Loki's War

[EyeKhan]

In the gulf oil spill thread Loki was comparing regulating the oil industry's deep sea drilling activities with regulating the auto industry. He tried to create a trap where if you didn't support banning automobiles outright in the US then you were hypocritical for wanting the deep sea drilling industry regulated. (Yeah, Loki does that sort of thing...)

Anyway, that got me thinking about the auto-industry, what it is, what ought to be done with it. FAIR WARNING - this is another one of those very basic look at a common thing threads (like What is Memory). I've taken to thinking about the automobile, how we use it, and the highway, road, and parking system we've created to support it, as modern civilization's Great Pyramids. If you could talk to Egyptions from the time in a modern context and ask them WTF? vis a vis the pyramids they'd likely say something equivalent to "it made a lot of sense to do it at the time." Fast forward a thousand years and we'll be in those shoes.

Why? Because the automobile is an inefficient, resource intensive, polluting way to get around a city or between cities. Its common use have led to land use practicies that has resulted in sprawling, crumbling, hollowed out and extraordinarily wasteful cities. And we use them in such numbers that large segments of the economy have become dependant upon their manufcature and support. Worst of all, none of it is sustainable. The automobile practically defines our era of waste and excess and many a future book will be written about the insanity of it all and the price humanity eventually pays for it.

What should modern civilization look like? Rail. Light rail, heavy rail, communter rail, tram rail, maglev rail. (And dirigibles. I love dirigibles!) A road network is necessary for emergencies, for short haul spot freight and for non-regular travel long and short distance. But regular commuter travel and freight should all be rail. You should be able to walk or take a tram to your job, your stores, your church, your neighbors, your entertainment, your schools, your hospital, your university and your shuttle to orbit. Cities should be built to facilitate this transportation methodology and if they were they'd be a LOT cheaper to maintain and they'd be a LOT less polluting.


And best of all, 50,000 lives would be saved a year!

Thoughts? Complaints? Missed points? Counterpoints? Devils advocations? Cynical sarcastic remarks?

[Ominous Gamer]

Not sure what it would look like, but I know if the auto industry didn't partake in some under handed deals back in the day Tampa sure would look different. We used to have a trolley system that ran from the coast to downtown. Till the council shut it down when they all get new GM cars at the same time. We just recently managed to rebuild the tracks and open part of it back up. Can't help but wonder how many deals like that were made across the country then, and now, to delay or hinder alternative transportation methods. You should see the kind of bullshit thats being brought up in hopes of destorying the light rail we want from Orlando to Tampa to Miami.

Our love of wheels is going to get this era of time some stupid nickname like Era of the Pavers or something, cause we have put concrete everywhere.

[wiggin]

The reasons cars are so successful and spelled the doom of railways as a major method of transit is because they disaggregate the vehicle from the roadway. This means cars can go pretty much anywhere, and trains can't. Until this little problem can be dealt with, I doubt cars are going anywhere.

[']['ear]

Agreed, Ender, but that doesn't excuse our unreasonable reliance on roads for shipping. The fact is that we create a lot of infrastructure to facilitate shipping on roads, and virtually none for shipping by rail. The interstate system was a big swing. If we taxed fuel accordingly, it wouldn't be a problem, because rail is much more fuel efficient. Like the Euros, we could use trucks only for regional or even local distribution.

I remember when I went to visit my father's cousin, a parish priest in a little Black Forest town (literally, about a thousand people). Shockingly, I could fly into Frankfurt, and with one connection ride the train to this little town. Astonishing.

But agreed that for passenger cars, that is the problem. You can't beat the convenience. But transit did rock in Seattle when I was there. I only used my bike for groceries or going to soccer games in distant parts of the city.

[EyeKhan]

The reasons cars are so successful and spelled the doom of railways as a major method of transit is because they disaggregate the vehicle from the roadway. This means cars can go pretty much anywhere, and trains can't. Until this little problem can be dealt with, I doubt cars are going anywhere.

#1. That's not accurate - cars require roads to go anywhere. I think what you mean is that with a train-like vehicle everyone has to go wherever its going together. But an automobile is like a set of train seats that can go wherever there's a track, independant of all the other seats.

#2. The ability to go anywhere there's a road independantly is part of the problem. It's extremely costly to maintain all these roads and highways to everywhere, they aggravate the pollution problem, and its led to the sprawl of our cities which has led to the degradation of the old inner cities, etc etc.

