Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

urban bus systems

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 09:10:55

SolarDave wrote:I'm thinking the future looks more like "Self-driving car meets Uber" ...

The costs for transportation infrastructure are truly staggering. I am still learning about this topic, but so far I have found it to be very much a political battleground where the public interest is an afterthought or a mere talking point. It is very difficult to find the real costs of any of these projects, but rhetoric is plentiful.

I suggest you calculate the price of the Uber vehicle and the mileage cost/upkeep plus driver (if any) plus road maintenance and then multiply by thousands or millions of users to compare your suggestion to the costs of these projects.

The most efficient, cost effective transportation mode is the bicycle, which ironically is systematically excluded from the transportation system by all sides. Keep that in mind when you hear the propaganda on transportation systems.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 09:30:32

In Ottawa a section of the future westward expansion of our LRT system could be cheaply built along the ROW of a former tram line. The community is upset about losing their linear park and perceive that the LRT trains will be noisy. Our gutless politicians would rather add hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs to satisfy this small group of people by putting this section underground. I wish my community had the same vision as Calgary which has managed to built a significant LRT system, very little of which is underground.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 18:14:42

yellowcanoe wrote:Our gutless politicians would rather add hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs to satisfy this small group of people by putting this section underground.

Perhaps the "small group" is a convenient excuse to funnel extra money to special interests.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 19:11:13

Newfie wrote:Here is a guy who know something about math, he got it mostly right, and was a pretty good explainer.

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

Thanks for the link. It is a very interesting article, but the subject is probably taboo. I want to quote one paragraph, which says a lot:
In Praise of Idleness wrote:Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war. At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. . . .

In another thread about Greece, the point is made that finance and debt is used to transfer wealth from weaker counties to stronger ones (or at least their banks).

We see with public transportation that projects can mean enormous costs and debt. How much of this expense is actually necessary or desirable and how much is simply a means to transfer wealth or limit people's choices?
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Fri 08 May 2015, 14:13:05

The CT Fastrac Bus Rapid Transit system has opened in Hartford Connecticut. The promotional video can be seen at ctfastrak.com. Reports indicate the initial ridership is above expectations ctfastrak-surpasses-ridership-expectations. The project was in a planning stage for as long as 18 years and cost $567 million. A favorable opinion article with interesting comments is at ctnewsjunkie. And another at this link.

It appears this BRT is oriented more towards pedestrian and bicycle access that towards cars, since there is emphasis on pedestrians and cyclists, and one complaint is a lack of nearby parking. I have not found much published criticism, but it is certain it was controversial as mentioned in Once-a-talk-show-punchline-busway-almost-ready-to-roll.

I think this project is rather important in the world of U.S. public transit, so more information is welcome.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Sun 10 May 2015, 12:11:52

This is for background information on transportation system funding. A new report by the US PIRG Education Fund Who Pays For Roads argued that "Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers." The annual per household costs of driving over and above "user taxes" is estimated to range between $1,105 to $1,848. Here are some illustrative quotes (emphasis supplied):
Between 1947 and 2012, the nation spent roughly $1 trillion (2009$) more on roads than drivers paid in “user” taxes and fees, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration.

Road users see the impact of gas taxes every time they fill up at the pump. But the tax
subsidies they receive by virtue of driving are often unseen.
In many cases, the tax-
man giveth back in subsidies a substantial share of what he taketh away in gas taxes,
reducing the net contribution made by motorists toward the construction and maintenance of the highway network. Among these tax subsidies are sales tax exemptions for motor gasoline (see below), the income tax exclusion for commuter parking expenses, corporate income tax subsidies to the oil industry, and forgone property tax collections on land used for roads.

Road users in states that exempt gasoline from the sales tax received, on average, a sales tax exemption of nearly 11 cents per gallon (based on gasoline prices in March 2015). The sales tax exemption in these states represents an implicit $9.2 billion annual subsidy to road users.

