bikes won't work here since there is winter. As evidenced by the fact you can drive small vehicles here just that no one has an actual use to for them.

 

[EagleAye]

I have a question. Could this tax only apply to passenger vehicles? Because a $3/gal tax would put food prices oughta sight. It would damn near kill everyone from the middle-middle class on down to the poor. If we want to get people out of their ICE cars, that's one thing, but slowly starving them to death is not the way to go about it.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

That isn't really an option for me or anyone else here I can't use small cars since well they are too small and bikes won't work here since there is winter. As evidenced by the fact you can drive small vehicles here just that no one has an actual use to for them.

I agree that small vehicles are not useful in all situations. Personally I would not give up mt 1 ton flatbed truck for anything. I would though willingly give up the combustion engine for something better. Or at least not rely entirely on a combustion engine. If I had the funds I could replace my big block engine with a 4 or 6cyl engine and a electric motor and have better pulling capacity than I do right now. But that would be about a $20k+ investment that I cannot afford at the moment.

Either way even in a small vehicle one could carry more than what they could carry on a bus. And I said that bikes have their drawbacks, although a motorcycle can pull a trailer. But if you live north then weather obviously would hamper a bike. But if you live downtown anywhere a bus or a bike would work.


My point is that there are solutions but groups have politicalized the subject to a point that things like being able to carry large loads isnt being considered by some people, and some people dont even see a problem at all.

 

[Diogenes]

I have never seen a public transit system that could get people anywhere faster than they could get in their own cars. I do not think such a thing is even possible.

A bus or a train has to follow a fixed route, in which t makes stops at various places to let people on and off. The people who use public transit have to adjust their schedule to fit with the times that the vehicles on which they are to ride arrive at the points where they would board and disboard.

I do not see how it is possible for a vehicle that must operate on such constraints to match the speed and convenience of a vehicle which allows the owner to leave at his own time, and to drive directly to where he is going without having to make multiple stops at points removed from his most direct route in order to pick up and drop off other passengers who are coming from and going to different places.

Not to claim that this is typical of modern public transit, but when I was in college, I found that I could make the ten-mile trip each way between my home and my school on my bicycle in about half the time it took to make the trip by public transit. It was about an hour on my bike, and about two hours by bus. The bus could go faster than my bike, but it had to stop every few blocks, and it deviated considerably from the most optimal route between my home and my school. My bike was slower, but I could take the shortest, most optimal route available, and I didn't have to make any stops along the way.

By car, of course, that same trip could be made in fifteen to twenty minutes, easily, depending on traffic conditions. Again, by car, I could take the shortest, most optimal route, without having to make any stops.

That's the experience I've had. Public transportation never goes where you want to go when you want to go there; it takes much longer than car or bicycle (or even walking); and never charges enough to cover its costs - it always relies on a taxpayer subsidy.

 

[winston53660]

I have never seen a public transit system that could get people anywhere faster than they could get in their own cars. I do not think such a thing is even possible.

Ever live in New York City?

 

[ecofarm]

The Green (subject) War on the Poor:

1. Subsidized industrial farming and the resulting fast (read: cheap) food is killing them off, wrecking their kids and threatening to topple the healthcare system. With a 6b+ Farm Bill, most poor Americans are eating crappy government cheese.

2. There is a significant problem of distribution of toxic and dangerous industries - they almost all end up in poor neighborhoods/areas, because residents don't have the know-how, legal-savvy or resources to block such construction.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Traffic jams suck even more.

Yes I agree that traffic jams suck. And if public transportation becomes the main mode of travel for the masses we will still have traffic jams. Probably we would have even more pollution with the massive amount of new routes needed to move people around all parts of a county, plus all of those large capacity vehicles put out more emissions. Hell the greens were down on SUV's but a bus is much bigger.

Trains can only move people in certain areas we would still need buses in other areas. All of it needing massive infrastructural support that does not exist right now. If you went electric for the trains and buses our nations power grid would fail. And the batteries needed for the buses would be perhaps worse to then burning fossil fuels. Batteries are not all that efficient.