But agreed that for passenger cars, that is the problem. You can't beat the convenience. But transit did rock in Seattle when I was there. I only used my bike for groceries or going to soccer games in distant parts of the city.

The convenience is part of the problem. It's a wasteful, expensive, destructive, and wholly unneccsary convenience. The measure of how our civilization's transportation network is designed should not (just) be what Joe Citizen finds super duper neat and convenient. What would be most convenient is for me to walk out my front door and be at work, the grocery store, my kid's school, the doctor's office, and the local soccer field. Everyone wants that so lets design it.

[wiggin]

It's costlier to have a rail stop at every dinky town in the US. Works fine in high density areas, not so fine otherwise. The important disaggregation is that cars aren't tied to the road - they can go offroad, they can switch roads at will, etc. Trains are stuck on one set of tracks, and either you have a costly track network, or at best regional distribution.

[']['ear]

Yeah, but you'll never beat the addiction to that convenience without making fuel far more expensive. In relation to the current debate on drilling, it's long annoyed me that we don't pay the full price of fuel, the government covers environmental, pollution and geopolitical costs, thus supporting the industry in a socialist manner.

The sad thing is that if you provide a privilege for long enough, people start to consider it a right. That is certainly true of our roads, and fuel.

[EyeKhan]

It's costlier to have a rail stop at every dinky town in the US. Works fine in high density areas, not so fine otherwise. The important disaggregation is that cars aren't tied to the road - they can go offroad, they can switch roads at will, etc. Trains are stuck on one set of tracks, and either you have a costly track network, or at best regional distribution.

It's the same problem with the sub-urbs. Clearly we have to move the people to more densely populated groups. But we won't be able to do that until we cancel Democracy. And we can't do that until we take the guns away. So we need a more reasonble interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. It's a lot of work....

On a serious note... In a long-time-ago class some students came up with an idea to have a transportation network that was more or less a hybrid of rail and car. Highway level transporation would be an electrified track that individual cars could merge into and run off the electric grid like a train and when their exit came up they would leave the train and run autonomously like a car. Pretty cool idea.

[']['ear]

Trains are stuck on one set of tracks, and either you have a costly track network, or at best regional distribution.

I think you'd be surprised at how far down you could whittle "regional" with trains. I'd bet you could ship to several distribution hubs in most states (obviously density dependent).

Damn, "Back to the Future" flashback: "I'm your density!"

[']['ear]

It's the same problem with the sub-urbs. Clearly we have to move the people to more densely populated groups. But we won't be able to do that until we cancel Democracy. And we can't do that until we take the guns away. So we need a more reasonble interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. It's a lot of work....

Pfagh! Just tax the hell out of fuel.

[EyeKhan]

Yeah, but you'll never beat the addiction to that convenience without making fuel far more expensive. In relation to the current debate on drilling, it's long annoyed me that we don't pay the full price of fuel, the government covers environmental, pollution and geopolitical costs, thus supporting the industry in a socialist manner.

The sad thing is that if you provide a privilege for long enough, people start to consider it a right. That is certainly true of our roads, and fuel.

Democracy's the problem. It's going to get our species extincted. Did you read my blog post?

Not paying the full cost of our luxuries is a problem across the board with our consumer goods.

I think you'd be surprised at how far down you could whittle "regional" with trains. I'd bet you could ship to several distribution hubs in most states (obviously density dependent).

Damn, "Back to the Future" flashback: "I'm your density!"

Any metro area will have a set of major rail spurs. I drive by one every day, twice a day, in my burbia commute. There they transload freight from rail to truck (and truck back to rail) and distribute it to warehouses around the region. Probably these hubs are more centralized than they have to be due to the convenience of the highway system. But you're right, even in highly centralized urban future bee hive like cities, you'll need a distribution network. But that could be very short haul and electrified. Maybe even robotic. Sweet. Or .... we could use dirigibles.

[LittleFuzzy]

The reasons cars are so successful and spelled the doom of railways as a major method of transit is because they disaggregate the vehicle from the roadway. This means cars can go pretty much anywhere, and trains can't. Until this little problem can be dealt with, I doubt cars are going anywhere.

Yes and, at least as far as the US is concerned where the problems are more prevalent, because the federal government decided it had to kill the rail industry to rein in bad corporate practices.

[LittleFuzzy]

Clearly we have to move the people to more densely populated groups..

Oh yeah, cause high urban density is completely free of other problems.

[EyeKhan]

Pfagh! Just tax the hell out of fuel.