And, with more and more Americans pursuing multimodal lifestyles in which more people are no longer only “drivers,” “bicyclists,” or “transit riders,” but rather “all of the above,” the task of determining who is subsidizing whom is becoming increasingly complicated.

While it is impossible to develop a perfectly apples-to-apples comparison of the degree to which general tax revenues support various modes of travel, it is likely that general tax expenditures to support driving well exceed those flowing to bicycling, walking, transit and intercity rail travel put together. On a net basis, therefore, the greatest subsidies go not to the modes of transportation with the smallest societal costs or the greatest societal benefits—transit, bicycling and walking—but rather serve to encourage more Americans to take to the roads.

It is unclear, however, whether highway bonds being issued today will be paid off with user revenues to the same extent as those of the past. Several states have now reached the point where the cost of servicing debt for past projects now soaks up nearly all current revenues from gasoline taxes.

Across the country, state highway officials continue to pursue big-ticket highway megaprojects, many of which cannot be justified by likely future demand and come with large societal costs. America already raises roughly enough money in gasoline taxes and other user fees to bring our highway system back to a state of good repair. . . the amount of money needed to return the current system to a state of good repair—the maintenance “backlog”—was $83 billion. In 2012, $105 billion of highway tax and user fee revenue was used for highways.

A 2014 analysis by Advocacy Advance of statewide transportation improvement
programs (STIPs)—short-term, fiscally constrained plans of transportation projects required of states under federal law—found that less than 1.5 percent of all funds were programmed for bicycle, pedestrian or shared-use projects. [Report.pdf]


There are other reports showing the subsidies to highway motoring transport, such as Gasoline Taxes and User Fees Pay for Only Half of State & Local Road Spending and Fuel Taxes, Tolls Pay for Only One-Third of Road Spending. These reports, like the quoted PIRG Education Fund report, reflect an agenda and seek to support that agenda.

I continue to think it is nearly impossible for the public to use readily available information to learn the actual truth about transportation costs, but I have focused on the PIRG Education Fund report because it is a different point of view than the usual propaganda and because I believe we should be moving away from car based transport as quickly as possible. The report implies we could both repair the roads and build public transit, bicycling, and pedestrian systems with the same money we spend now, just by not building new and not expanding existing highways.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 11 May 2015, 04:56:35

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority runs Buses and Light Rail trains. I already talked about my years of commuting via electric-powered Light Rail, CALTRAIN conventional diesel train, and an employer-provided diesel shuttle in this thread:
http://peakoil.com/forums/commuter-rail-infrastructure-t70017.html

The Santa Clara VTA also runs buses, which tie to the Light Rail system and for which you can use a transfer chit to ride both Light Rail and bus for a single fare. I seldom needed the bus but I know the recent history of the system and the technology being tested.

First of all, the 450+ buses in the system were originally all conventional diesel, of the older soot-spewing design. These existed in several sizes including the 60-foot-long articulated bus down to the 25-foot-long small size.

The alternatives tested included Hydrogen fuel-cell buses (zero emission tech), compressed natural gas (CNG) and modern diesel-electric hybrid buses. Flywheel energy storage (another zero emission tech) was considered but did not make it as far as the purchasing phase, as the recharging stations would have been extremely expensive to implement, because of the necessity to run high-capacity electric feeds.

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses held great hope for all the Greenies, because they were the only zero emission technology to make it through purchasing and into the evaluation phase. Unfortunately they were spectacular failures that soaked up about $56 million for only three buses. The short version is that the first three cost $3.5 million each to purchase, and a liquid hydrogen facility to fuel them, suitable for a residential area, soaked up a major portion of the rest. The buses were unreliable, costly to repair, and extremely difficult to get parts for. The final cost per mile for a 40-foot hydrogen fuel cell bus was $51.66, versus $1.61 for the existing conventional diesel bus of the same size.