Electric Buses - How They Work, How Much They Cost, and Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Them

 

[samsmart]

Yes I agree that traffic jams suck. And if public transportation becomes the main mode of travel for the masses we will still have traffic jams. Probably we would have even more pollution with the massive amount of new routes needed to move people around all parts of a county, plus all of those large capacity vehicles put out more emissions. Hell the greens were down on SUV's but a bus is much bigger.

Trains can only move people in certain areas we would still need buses in other areas. All of it needing massive infrastructural support that does not exist right now. If you went electric for the trains and buses our nations power grid would fail. And the batteries needed for the buses would be perhaps worse to then burning fossil fuels. Batteries are not all that efficient.


Electric Buses - How They Work, How Much They Cost, and Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Them

I know it doesn't exist right now. That's why we need to focus on it.

And if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, then we can develop an efficient, less polluting mass transportation system.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I know it doesn't exist right now. That's why we need to focus on it.

And if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, then we can develop an efficient, less polluting mass transportation system.

But why should we determine mass transit as the method of transportation? I mean if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, couldn't we also solve traffic jams and make individual vehicles that do not ruin the environment?

 

[UtahBill]

But why should we determine mass transit as the method of transportation? I mean if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, couldn't we also solve traffic jams and make individual vehicles that do not ruin the environment?

not all things are possible....sad but true.

 

[Diogenes]

not all things are possible....sad but true.

Agreed, and public mass transit as a pollution solution is one of those things that will forever remain a pipe dream. However I predict there will be no shortage of advocates for it.

 

[UtahBill]

Sometimes that isn't the best choice. Take Toronto for example it is far cheaper to live in the suburbs than in the core city so more and more people need to get form the suburbs to Toronto to work causing massive congestion which can be alleviated by public transport.

if within an hour of travel time, don't move....if much more, move....
Much of my career was spent in van pools or buses riding 60 miles each way to work.
While working at one of those jobs in Idaho, a neighbor told me how lucky I was to have such a good paying job, since I did not have a degree and made more than him. I told him that they were hiring, and he had a degree in education, and that would qualify him for several of those jobs. He said he didn't want the commute.


there is also the issue of having a poor paying job and moving to a better paying job. I left the afore-mentioned job for mental health reasons (SAD), moving from Idaho to Arizona. I had to absorb a 50% PAY RAISE, for myself, and even tho the wife, a teacher, took a small pay cut at first, in a few years she was making more than her principal back in Idaho. Part of that was getting her master's degree. SAME neighbor asked about openings in AZ schools, wife told him that they were hiring. But he didn't want to move away from family.

LSS, all some people want to do is complain about their problems, they don't want to DO SOMETHING about them.

 

[joko104]

I know it doesn't exist right now. That's why we need to focus on it.

And if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, then we can develop an efficient, less polluting mass transportation system.

Mass transit only works in densely populated areas. Otherwise it is overall not green, very energy inefficient, and economically impossible.

 

[joko104]

Yes I agree that traffic jams suck. And if public transportation becomes the main mode of travel for the masses we will still have traffic jams. Probably we would have even more pollution with the massive amount of new routes needed to move people around all parts of a county, plus all of those large capacity vehicles put out more emissions. Hell the greens were down on SUV's but a bus is much bigger.

Trains can only move people in certain areas we would still need buses in other areas. All of it needing massive infrastructural support that does not exist right now. If you went electric for the trains and buses our nations power grid would fail. And the batteries needed for the buses would be perhaps worse to then burning fossil fuels. Batteries are not all that efficient.


Electric Buses - How They Work, How Much They Cost, and Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Them

Electric powered buses and cars are coal-fueld buses and cars, plus there is the loses of energy conversion. What is green about that??? Burn coal for fuel and then 30 to 50% lose in efficiency converting it to steam and then electricity and then transmission and then charging batteries losing energy each step - over direct diesel or gasoline conversion to working force - call it environmentally friendly? How absurd!

If they are going to promote coal burning cars, why not then develop coal burning steam engine cars? Little modern Stanley Steamers. Bring back steam powered locomotives. The vast majority of electricity still comes from burning coal.

People are such sheeple. Tell people electric cars are non-pollutiong and don't produce carbon dioxide and the sheep say "yes, of course, magically produced electricity is both free and environmentally perfect - then join in cursing coal electrical production that produces the electricity wanting it shut down.