I prefer to have a plan other than hurt people economically to make them do what you want. That's Lokispeak. Always remember that people haven't done anything wrong by living in isolated hick towns or even in burbia. And they shouldn't be punished after the fact. It was acceptable, encouraged, lifestyle when they made these decisions. Now you want to spank them for it? It's like encouraging your dog to chew on your shoe then beating the shit out of him for it.

Oh yeah, cause high urban density is completely free of other problems.

These "other" problems will be dealt with in no uncertain terms.

[LittleFuzzy]

These "other" problems will be dealt with in no uncertain terms.

Dealt with? Most of them are inherent in the urban condition.

[']['ear]

Oh yeah, cause high urban density is completely free of other problems.

Dealt with? Most of them are inherent in the urban condition.

Could you name the inherent ones?

[CitizenCain]

Thoughts?

Horribly wrong and misguided, to the point of being hilarious/depressing. Also incredibly wrong in assessing what's caused the urban issues you mentioned, but that really seems like nitpicking compared to how awful the general conclusions and assumptions you make are.

Did you read my blog post?

The "defense of censorship" one that postulated that information is the biggest threat to humanity since freedom?

Equally appalling and unimpressive as this thread.

[GGT]

Trains!

I'm still surprised at how few people have traveled by train overnight, with sleeper and diner cars. But then I'm old as dirt and remember when rail was more affordable and common (back when air travel was expensive, and people only had one car per family....) People got honked off at the Amtrak subsidies, so now it's fairly expensive compared to flying. Too bad, really.

Freight trains also have to compete with long-haul truckers, and since Speed is Everything, Walmart won that efficiency argument.

Our ex-urban areas have come full circle, from wealthy city folk having a summer cottage--to suburbs that were cheaper than cities--to gentrification of farm land--to gated condos and golf clubs. Efficiency killed the family farm, and Big Ag is almost like those light industrial parks now, NIMBY. People want acreage, "farmettes" with 5 car garages, and roads to drive back into town. That all spawned so much sprawl.

Cars are viewed almost like a Right here, because they represent freeedom and independence. Kids celebrate a driver's license as a rite of passage, and it's really hard to get seniors to stop driving---to them it's like dying a little bit.

And I think there's an American Attitude of privacy or personal space the car gives, that's associated with success or something. Riding the bus is smelly and cramped, riding the train with all those other people, and there's the waiting..... I think a lot of us just don't like crowds or other people, or maybe it's the shuffling like ants, moving the herd? Even car-pooling isn't very popular, other people are like interlopers.

They also made the car too comfy with leather upholstery and heated seats, surround sound stereo, DVD players, moon roofs, GPS and talking directions, computer ports, and enough cargo space to carry bikes and skiis. Plus a cup holder for every passenger. Yeah, you wanna take the train?

[Flixy]

Agreed, Ender, but that doesn't excuse our unreasonable reliance on roads for shipping. The fact is that we create a lot of infrastructure to facilitate shipping on roads, and virtually none for shipping by rail. The interstate system was a big swing. If we taxed fuel accordingly, it wouldn't be a problem, because rail is much more fuel efficient. Like the Euros, we could use trucks only for regional or even local distribution.

Well, that's just completely wrong. We use it for long distance too.

I remember when I went to visit my father's cousin, a parish priest in a little Black Forest town (literally, about a thousand people). Shockingly, I could fly into Frankfurt, and with one connection ride the train to this little town. Astonishing.

That's just luck that it's the same line, another village pretty close to it might require a transfer

But agreed that for passenger cars, that is the problem. You can't beat the convenience. But transit did rock in Seattle when I was there. I only used my bike for groceries or going to soccer games in distant parts of the city.

I think the biggest problem is that rail requires railroads, stations, but also a very good control system, signals, switches, etc. You can't decide where you want to go yourself, you can't steer. You can't overtake someone on the same track. I love traveling by train, it's awesome, but only if you are going to cities. Villages often don't have stations, or bad connections. And if you arrive in a city, you're still dependent on local transport to get to your exact destination, with cars you can just go wherever you want. And if the rail system is used as intensely as in the Netherlands, you get a whole set of extra problems, capacity, delays affecting other trains and spreading...

And with cargo transport, the big problem is still the same: it's only convenient if the destination is close to a station, and preferably has its own station. Otherwise you still need trucks. Furthermore, you can't choose your preferred travelingtimes since it's dependent on the schedule of the tracks.