In spite of this failure, the VTA has no choice in the matter, a state organization called the California Air Resources Board is mandating hydrogen fuel cell technology. The second generation hydrogen buses have declined in price from $3.5M each to $2.5M each, and there will be twelve of them:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8365544

Compressed Natural Gas is looking good and there will eventually be 40 of the largest 60-foot articulated buses under evaluation. These CNG buses are being purchased from New Flyer corp. of Winnepeg, Canada. There are currently 14 buses active in the fleet and several refueling stations. (The bus picture in this article is of a shorter 40-foot non-articulated bus.)
http://www.newflyer.com/index/2013_07_10_santa_clara_award

So far the most successful technology evaluated by VTA is a modern diesel-electric hybrid, which saves about 25% of the fuel used by the standard diesel bus, while using urea injection and catalytic tech to eliminate 90% of all the exhaust pollution and 100% of the soot particulates. The buses are made by BAE systems in the large 60-foot articulated size:
http://www.hybridrive.com/hybrid-transit-bus.php
...and a second vender of the large 60-foot articulated buses is Gillig LLC in nearby Hayward CA:
http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Newsroom/VTA-Board-Approves-Purchase-of-38-New-Buses#.VVBsNflVhBc

The diesel-electric hybrid buses comprise 20% of the VTA fleet and are steadily replacing the older diesel soot-spewers.

Of course, this is Silicon Valley - all buses, Light Rail, and Trains have WiFi connectivity so that you can work during your commute, or watch video-on-demand if that is your preference. They are also catering to older mobility-impaired people with low floor bus designs and wheelchair ramps for every bus and every bus stop. Finally they have bicycle racks on every bus and rail car, and bicycle lockers at the Park-and-Rides.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Mon 11 May 2015, 10:09:46

KJ -- you point out in a comment:
Again I would stress that the major technological advance that saved fuel was the Microsoft Lync virtual meeting software, which has steadily gained features and stability. None of the various vehicle related advances have saved near as much energy.

It makes one wonder. The thread you mentioned also had a complaint about "top down solutions," but I think it is safe to say the virtual meeting software was a top down solution. Despite the popular belief that associates freedom with auto/road transportation, it is also very much a top down solution. However, it does have an element of spontaneity and individualism. The example of the Hydrogen fuel-cell buses is a good example of top down solutions that place some goal above public service transportation. Likewise, the recently failed Austin TX light rail election was, IMHO, as much a real estate development scheme as a public transportation project.

The inference is that public transportation and bus systems often fail to place public service and individual needs at the highest priority. I don't necessarily see public transportation as a way to conserve energy, resources, or time because the purpose is transport. These should be the results of a good system, since why else would one be happy to use it. To the public, the question will be utility and I believe they are quite capable of making the judgement. Hence, the importance of solving each link of the transport network with the priority of public and individual service for transportation needs, which is somewhat analogous to the "features and stability" of your software.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 15 May 2015, 21:49:39

Hydrogen is a storage medium for energy generated some other way. If it is a solar array that has been in place for a few years and thus has paid back it's fabrication energy debt, then the power source is Green. If you use dirty coal to generate hydrogen, the hydrogen bus is a terrible polluter. Flywheel storage buses, plug-in hybrid buses, and BEVs, likewise.

As for your remarks about MS Lync, absolutely correct - and there is no reason not to have effective videoconferencing today in almost all white collar jobs which should be telecommuting jobs.

I also agree: buses are for transporting people.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 17 May 2015, 19:25:27

We have open access to WebEx which works fairly well.

Yet there is still a strong push for people to physically move around.

I heard last week that OHare is planning to increase usage by 300,000 more take off/landings per year over the next 10 years. That is about 700 more per day.

That's just insane. But it also makes me ask what the hell are people thinking? Where will the fuel come from? How will the environment tolerate it?