 

[samsmart]

Mass transit only works in densely populated areas. Otherwise it is overall not green, very energy inefficient, and economically impossible.

I know.

That is why I've said we need to develop for our urban and suburban areas, and restated that several times throughout this thread.

 

[samsmart]

But why should we determine mass transit as the method of transportation? I mean if we can land a man on the moon, if we can reduce computers to the size of a person's hand, if we can grow marijuana that does not contain THC, couldn't we also solve traffic jams and make individual vehicles that do not ruin the environment?

Well hop to it then.

 

[EagleAye]

Electric powered buses and cars are coal-fueld buses and cars, plus there is the loses of energy conversion. What is green about that??? Burn coal for fuel and then 30 to 50% lose in efficiency converting it to steam and then electricity and then transmission and then charging batteries losing energy each step - over direct diesel or gasoline conversion to working force - call it environmentally friendly? How absurd!

If they are going to promote coal burning cars, why not then develop coal burning steam engine cars? Little modern Stanley Steamers. Bring back steam powered locomotives. The vast majority of electricity still comes from burning coal.

People are such sheeple. Tell people electric cars are non-pollutiong and don't produce carbon dioxide and the sheep say "yes, of course, magically produced electricity is both free and environmentally perfect - then join in cursing coal electrical production that produces the electricity wanting it shut down.

If the electricity produced comes from alternatives then it really is green. An electric vehicle doesn't care where the electricity comes from. So you can start off with one source (Coal, for instance), and then later upgrade from Coal to nuclear or NG or Wind or Solar and the very same electric vehicles will continue to operate as always. No fossil-fuel-burning vehicle can say the same thing. They do not have the capacity to adapt to changing energy sources the way electric vehicles do. It's much easier to build individual EVs than build whole power plants. So it's only logical the EVs come before green power plants. Yes, the EVs won't be totally green to start with, but down the line they will be totally green. Only EVs can do that.

 

[UtahBill]

Mass transit only works in densely populated areas. Otherwise it is overall not green, very energy inefficient, and economically impossible.

Most densely populated areas already have regular bus routes.
We have a bus system in the Logan, UT area that has very poor ridership, and it is FREE......but it is a college town and come winter, that will change to only somewhat poor ridership.

 

[UtahBill]

If the electricity produced comes from alternatives then it really is green. An electric vehicle doesn't care where the electricity comes from. So you can start off with one source (Coal, for instance), and then later upgrade from Coal to nuclear or NG or Wind or Solar and the very same electric vehicles will continue to operate as always. No fossil-fuel-burning vehicle can say the same thing. They do not have the capacity to adapt to changing energy sources the way electric vehicles do. It's much easier to build individual EVs than build whole power plants. So it's only logical the EVs come before green power plants. Yes, the EVs won't be totally green to start with, but down the line they will be totally green. Only EVs can do that.

good point, build a demand and supply will come....and electricity is easy to make. Oil, not so easy....
Something to consider, tho...battery powered vehicles will most likely always be limited in size. The larger electric ones of the past were trams powered from overhead power lines. Carrying a few tons of batteries on a tram or bus immediately reduces carrying capacity.

 

[LowDown]

No, because economies always adapt to various pressures and find equilibrium.

Yes, and the new equilibrium is likely to leave many poor people in deep, absolute poverty. And for nothing.

 

[EagleAye]

good point, build a demand and supply will come....and electricity is easy to make. Oil, not so easy....
Something to consider, tho...battery powered vehicles will most likely always be limited in size. The larger electric ones of the past were trams powered from overhead power lines. Carrying a few tons of batteries on a tram or bus immediately reduces carrying capacity.

Ultracapacitors may be the answer here, and batteries may get left in the dust.

(bold is mine)

Using ultracapacitor technology for energy storage offers several benefits over batteries. Ultracapacitors operate at 95 to 98 percent efficiency, which is far beyond the efficiency of 70 percent that batteries see. Ultracapacitors can perform well in wide-ranging temperature conditions, from +65 degrees Celsius to -40 degrees Celsius. In addition, ultracapacitors have a long lifespan and require little to no maintenance. Pricing of ultracapacitors has declined by more than 90 percent. By comparison, battery pricing has declined by less than 40 percent, and ultracapacitor prices will likely continue to decline at a faster rate than batteries.