Of course if you lived less spread out you could use bicycles

[Dreadnaught]

The reasons cars are so successful and spelled the doom of railways as a major method of transit is because they disaggregate the vehicle from the roadway. This means cars can go pretty much anywhere, and trains can't. Until this little problem can be dealt with, I doubt cars are going anywhere.

Yes, but cars also benefitted from a few generations of cheap energy, which may be drawing to a close.

Ideally state and federal government entities could re-direct some of their budget for road infrastructure to regional rail subsidies. There are areas where this will make sense, and some areas where it won't.

[EyeKhan]

Horribly wrong and misguided, to the point of being hilarious/depressing. Also incredibly wrong in assessing what's caused the urban issues you mentioned, but that really seems like nitpicking compared to how awful the general conclusions and assumptions you make are.



The "defense of censorship" one that postulated that information is the biggest threat to humanity since freedom?

Equally appalling and unimpressive as this thread.

I'm actually starting to find these posts from you endearing.

[']['ear]

Well, that's just completely wrong. We use it for long distance too.

Ha! Define "distance." Because in the US tractor-trailers routinely go a thousand miles. It's not uncommon to go coast-to-coast. That's 3000 miles. We probably couldn't find data to compare length of trips or anything, but I'd bet that the average US long hauler goes FAR longer than the average in Europe. Europe doesn't even use very large trucks, for the most part. Remember, even big ones like France and Germany are only a couple of US states across--shorter than most trucking trips.

So you really want to assert that there's a very large volume of shipping by truck that is >1000 km?

Most of what get railed in the US now is bulk: coal, livestock, scrap metal, etc.

[EyeKhan]

Ha! Define "distance." Because in the US tractor-trailers routinely go a thousand miles. It's not uncommon to go coast-to-coast. That's 3000 miles. We probably couldn't find data to compare length of trips or anything, but I'd bet that the average US long hauler goes FAR longer than the average in Europe. Europe doesn't even use very large trucks, for the most part. Remember, even big ones like France and Germany are only a couple of US states across--shorter than most trucking trips.

So you really want to assert that there's a very large volume of shipping by truck that is >1000 km?

Most of what get railed in the US now is bulk: coal, livestock, scrap metal, etc.

In my experience if the haul is 500+ miles, then regular shipments of material will be routed intermodal, which is where they take the box of the trailer chassis and load it on a rail flat bed. Then at the destination ramp they put the box back on a chassis and truck it to final destination. The only stuff that goes strictly truck long distance is when time is a factor - its faster to truck but much more expensive. In the case of my business, that typically occurs with moderate expedites when there's a part shortage for whatever reason and the plant might stop production if they wait for the railed parts. Hot expedites long distance will go by air. That's VERY expensive.

[Ominous Gamer]

Both of Brandy's uncles do long haul trucking. One for the full length the east coast, the other from east coast to west coast states.

My dad used to work for Sara Lee distribution, while the warehouse did have a rail connection, a good 95% of the shipping was via semi, and this is a nationwide distribution network.

The Fedex warehouse hub I worked at didn't have any sort of rail business.

[EyeKhan]

Both of Brandy's Uncle do long haul trucking. One for the full length the east coast, the other from east coast to west coast states.

My dad used to work for Sara Lee distribution, while the warehouse did have a rail connection, a good 95% of the shipping was via semi, and this is a nationwide distribution network.

The Fedex warehouse hub I worked at didn't have any sort of rail business.

Depending on how perishable those sara lee products are, I wouldn't be surprised if that trucking in and out was actually going intermodal. Its a lot cheaper.

[Ominous Gamer]

eh, wouldn't know from the truckers. He would get some really pissed off truckers that were a few days ahead of schedule (most of them were only half a day or so) because they didn't make the required resting stops. So they would end up just sitting there in their trucks, in the lot, waiting for the warehouse to roll them in.

[GGT]

intermodal, which is where they take the box of the trailer chassis and load it on a rail flat bed. Then at the destination ramp they put the box back on a chassis and truck it to final destination.

This would be cool to do with cars (like in your idea to set cars on rail for the long haul, take them off for the short drives). We do something similar with ferry boats, why not with trains?

[Ominous Gamer]

Trains do that already. Its a little under $200 (I think) to take a 1 way trip from Central Florida to somewhere in North Carolina.

[GGT]

Expand it then: clip-on-cars to use rail as bypasses or turnpikes, etc.

[']['ear]

Trains do that already. Its a little under $200 (I think) to take a 1 way trip from Central Florida to somewhere in North Carolina.

I couldn't help but LOL. Lot of people taking THAT trip, I'm sure!