Very depressing.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Thu 04 Jun 2015, 12:39:35

This article lists the light rail systems that do not cover operating costs with rider fares. The 10 U.S. metro rail systems that lose the most money per passenger We do not seem to be able to escape the user-fee based "profit" calculation, but at least the article recognizes that
Like roads, mass transit is not self-sustaining: it requires a combination of user fees and other government funding to pay for operations, maintenance, and expansion. . . . Development of transit stations has been linked to higher land values, higher office rents, and lower office vacancy rates. Mass transit also alleviates congestion for drivers.
I want to make the point that it is erroneous to base economic evaluations on passenger fares or a profit making model of transportation. I think the main reason is the passenger is not the only one who needs the transportation, so the system will inevitably draw revenues from others who need or benefit from the service but do not necessarily ride. This is not to ignore deliberate waste or uneconomic plans, just to note the passenger is only one part of the picture.

Meanwhile, in Texas preparations to expand and magnify motor vehicle congestion are well underway. Governor Abbott Paves Way For Historic Transportation Funding Increase I believe increased congestion and never before seen (biblical) traffic jams are a safe prediction based upon The Fundamental Law of Highway Congestion.
For interstate highways in the densest parts of metropolitan areas we find that
vkt (vehicle-kilometers traveled) increases in exact proportion to highways, confirming the ‘fundamental law of highway congestion’ suggested by Downs (1962, 1992). This relationship also approximately holds for other important roads in dense areas and for interstate highways in less dense parts of metropolitan areas. These findings and others in the paper imply something broader than Down’s law, a law of road congestion that applies to highways and major urban roads in metropolitan areas. In turn, this suggests that increased provision of highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads

It will probably not be that the entire road system becomes jammed, but certain choke points that reliably create miles long jams will get worse IMHO, and people will spend ever more of their lives idling in their cars. What’s Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Sat 31 Oct 2015, 10:55:39

There is not much discussion of automobile parking issues in this thread. I recently learned more about the costs of parking, especially the cost of "free parking." free-parking.

From p. 16 of THE HIGH COST OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
In their analysis of parking requirements for retail services, Cutter and Franco (2012) found that the last parking space adds $14,700 more to a building’s cost than it adds to the building’s value. Requiring one more parking space at a proposed restaurant thus reduces the residual land value of the site by $14,700. Where parking requirements reduce residual land values, they will reduce infill redevelopment. This reduction in the supply of real estate drives up the price of everything except parking and shifts the cost of parking from drivers onto all economic activity in the city.


From p. 9 of ITDP-Parking-Report:
Transportation planners seeking to learn from the United States should take note of how traditional U.S. parking policies have had significant unintended consequences. By and large, these policies have produced excess parking supply. The excess has served to keep the price of parking down -- 99 percent of driving trips end in free parking -- and consequently reduced the cost of car use. By reducing the cost of driving and by consuming large amounts of space, traditional policies have promoted automobile use and dispersed land uses thus undermining public transit, walking and bicycling.


I think it is a safe inference that free parking or excessive parking facilities reduces the opportunities for public transportation. Urban traffic congestion is given as one of the principal reasons for the demise of the streetcar system, since it prevented the streetcars from being able to maintain their schedules. General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 02:52:13

kanon wrote:There is not much discussion of automobile parking issues in this thread. I recently learned more about the costs of parking, especially the cost of "free parking." free-parking.
...
From p. 9 of ITDP-Parking-Report:
Transportation planners seeking to learn from the United States should take note of how traditional U.S. parking policies have had significant unintended consequences. By and large, these policies have produced excess parking supply. The excess has served to keep the price of parking down -- 99 percent of driving trips end in free parking -- and consequently reduced the cost of car use. By reducing the cost of driving and by consuming large amounts of space, traditional policies have promoted automobile use and dispersed land uses thus undermining public transit, walking and bicycling.


I think it is a safe inference that free parking or excessive parking facilities reduces the opportunities for public transportation. Urban traffic congestion is given as one of the principal reasons for the demise of the streetcar system, since it prevented the streetcars from being able to maintain their schedules. General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

2/3 of LA land is streets, highway and parking. Including (required) buffer lawns and landscaping to separate buildings from roads, this is probably 3/4. This does not include space occupied by automotive-related and road maintenance facilities, so make it 80%. If we did not have all this auto-space, everything could be 50% closer.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 15:04:47

I'm not sure what this means. Fed pushes back as Congress eyes its billions.
Congress is aiming to take billions out of the Fed's accounts to help pay for a new highway and transit bill, but the Fed is balking, registering “strong concerns about using the resources of the Federal Reserve to finance fiscal spending.”