Ultracapacitors already improve EV performance by harvesting energy from regenerative braking and other actions and storing it for other uses, thereby lengthening the time needed between charging. Ultracapacitors are able to store and provide energy quickly and have a much faster response time than that of batteries. In the regenerative braking system, which employs a motor generator and is sent with a capacitor bank, the motor generator is driven when braking is required. This in turn charges the capacitor, and the motor then delivers assistance to the vehicle as it accelerates.
[...]
EV consumers can expect to see several benefits as ultracapacitor technology approaches the stage of replacing lead acid storage batteries. Consumers will be able to recharge their EVs in minutes as opposed to hours, and ultracapacitors will be able to tolerate hundreds of thousands of charge/discharge cycles. Furthermore, virtually no maintenance is required for the ultracapacitor component. These advantages over lead acid batteries only make EVs more appealing to consumers.

Ultracapacitor Technology Leading the Way Toward Improved Electric Vehicles · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

China is testing out a bus that uses ultracapacitors. The UCs don't hold a lot of charge, but this doesn't matter since the bus just charges up in mere minutes at bus stops. It's already more reliable and cheaper than diesel.

But ultracapacitors can charge much faster than batteries, so in vehicles such as buses that have to stop frequently at known points where charging facilities can be provided, energy storage based exclusively on ultracapacitors becomes viable.[1]

China is experimenting with a new form of electric bus, known as Capabus, which runs without continuous overhead lines (is an autonomous vehicle) by using power stored in large onboard electric double-layer capacitors (EDLCs), which are quickly recharged whenever the vehicle stops at any bus stop (under so-called electric umbrellas), and fully charged in the terminus.

A few prototypes were being tested in Shanghai in early 2005. In 2006 two commercial bus routes began to use electric double-layer capacitor buses; one of them is route 11 in Shanghai.[2] In 2009 Sinautec Automobile Technologies,[3] based in Arlington, Virginia, and its Chinese partner Shanghai Aowei Technology Development Company[4] are testing, with 17 forty-one seat Ultracap Buses serving the Greater Shanghai area since 2006 without any major technical problems.[5] Buses in the Shanghai pilot are made by Germantown, Tennessee-based Foton America Bus Company[6] Another 60 buses will be delivered early next year with ultracapacitors that supply 10 watt-hours per kilogram.

The buses have very predictable routes and need to stop regularly every 3 miles (4.8 km) or less, allowing quick recharging at charging stations at bus stops. A collector on the top of the bus rises a few feet and touches an overhead charging line at the stop; within a couple of minutes the ultracapacitor banks stored under the bus seats are fully charged. The buses can also capture energy from braking, and the company says that recharging stations can be equipped with solar panels. A third generation of the product, which will give 20 miles (32 km) of range per charge or better is planned.[1]

Sinautec estimates that one of its buses has one-tenth the energy cost of a diesel bus and can achieve lifetime fuel savings of $200,000. The buses use 40% less electricity even than an electric trolley bus, mainly because they are lighter[citation needed] and have the regenerative braking benefits. The ultracapacitors are made of activated carbon and have an energy density of six watt-hours per kilogram (for comparison a high-performance lithium-ion battery can achieve 200 watt-hours per kilogram, but the ultracapacitor bus is about 40% cheaper than a lithium-ion battery bus and far more reliable).[1][5]

Capa vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Electric powered buses and cars are coal-fueld buses and cars, plus there is the loses of energy conversion. What is green about that??? Burn coal for fuel and then 30 to 50% lose in efficiency converting it to steam and then electricity and then transmission and then charging batteries losing energy each step - over direct diesel or gasoline conversion to working force - call it environmentally friendly? How absurd!

If they are going to promote coal burning cars, why not then develop coal burning steam engine cars? Little modern Stanley Steamers. Bring back steam powered locomotives. The vast majority of electricity still comes from burning coal.

People are such sheeple. Tell people electric cars are non-pollutiong and don't produce carbon dioxide and the sheep say "yes, of course, magically produced electricity is both free and environmentally perfect - then join in cursing coal electrical production that produces the electricity wanting it shut down.

I agree, and that was part of my point