Also, Banks score win as House kills Fed dividend offset in highway bill:
The approved amendment, offered by Reps. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), would also kill another bank-reviled offset. The second pay-for would have raised highway funds by extending a fee charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee mortgages. Major banking groups have repeatedly opposed using those “G fees,” which are meant to protect the housing giants’ books, as a way to raise revenue to cover other policy projects.
. . .
To cover the cost of stripping out both of those offsets, the House amendment would liquidate a reserve fund held by the Fed, which is made up of excess earnings made by the Fed. Liquidating that fund, which lawmakers say is no longer needed, would raise $60 billion — $40 billion more than the pair of offsets it aims to replace.

The house version of the transportation bill relies on a "liquidation of surplus funds" held by the FED -- i.e. Q.E. for highway contractors.

I have tried to present evidence that the US highway system is too expensive to maintain given its economic returns. The ongoing inability of the Congress to fund a transportation bill stems from refusal to raise gasoline taxes and increased costs of the transportation system. However, due to highway and motor vehicle dominance of state budgets, the federal funding has been a vital source for public transportation.

Heritage Foundation pans highway bill 'gimmicks'
Heritage Foundation research associate Michael Sargent said Friday that most of the payment methods that are being considered for the new round of transportation projects are "gimmicks" that are being used to cover up a $16 billion annual shortfall in U.S. infrastructure funding.

"Because the trust fund is projected to run over $80 billion in deficits over the next 6 years, the final bill will require at least that much in offsets," he wrote in a blog post on the group's Daily Signal website.

"And that’s where the gimmicks come in," Sargent continued. "For members of congress, it’s easier to pull together a menu of small, palatable offsets from across the government instead of having to make tough decisions or enact fundamental reform."

Sargent identified plans to take nearly $60 billion from the Federal Reserve's surplus fund, $9.1 billion from selling portions of the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, $5.7 billion from increasing custom fees, $2.4 billion from contracting tax collections to private companies and $7 billion in transfers from other areas of the federal government as the "worst offenders" that have been discussed by lawmakers as they search for ways to pay for roads.

I suppose the meaning of all this is that, while a good, economical, and productive transportation system requires diversity, good design, and enlightened concepts, the political influence of different transportation interests trumps all. Nowhere in the reporting does one find a discussion of the best outcome in terms of the public interest.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 16:43:24

KaiserJeep wrote:As for your remarks about MS Lync, absolutely correct - and there is no reason not to have effective videoconferencing today in almost all white collar jobs which should be telecommuting jobs.

I've often wondered about this, and it can be extended to business travel in general.

As a (former) IBMer who HATES to travel, especially by plane (even before 9-11), it often made me really loathe that despite all the advances in effective videoconferencing software and technology -- so many meetings (even for only a few people) seemed to REQUIRE people traveling across several states in jets to:

1). Talk to each other.
2). Show each other papers and slides.
3). Make plans and decisions.

As if this couldn't effectively be done from our desks in our home towns, if people actually prioritized the task(s) of the meetings highly, and use the commonly available, reliable, and even convenient videoconferencing tools at hand.

Especially when IBM as a company was royally screwing much of its workforce for cost cutting priorities, even as it spent $BILLIONS annually on superfluous travel.

But I digress. (Reading "Moneyball" now, where I am frequently reminded of the stupid lack of intelligent process in business affairs).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 17:28:00

Outcast_Searcher wrote:But I digress. (Reading "Moneyball" now, where I am frequently reminded of the stupid lack of intelligent process in business affairs).

It is not really a digression at all. So much economic logic is a disguise for maintaining the hierarchy. I think there is a touch-feel-smell aspect to human activities that is often not acknowledged. I wonder if the communications software can address that aspect. My O/S is Linux and the video-conferencing has been too much of an unknown for me to get into it. I think there is a carrier issue, i.e. Skype requires its protocols, so it is not a universal standard like http.

Incidentally, this may be an issue in public transportation as well. I saw a you-tube video of a lecture by an Australian design professor, famous predecessor of permaculture I think, who mentioned a syndrome suffered by top floor dwellers in apartment buildings over five stories due to excessive pheromones. I can't remember the name or link, sorry. Perhaps one reason people prefer cars and bikes is avoiding pheromones.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 24 Nov 2015, 18:40:27

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:As for your remarks about MS Lync, absolutely correct - and there is no reason not to have effective videoconferencing today in almost all white collar jobs which should be telecommuting jobs.

I've often wondered about this, and it can be extended to business travel in general.

As a (former) IBMer who HATES to travel, especially by plane (even before 9-11), it often made me really loathe that despite all the advances in effective videoconferencing software and technology -- so many meetings (even for only a few people) seemed to REQUIRE people traveling across several states in jets to:

1). Talk to each other.
2). Show each other papers and slides.
3). Make plans and decisions.

As if this couldn't effectively be done from our desks in our home towns, if people actually prioritized the task(s) of the meetings highly, and use the commonly available, reliable, and even convenient videoconferencing tools at hand.

Especially when IBM as a company was royally screwing much of its workforce for cost cutting priorities, even as it spent $BILLIONS annually on superfluous travel.

But I digress. (Reading "Moneyball" now, where I am frequently reminded of the stupid lack of intelligent process in business affairs).


This same mentality is alive and well in my company, although I must say that they do better than many others. We use WebEx a good bit and I push it when ever I can.

We should put a COLD STOP to highway building. I would extend that to any high speed rail and airport expansion. Maybe deeper.

But we live in a consumer society, and some of the things we consume include our work time, our family time, our travel, and our efficiency.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby ennui2 » Sat 28 Nov 2015, 16:06:43

Keith_McClary wrote:2/3 of LA land is streets, highway and parking.


Another reason for LA sprawl is a reluctance to build tall buildings due to it being in an earthquake zone.

there is a touch-feel-smell aspect to human activities that is often not acknowledged.


The irony is that in our personal life, we've become more and more physically disconnected by our devices. Why is it, then, that the workplace still expects us to be there?

I had to fly to Germany last year on business, for the most part, just to "be seen". It was really a trust-building exercise. Nothing I actually did out there needed to be there if we were given enough VPN style access. Tons and tons of needless cost and pollution in order to service some vestigial brain-stem need for touchy-feely.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: urban bus systems

Unread postby kanon » Sat 05 Dec 2015, 14:46:42

This article discusses the staggering costs of transportation infrastructure: The most underrated problem with American infrastructure. I have taken to referring to highway interchanges as "monuments," i.e. the Egyptians had their pyramids, the Mayans had their temples, and the Americans have their highway interchanges.

In my past research I was not able to find specifics on how the expenses have grown, but I suppose the real cause is the consolidated position of the highway industrial complex.
Consider NEC Future, the Federal Railroad Administration's recent blue-sky proposal for Amtrak upgrades in the Northeast Corridor. Their plan for true high-speed rail stretching from DC to Boston comes in at an incomprehensible $290 billion. Transportation expert Alon Levy examined the plan, and concluded the following:

[I]f NEC Future cuts a zero from its budget, I will still consider it too expensive — perhaps worth it because of the benefits of HSR, but certainly too high to be built without further inquiry. $29 billion for 720 km is justified for a line with a fair amount of tunneling and entirely greenfield construction, whereas the NEC has long segments that are already nearly ready for HSR and requires very little tunneling. [Pedestrian Observations]

I imagine the reason the proposed Amtrack Northeast Corridor high speed rail is estimated at $290B is the same reason the F-35 program costs $1.5T How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Previous

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests